Thoughts on TESLA

[corn18]

SpaceX is at risk as well:

The U.S. Air Force has begun looking into Elon Musk apparently smoking weed on a podcast, a source at the military branch told CNBC on Friday.

Musk's SpaceX provides services for the Air Force, with multiple high-value contracts. Marijuana use is prohibited for someone with a government security clearance, Fox Business reported, and is the central issue in the Air Force's inquiry.

An Air Force spokesperson, in a statement to CNBC, said: "We will need time to determine the facts and the appropriate process to handle the situation."

 

[Fedup]

BBC News said 420 the price Elon Musk was touting a few weeks ago as the price to take Tesla private is also a code for pot smoking. Who knew?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/420_(cannabis_culture)

 

[bobandsherry]

BBC News said 420 the price Elon Musk was touting a few weeks ago as the price to take Tesla private is also a code for pot smoking. Who knew?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/420_(cannabis_culture)

Yep, been talked about widely since his initial tweet, think even on here.

 

[Texas Proud]

I'd be more concerned if I was a Tesla owner about what I do for service if Tesla goes bust. Convertible stock coming due soon, with common stock well below the convertible price so Tesla will need to come up with a load of cash. The market isn't showing a lot of confidence in Tesla/Musk so may be difficult for Tesla to raise additional capital. If that happens this will just implode.

I think reality is starting to set in on a number of people and they are getting out with a profit... but some will stick at it as it goes down the drain...

 

[DrRoy]

My thoughts on Tesla are .

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
So I don't understand why anyone would say that want EVs to succeed. What problem do they solve?

I don't understand why anyone would say "anyone". That's pretty strong language there, friend.


Seriously, I've made it clear in past posts that EVs are out for me unless they can be fully "filled up" in less than 5 minutes.


What I do like about EVs is the advantage of the powertrain having direct drive with high torque motors. It is another choice for an auto customer, and a different style of driving.

So, to answer... They solve the transmission and torque problem.

I don't care about the environmental so-called advantage. When you factor in all the lithium mining and other crap, they may be a total disaster for all I know.

OK, if I'm reading that response right, you want EVs to succeed because you want them to be available in the market for you, because you like the driving experience of an EV (low end torque, direct drive, etc). That I can understand.

But when I look back at what I responded to, I took it to mean much more (and maybe I was wrong for doing that?). Bolded/underlined below:

Originally Posted by JoeWras View Post
I ... I like traditional internal combustion engines. True. Yet I still want to see EVs succeed because it ultimately makes sense. Elon continuing down this path may muck it up instead of moving it forward. He has been moving it forward by finally waking up the "reasonable" various MegaMotor companies. ....

To me, "making sense" is very different from "I want one because I would enjoy driving it". I "like" a good bourbon, but I wouldn't try to convince anyone that it "makes sense" (well, I might if I drank too much of it at one sitting!).

In general, people say EVs make sense because they've been told they are low/zero pollution devices (they're not), or because they are simpler. They are simpler, but ICE/transmissions have become so incredibly reliable, that it seems automotive reliability issues mainly center around all the other common stuff - doors, windows, suspension, accessories, so in reality it isn't that big a deal (but still a benefit). And EVs come with disadvantages as well. As a personal choice, I'm fine with it. Just not following the "makes sense" statement. Or maybe I can turn it around - 'if they make sense, they will succeed'?

-ERD50

 

[oneill225]

In general, people say EVs make sense because they've been told they are low/zero pollution devices (they're not), or because they are simpler. They are simpler, but ICE/transmissions have become so incredibly reliable, that it seems automotive reliability issues mainly center around all the other common stuff - doors, windows, suspension, accessories, so in reality it isn't that big a deal (but still a benefit). And EVs come with disadvantages as well. As a personal choice, I'm fine with it. Just not following the "makes sense" statement. Or maybe I can turn it around - 'if they make sense, they will succeed'?-ERD50

I fear you are in denial if you cannot concede that replacing ICE vehicles with EVs will result in lower overall emissions. To argue otherwise is to argue that millions of individual ICEs produce less pollution than the combined electric output of power plants driven by hydro-electric, natural gas, clean-coal, wind, etc. That would be absurd.

You also miss the boat regarding maintenance. To suggest that car engine and transmission maintenance is an insignificant part of overall car maintenance is just delusional.

This is a fast developing technology that results in cars with equivalent MPG (compared to ICE) in the 100+ MPG range while being faster and silent. Making any sense?

 

[MRG]

SpaceX is at risk as well:

The U.S. Air Force has begun looking into Elon Musk apparently smoking weed on a podcast, a source at the military branch told CNBC on Friday.

Musk's SpaceX provides services for the Air Force, with multiple high-value contracts. Marijuana use is prohibited for someone with a government security clearance, Fox Business reported, and is the central issue in the Air Force's inquiry.

An Air Force spokesperson, in a statement to CNBC, said: "We will need time to determine the facts and the appropriate process to handle the situation."

Watch him. He didn't inhale, he treated the blunt like a cigar. Sounds somewhat presidential.

 

[Cessna152]

SpaceX is at risk as well:

The U.S. Air Force has begun looking into Elon Musk apparently smoking weed on a podcast, a source at the military branch told CNBC on Friday.

Musk's SpaceX provides services for the Air Force, with multiple high-value contracts. Marijuana use is prohibited for someone with a government security clearance, Fox Business reported, and is the central issue in the Air Force's inquiry.

An Air Force spokesperson, in a statement to CNBC, said: "We will need time to determine the facts and the appropriate process to handle the situation."

Someone in the ULA appears to be looking for some way to kill the competition.

How many here had earned $22 million by the age of 28? Would you have retired early? How many here have actually retired with $22 million?
Or would you have risked $10 million of it on another venture?
And three years later earned $165 million on the gamble?
Would you then have retired early, at the age of 31?
Or would you have gambled $100 million of that on a quest to go to Mars!?

Musk is only 47. The history is written as to his accomplishments thus far. Regardless of the fate of Tesla, Musk has succeeded more than most.

 

[Fedup]

I know this is a early retirement forum, but not every one will retire early if they have millions. There are people out there who enjoy working. Blasphemy I know.

 

[corn18]

Someone in the ULA appears to be looking for some way to kill the competition.

How many here had earned $22 million by the age of 28? Would you have retired early? How many here have actually retired with $22 million?
Or would you have risked $10 million of it on another venture?
And three years later earned $165 million on the gamble?
Would you then have retired early, at the age of 31?
Or would you have gambled $100 million of that on a quest to go to Mars!?

Musk is only 47. The history is written as to his accomplishments thus far. Regardless of the fate of Tesla, Musk has succeeded more than most.

I don't want pot smokers running around with access to classified space programs.

 

[ERD50]

I fear you are in denial if you cannot concede that replacing ICE vehicles with EVs will result in lower overall emissions. To argue otherwise is to argue that millions of individual ICEs produce less pollution than the combined electric output of power plants driven by hydro-electric, natural gas, clean-coal, wind, etc. That would be absurd.

No, it is not denial, nor is it absurd - it is sound reasoning.

As I've mentioned in post #377, the blended average source of power on the grid is irrelevant. It is the additional power needed for the EVs that matters (in the same way that an investment is measured using the marginal tax bracket that would apply, not the average). Re-read my post, and challenge the basis of it if you can - I'll listen to a reasoned, informed challenge, but not claims that it is absurd w/o any back-up.

... You also miss the boat regarding maintenance. To suggest that car engine and transmission maintenance is an insignificant part of overall car maintenance is just delusional. ....

OK, I overlooked "scheduled maintenance" and was thinking in terms of repair. So OK, EVs will have an advantage there. Though it is debatable just how significant it is. By the time my scheduled maintenance comes around, I need a tire rotation anyhow (same as an EV). So it's going in for service anyhow, having them do something else, like an oil change, or coolant flush isn't really a very big deal. "Tune ups' are a thing of the past, and things like spark plug replacement are at 100,000 miles in many cars. Not really a big deal, IMO, but it is something (but far from 'delusional'). And a hybrid will have regen braking, making brake service mostly on par with an EV.

...
This is a fast developing technology that results in cars with equivalent MPG (compared to ICE) in the 100+ MPG range while being faster and silent. Making any sense?

MPGe is a bogus measure created by bureaucrats. I don't need to go faster (if you do, fine, but there are fast ICE as well), and silent is nice, but you still have road/wind noise, the amount of noise contributed from my ICE is pretty minor.

-ERD50

 

[Chuckanut]

Maybe Mr. Musk is simply trying to hammer down the price of Tesla stock so he can arrange financing to take it private?

 

[NW-Bound]

If Tesla gets privately owned, I wonder if Musk will get free rein as he does now. Look at SpaceX. Musk does not have the same freedom there. The majority owners can just displace him in a heartbeat. The engineering team at SpaceX does fine without Musk involving in everyday's operation. Tesla can be the same.

 

[aja8888]

Maybe Mr. Musk is simply trying to hammer down the price of Tesla stock so he can arrange financing to take it private?

My reading is that Musk is looking for a way to exit Tesla without being held accountable for the ending mess which may be right around the corner. Or, on the other hand, he has just lost his mind.

 

[NW-Bound]

People who are cornered may do crazy things.

Bernard Ebbers and Ken Lay tried to get away by doing stuff that nobody thought was possible to pull off.

 

[oneill225]

As I've mentioned in post #377, the blended average source of power on the grid is irrelevant. It is the additional power needed for the EVs that matters (in the same way that an investment is measured using the marginal tax bracket that would apply, not the average). Re-read my post, and challenge the basis of it if you can - I'll listen to a reasoned, informed challenge, but not claims that it is absurd w/o any back-up.-ERD50

Well, we are making a little progress.

If you refuse to concede that creating power with a large electric plant (added to the current infrastructure, of course) generates energy more efficiently than millions of internal combustion engines in various states of repair, then can you at least concede that it is cheaper and more efficient to distribute electricity to a local charger than oil and gas to refineries and your local gas station?

Regarding fuel efficiency, crunch the numbers. Gas is around $3.25 per gallon in my state (WA) and electricity is less than a dollar per equivalent MPG. The equivalent mpg is simply the cost of electricity vs the cost of gas to go the same distance. You don't need to be a bureaucrat to do the math; you just have to be willing to do the math.

 

[JPatrick]

?

Regarding fuel efficiency, crunch the numbers. Gas is around $3.25 per gallon in my state (WA) and electricity is less than a dollar per equivalent MPG. The equivalent mpg is simply the cost of electricity vs the cost of gas to go the same distance. You don't need to be a bureaucrat to do the math; you just have to be willing to do the math.

Well if bureaucrats are capable of doing the math, how long do you think it will take to create new taxes on EV's?

 

[oneill225]

Well if bureaucrats are capable of doing the math, how long do you think it will take to create new taxes on EV's?

No doubt that you are right about that. The government in WA is currently trying to figure out how to replace gas taxes lost to EVs. One idea is to tax by the miles driven (not popular).

 

[MichaelB]

If Tesla gets privately owned, I wonder if Musk will get free rein as he does now. Look at SpaceX. Musk does not have the same freedom there. The majority owners can just displace him in a heartbeat. The engineering team at SpaceX does fine without Musk involving in everyday's operation. Tesla can be the same.

Investors have much easier access to and greater influence over a BoD and executive offices when the business is privately owned, compared with a public company.

CEO's of companies owned by Berkshire Hathaway get free rein. It's difficult to believe people would put up with EM's behavior after spending the kind of cash needed to take Tesla private.

 

[NW-Bound]

CEO's of companies owned by Berkshire Hathaway get free rein...

Yes, it is widely known that Buffett leaves CEO's of his subsidiaries alone. But then, Buffett always chooses wisely.

 

[samclem]

Regarding fuel efficiency, crunch the numbers. Gas is around $3.25 per gallon in my state (WA) and electricity is less than a dollar per equivalent MPG. The equivalent mpg is simply the cost of electricity vs the cost of gas to go the same distance. You don't need to be a bureaucrat to do the math; you just have to be willing to do the math.

And to understand that fuel costs are relatively small part of total ownership costs. See graphic below for 2016 numbers, according to AAA. For a vehicle driven 15K miles per year, fuel accounted for less than 15% of the cost to own and operate the average sedan. Depreciation costs were about three times that much.
If/when Tesla tanks, owners will learn a LOT about depreciation costs. The money saved on fuel will be a wry inside joke they share while standing in their driveway surveying their cars and sharing tips about where to find spare parts.

I hope there's some escrow fund somewhere to cover the environmental costs of dealing with orphaned electric cars.

 

[NW-Bound]

I have been ogling their batteries which are salvageable, and should be.

I need to make room in the backyard for more garden sheds to house these wonderful batteries for my home energy storage project.

 

[Chuckanut]

How many people have actually watched the Rogan-Musk interview? I am about 1/3 through it.

The scary part is Mr Musk’s concern of AI, how it could be weaponized and/or how by the time we realize it’s getting out of control it will be self enhancing and to late to stop.

The whole whiskey thing has been wildly over exaggerated into some kind of drunken debauchery. It was maybe 30 seconds of comments on a good quality whiskey.

Haven’t got to the MJ part yet so I can’t comment on that.

Watch it yourself. Make your own decision. Do not trust what you read in the media which ignores 99.9% of the interview.

Doubt Tesla’s viability as one sees fit, I’m sure not buying the stock. But don’t add to your doubts based on media reports of this interview.

My 2¢.

 

[NW-Bound]

The scary part is Mr Musk’s concern of AI, how it could be weaponized and/or how by the time we realize it’s getting out of control it will be self enhancing and to late to stop...

What I worry about AI is that we trust computers to do things that they are not smart enough to do.

Yes, I can see the military allowing a computer to fly a drone and to automatically kill people it thinks are enemy combatants, and it ends up killing innocent people.

It is the same worry I have about people building phony autonomous cars that are not really capable of self-driving, and end up killing people.