Thoughts on TESLA

[ERD50]

The cost of batteries is coming down so Tesla is passing the savings along. I think you can expect to see similar price reductions every year until electric cars are cheaper than internal combustion engines.

But if the demand was there, and we are told competition won't be there for a year or two, the sensible thing to do would be to maximize that gross margin. As a publicly traded company, you might even argue they have a fiduciary responsibility to do just that.

With all the uncertainties around any company that is in this phase, banking a little towards a rainy day would be wise/expected.

If this is due to reductions in battery costs, then two drops in ~ 4 weeks is some pretty crazy pace of improvement. If they continue this pace, they can give M3s away by year end!

-ERD50

 

[Lakewood90712]

I just saw that in Australia some homeowner was able to reduce his 4000/yr bill down to just 600...a whopping 85% reduction with the leverage of Solar Panels + the Tesla Powerball, and while him and 35k of his neighbors lost power he hadn't noticed until his Powerball texted him it started Backup Mode to alert him.

In sunny climates, this solar + powerball are the way to go.

https://electrek.co/2019/02/12/tesla-powerwall-sydney-blackout-house-cool-heatwave/

If a person got away with a $8k powerball plus a 15k solar system, putting the total system at $22k, the break even point is roughly 6.5 years. This actually makes a lot of sense since you can create flexibility with when to use your stored power during peak usage times. If you calculate out to 30 years you save yourself 80k in energy costs. Not too shabby.

Tesla Powerwall I an II are best in class IMO, but good luck with that $8k price, as likely as the $35k model 3

 

[Blueskies123]

But if the demand was there, and we are told competition won't be there for a year or two, the sensible thing to do would be to maximize that gross margin. As a publicly traded company, you might even argue they have a fiduciary responsibility to do just that.

With all the uncertainties around any company that is in this phase, banking a little towards a rainy day would be wise/expected.

If this is due to reductions in battery costs, then two drops in ~ 4 weeks is some pretty crazy pace of improvement. If they continue this pace, they can give M3s away by year end!

-ERD50

Nope, it is about market share

 

[NW-Bound]

... If a person got away with a $8k powerball plus a 15k solar system, putting the total system at $22k, the break even point is roughly 6.5 years. This actually makes a lot of sense since you can create flexibility with when to use your stored power during peak usage times. If you calculate out to 30 years you save yourself 80k in energy costs. Not too shabby.

The problem is that lithium batteries wear out with use. At the 30-year mark, its capacity will be a fraction of its original specification.

Here's what Tesla guarantees: 70% of initial storage at the 10-year mark or 37.8 MWh of throughput, whichever occurs first. This applies to the Powerwall 2 with 13.5 kWh of storage. The 37.8 MWh means an average of 10.4 kWh of charge/discharge cycle each day during the 10 years (3650 cycles).

The above sounds reasonable, as that is 77% of the battery capacity cycling, in order to prolong battery life. Many lithium batteries degrade severely with only 500 cycles of 100% charge/discharge.

After 10 years, all bets are off, as the warranty runs out.

And in addition, the cost of the Powerwall is higher than $8K, as described below:

The list price for a new Tesla Powerwall 2.0 battery, which offers twice the storage capacity of the original Powerwall, is $6,700. Supporting hardware adds another $1,100 to the equipment costs, bringing the total to $7,800. Installation can add anywhere from $2,000 to $8,000 to the final bill...​

PS. One expects that the battery lasts longer than 10 years, albeit at a reduced capacity even though the warranty expires. Else, the cost of $8K amortized over the 37.8 MWh means a cost of $0.211 to store 1 kWh captured from solar panels. That's not really cheap.

 

[oneill225]

Something Different

I found this interesting. Model 3s shipped to Europe need a charge at the dock, so there is a 300 car charging set-up next to the pier. Charging on a grand scale:

https://insideevs.com/port-300-chargers-tesla-model-3-eruope-deliveries/

 

[ERD50]

Nope, it is about market share

Does that change anything?

If there was US demand, they would not need to lower prices to gain market share. Don't forget, they are shipping most of their production to EU to fill that new demand, so product available to US is way down. And they laid off people.

Not adding up.


-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

On the lower end price range, something different:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-apos-latest-competitor-15-220000179.html

Meet the Solo -- a one-seater vehicle made by Electra Meccanica Vehicles Corp. that costs $15,500.

So how does it perform? Zero to 60 miles (97 kilometers) per hour in eight seconds, not far off a Porsche Cayenne. It charges in three hours, has a 100-mile range and reaches a top speed of over 82 miles an hour. Remarkably, it can somehow hold the contents of a fully loaded Costco shopping cart in front and back storage nooks.

I find something like this rather interesting (though I would want a 2 seater, single seat is too limiting for me). My thoughts are, a lower priced, but conventional size EV will have some limitations due to range. They would not affect me often, but if I'm going to pay an amount in line with an ICE, why accept those limitations?

OTOH, if I spend far less, it's easier to accept those limitations. A two seater with some cargo space and 100 mile range really would cover almost all my needs.

Safety of a small vehicle would be a concern for me, I'd need to see how that plays out.

-ERD50

 

[bobandsherry]

From what I have read, that is exactly what they are trying to do (build economies of scale). There is a balance, however, because investors want to see profits and a great deal of money is still being poured into infrastructure like the plant in China, repair shops, charging systems, etc...

Give them a little time.

Speaking of China - this seems to point to uphill battle for Tesla there.

China Is Building Too Many Electric Cars

The oversupply is occurring against the backdrop of Tesla breaking ground of its Shanghai plant this month. It’s expected to produce up to 500,000 cars per year eventually. In October 2018, Volkswagen began construction of its Shanghai plant that will produce up to 300,000 electric vehicles per year.

 

[ncbill]

On the lower end price range, something different:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-apos-latest-competitor-15-220000179.html




I find something like this rather interesting (though I would want a 2 seater, single seat is too limiting for me). My thoughts are, a lower priced, but conventional size EV will have some limitations due to range. They would not affect me often, but if I'm going to pay an amount in line with an ICE, why accept those limitations?

OTOH, if I spend far less, it's easier to accept those limitations. A two seater with some cargo space and 100 mile range really would cover almost all my needs.

Safety of a small vehicle would be a concern for me, I'd need to see how that plays out.

-ERD50

Grab a used Smart EV instead.

Recharges overnight on a 120VAC outlet.

My used car salesman relative finds retirees down at the beach love 'em.

 

[ls99]

Tesla Autosteer Findings

Tesla's Autosteer's safety is not all that great.

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has egg on its face after a small research and consulting firm called Quality Control Systems produced a devastating critique of a 2017 agency report finding that Tesla's Autopilot reduced crashes by 40 percent. The new analysis is coming out now—almost two years after the original report—because QCS had to sue NHTSA under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the data underlying the agency's findings."
" Tesla CEO Elon Musk berated reporters for focusing on stories about crashes instead of touting the safety benefits of Autopilot."

NHTSA was hiding the data.

"Still, these new findings are relevant to a larger debate about how the federal government oversees driver-assistance systems like Autopilot. By publishing that 40 percent figure, NHTSA conferred unwarranted legitimacy on Tesla's Autopilot technology. NHTSA then fought to prevent the public release of data that could help the public independently evaluate these findings,"
Bold is created by me.

Just another factor to consider before plunking down $$$ for their cars or stocks.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/0...esla-autopilot-cut-crashes-40-that-was-bogus/

 

[bobandsherry]

General Motors and Amazon may back electric truck startup Rivian, report says

Still prototype, but going with backing of GM and Amazon def gives Tesla some competition in the SUV and Truck EV market. Starting prices of $60K+ so still not the common persons vehicle.

https://products.rivian.com/

 

[NW-Bound]

General Motors and Amazon may back electric truck startup Rivian, report says

Still prototype, but going with backing of GM and Amazon def gives Tesla some competition in the SUV and Truck EV market. Starting prices of $60K+ so still not the common persons vehicle.

https://products.rivian.com/

I had not heard of this company.

Above Web site says "180 kWh and 135 kWh packs will be available at launch with the 105 kWh to follow in 2021."

180 kWh is almost 2x the battery capacity of the Tesla P100D. Who makes the cells for these guys?

PS. Found the answer: LG.

See: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/rivian-r1t-r1s-electric-truck-suv-battery-pack/.

 

[bobandsherry]

I had not heard of this company.

Above Web site says "180 kWh and 135 kWh packs will be available at launch with the 105 kWh to follow in 2021."

180 kWh is almost 2x the battery capacity of the Tesla P100D. Who makes the cells for these guys?

PS. Found the answer: LG.

See: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/rivian-r1t-r1s-electric-truck-suv-battery-pack/.

Yeah, claims of 400+ miles. That's making good progress on range.

 

[oneill225]

Tesla's Autosteer's safety is not all that great.

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has egg on its face after a small research and consulting firm called Quality Control Systems produced a devastating critique of a 2017 agency report finding that Tesla's Autopilot reduced crashes by 40 percent. The new analysis is coming out now—almost two years after the original report—because QCS had to sue NHTSA under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the data underlying the agency's findings."
" Tesla CEO Elon Musk berated reporters for focusing on stories about crashes instead of touting the safety benefits of Autopilot."
NHTSA was hiding the data.
"Still, these new findings are relevant to a larger debate about how the federal government oversees driver-assistance systems like Autopilot. By publishing that 40 percent figure, NHTSA conferred unwarranted legitimacy on Tesla's Autopilot technology. NHTSA then fought to prevent the public release of data that could help the public independently evaluate these findings,"
Bold is created by me.
Just another factor to consider before plunking down $$$ for their cars or stocks.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/0...esla-autopilot-cut-crashes-40-that-was-bogus/

"New" analysis of a two year old report that included a debatable statistic that I'll bet no one on this thread has ever heard of until this anti-Tesla firm decided to broadcast it as some type of ongoing fraud. How is this relevant, today?

This is a hit job that tells us nothing about the current state of Tesla cars and their autonomous systems.

 

[samclem]

"New" analysis of a two year old report that included a debatable statistic that I'll bet no one on this thread has ever heard of until this anti-Tesla firm decided to broadcast it as some type of ongoing fraud. How is this relevant, today?

This is a hit job that tells us nothing about the current state of Tesla cars and their autonomous systems.

"Ongoing fraud?" Where's that? The article's main point is that NHTSA screwed up some (fairly simple) math and as a result NHTSA gave an overly positive report on the Autopilot (reporting a lower-than-actual rate of airbag deployment). And the article makes the point that NHTSA was not forthcoming with information about this error, which allowed Tesla to keep using a flawed statistic to promote the safety of their Autopilot system.


I hope someone tells us why that happened.

 

[bobandsherry]

While all the discussion on how good/bad the Tesla car is or isn't, and how good/bad Musk is as CEO, and what the future will or won't be for Tesla, I find it interesting to reflect back on the original post, way back on April 4, 2017:

I bought 100 shares awhile back for about $200 a share and I'm thinking about picking up another 100, any thoughts ?

Most of the advise then was to avoid, and looking back that was pretty sound advice. While Tesla has bounced around, it's largely unchanged in that time period, from $302 to $312, about only 1.5% annual return over almost the 2 year period, gain of only $1,000 on 100 shares purchased.

By contrast investing in GM would have been better investment, up about 12% annual return. And investing in S&P 500 fund would have returned over 15% annual return, all with much less risk.

So risk/reward with Tesla has not paid dividends since the original question by the OP and would clearly have been $$ ahead by putting into stodgy old S&P fund.

 

[ERD50]

"New" analysis of a two year old report that included a debatable statistic that I'll bet no one on this thread has ever heard of until this anti-Tesla firm decided to broadcast it as some type of ongoing fraud. How is this relevant, today?

This is a hit job that tells us nothing about the current state of Tesla cars and their autonomous systems.

What basis do you have for calling QCS an "anti-Tesla firm"? Is that "shooting the messenger", or is there evidence they have an ax to grind regarding Tesla specifically?

Are they also "anti-Ford", "anti-Toyota", "anti-NASA", "anti-15 passenger Vans", "anti-Tires", "anti-Ignition Switch"? They seem like pretty equal-opportunity "anti" firm to me.

QCS: Projects – Replicating NHTSA's Extraordinary Safety Claims about Tesla's Autopilot/Autosteer System

QCS: Quality Control Systems Corporation

-ERD50

 

[oneill225]

What basis do you have for calling QCS an "anti-Tesla firm"? Is that "shooting the messenger", or is there evidence they have an ax to grind regarding Tesla specifically?
Are they also "anti-Ford", "anti-Toyota", "anti-NASA", "anti-15 passenger Vans", "anti-Tires", "anti-Ignition Switch"? They seem like pretty equal-opportunity "anti" firm to me.-ERD50

They may be anti lots of things. We are discussing their two year quest to get NHTSA to release data on Tesla. By their own admission, it is part of a bigger mission to challenge the oversight of autonomous driving systems. From the study:

"The importance of this research goes well beyond the specific issues addressed in our statistical analyses. The larger question is whether the field experience of autonomous vehicles and advanced driver-assistance systems will be fairly and transparently assessed by the public officials charged with insuring the public’s safety while this technology is “beta-tested” on public roads. The litigation record in our case27,28 documents the resources which both NHTSA and Tesla were willing to commit to prevent public scrutiny of this taxpayer funded research, based on a fear of competitive harm to Tesla."

This may have been news two years ago, but it holds little value, today. The function of the report (which draws no real conclusions except to say that no real conclusion can be reached, in their judgment, based on the data and methods used) seems to be to call into question how accurately and effectively NHTSA is doing their job.

Do they dislike Tesla? Impossible to know unless they come out and say it, but it is clear that they are not believers in Tesla's autonomous driving claims (or any others). This company believes NHTSA has rolled-over and jumped on the autonomous driving bandwagon (at the cost of consumer safety). In this case, Tesla is the boogey man to support their thesis (based on incomplete, two year old, data).

 

[ERD50]

.... By their own admission, it is part of a bigger mission to challenge the oversight of autonomous driving systems. ....

The function of the report (which draws no real conclusions except to say that no real conclusion can be reached, in their judgment, based on the data and methods used) seems to be to call into question how accurately and effectively NHTSA is doing their job. ...

Good. Sounds like some outside watchdog oversight might be exactly what is needed.

Do they dislike Tesla? Impossible to know unless they come out and say it, but it is clear that they are not believers in Tesla's autonomous driving claims (or any others). ....

And that is why we are questioning your description of them as an "anti-Tesla firm", when as you just said, this is not known. Being skeptical of any companies claims doesn't automatically make the skeptic "anti-company X".

I'll say it again. I think these threads would be far more valuable, and far shorter if we all stuck to analysis of the content of a post or linked article , without interjecting motive or making assumptions.

-ERD50

 

[ls99]

"New" analysis of a two year old report that included a debatable statistic that I'll bet no one on this thread has ever heard of until this anti-Tesla firm decided to broadcast it as some type of ongoing fraud. How is this relevant, today?

This is a hit job that tells us nothing about the current state of Tesla cars and their autonomous systems.

Facts and evidence matter. Regardless of when presented.

 

[oneill225]

Good. Sounds like some outside watchdog oversight might be exactly what is needed.

Agreed. I have no problem with holding people accountable. I do not, however, assume that every "watchdog" is free of an agenda.

And that is why we are questioning your description of them as an "anti-Tesla firm", when as you just said, this is not known. Being skeptical of any companies claims doesn't automatically make the skeptic "anti-company X".
I'll say it again. I think these threads would be far more valuable, and far shorter if we all stuck to analysis of the content of a post or linked article , without interjecting motive or making assumptions.

The content is anti-Tesla. It implies that the government is too cozy with Tesla and other autonomous driving developers over the safety interests of consumers. It also reflects upon data that is over two years old that may or may not be relevant to the current autonomous system being used. In short, it is no more than an opinion dressed-up as science.

 

[NW-Bound]

"New" analysis of a two year old report that included a debatable statistic that I'll bet no one on this thread has ever heard of until this anti-Tesla firm decided to broadcast it as some type of ongoing fraud. How is this relevant, today?

This is a hit job that tells us nothing about the current state of Tesla cars and their autonomous systems.

No one has heard of this statistics? On the Web, I saw Musk mentioned it all the time. Also proponents of Tesla autopilot who said it already saved lives despite the known flaws! Here on this forum also.

From what I have read and seen, all I know is that if my mother got a Tesla and relied on its autopilot, she would hurt herself or another motorist, or bicyclist, or pedestrian within a day or two. She would not be quick enough to detect a problem and to take over.

Safe? Hah!

 

[oneill225]

No one has heard of this statistics? On the Web, I saw Musk mentioned it all the time. Also proponents of Tesla autopilot who said it already saved lives despite the known flaws! Here on this forum also.
From what I have read and seen, all I know is that if my mother got a Tesla and relied on its autopilot, she would hurt herself or another motorist, or bicyclist, or pedestrian within a day or two. She would not be quick enough to detect a problem and to take over. Safe? Hah!

You are talking about an emerging technology that will improve dramatically over time. Unless you think autonomous driving is just a marketing scam with no real future, I think you would agree that the leaders in this emerging tech will have a good chance to make some money out of it (when it is fully implemented). Tesla is, arguably, way ahead of the current autonomous competition.

Personally, I don't care whether the next car I buy is autonomous. That being said, I may find it useful 30 years from now in a much more developed and reliable form.

 

[oneill225]

Tesla's Competition

This seems like a reasonable assessment of the current auto market:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkam...-teslas-slow-moving-competition/#4691fa57664b

"While Tesla strives to make the Model 3 more affordable, both Ford and GM don't make money selling mass-market sedans. Ford has already exited this market segment and GM is not far behind. I can see why neither company is in any hurry to invest the billions it would take to make an electric mass-market sedan."

 

[NW-Bound]

You are talking about an emerging technology that will improve dramatically over time. Unless you think autonomous driving is just a marketing scam with no real future, I think you would agree that the leaders in this emerging tech will have a good chance to make some money out of it (when it is fully implemented). Tesla is, arguably, way ahead of the current autonomous competition.

Personally, I don't care whether the next car I buy is autonomous. That being said, I may find it useful 30 years from now in a much more developed and reliable form.

I have repeatedly say that I am not against autonomous car technology.

What bothers me is the inflated bogus claims and the implications that Tesla cars have more capabilities than they do. That, my friend, is a marketing scam.

I root for a careful, responsible, and way more capable developer like Waymo (Google). They do no stupid publicity stunts.

PS. Tesla is OK to me on other technical aspects, but not the autopilot with undefined limitations that the driver has to discover himself by trial and error. Or should I say trial and mishap/accident/death?