Thoughts on TESLA

[aja8888]

I failed to mention performance. 0-60 mph in the low 5's is very high-end performance for any sedan.

Well, it's not really a good performance criteria to base spending a ton of money on the vehicle. It is just one of many indicators. A lot of ICE cars can do as well as that, and some do very well in handling and braking, much better than lux sedan. Really, how often does a person really use the massive acceleration an electric car is capable of?

Heck. around here, there is no where to even get to 60 mph quickly without running some red lights. Sure, there are freeways and entrance ramps where quick acceleration is handy, but not always necessary.

 

[bobandsherry]

Maybe this will buy them a little time:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-has-no-credible-competition-analyst-says-2018-09-17

Let's be clear, this isn't about the product, but the viability for Tesla to turn a profit. If they can't turn a profit with the higher cost cars, how can they trim $8-10K from price of car and make money? Do you think there is that much margin to be trimmed to price a car at $35K?

 

[NW-Bound]

Sorry, but a 1 sec diff to 60 is a noticeable difference...

Not on my motorhome. I would not be able to tell 19 sec from 20 sec.

 

[oneill225]

Let's be clear, this isn't about the product, but the viability for Tesla to turn a profit. If they can't turn a profit with the higher cost cars, how can they trim $8-10K from price of car and make money? Do you think there is that much margin to be trimmed to price a car at $35K?

Of course. They are still working out the kinks in the production line and are about to receive new Grohmann Engineering machines that will be producing batteries by the end of Q4. Those machines should cut the battery cell cost down to around $100 per kWh by the end of the year:

https://electrek.co/2018/09/11/tesla-100-kwh-battery-cost-investor-gigafactory-1-tour/

As scale, supply chains, and technology continue to improve the "cost" of making a Tesla EV will continue to decline. I agree that losses cannot be sustained forever, but the trajectory is heading in the right direction.

Expecting a bankruptcy date in the near future seems to be based on the notion that what they have been doing over the last 10 years cannot be sustained for at least one more year (when Tesla claims it will be in the black). I don't see that happening, although this is a pivotal time (and the best time to invest).

 

[ERD50]

FYI - as someone who rode those commuter trains for years, those tracks are leased by commuter rail. The tracks are owned by railroads (CSX, Norfolk Southern, Canadian Pacific, etc) and are used primarily to move freight. So not sure how feasible making them electric rails would be.

Chicago: Balancing Freight and Commuters at the World's Busiest Terminal

Interesting read, thanks.

I'm not talking about electrifying the rails, just an overhead wire at the stations (had to look it up, it's called a "overhead catenary" - even if my spell-checker doesn't agree! ). That might not be feasible either, just a thought I had. If possible, it sure would be nice in place of those noisy, stinky diesels.

That's a strange one. Trains with electric motors that get their power from overhead lines or the tracks, but which have batteries for the sections of rail that aren't electrified. That would seem to be a very small niche market--adding power to a rail line just isn't a big deal if the railbed, tracks, switches, stations, etc are already in place.


Near my home the municipal mass transit system has some electric bus routes with overhead electrical power. They recently purchased some electric buses with batteries so they can get off the electrified portions for limited stretches. That seems like a pretty good way to enhance the flexibility of already existing electrified routes (adding new stops in large parking lots, bridging between electrified portions of existing lines, detouring to avoid road work/traffic accidents, etc).

Yes, but any sort of diversification would be good for Tesla. And in the scenario I was talking about, it would be where there aren't existing overhead wires, they would just be added at stations, so the trains would need a pretty large battery pack.

Chicago has one Electric Rail line that I'm aware of (in addition to the rapid transit electric lines), though I've never ridden it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metra_Electric_District

And I did ride the electric buses in Chicago back in the 70's (about the end of them) - they sure would have benefited from a small battery pack, they would get stuck once in a while at an intersection.

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

Not on my motorhome. I would not be able to tell 19 sec from 20 sec.

LOL... good one!!!

 

[bobandsherry]

Telsa better keep looking in it's rear view mirror for what may be catching up on them.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...illion-to-build-all-electric-cars-in-arizona/

 

[bobandsherry]

We all knew that Musk would get bit in the back end for his just plain stupid comment.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/17/technology/business/elon-musk-caver-lawsuit/index.html

 

[bobandsherry]

Interesting read, thanks.

I'm not talking about electrifying the rails, just an overhead wire at the stations (had to look it up, it's called a "overhead catenary" - even if my spell-checker doesn't agree! ). That might not be feasible either, just a thought I had. If possible, it sure would be nice in place of those noisy, stinky diesels.

Now that you mention it, while not one of the four lines I used in my career, there is one Chicago rail system that is all electric and as you describe. It though is dedicated commuter line only, no freight. Not sure how feasible it would be to put same lines above freight rails, especially with 4 way crossways.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metra_Electric_District

 

[NW-Bound]

Telsa better keep looking in it's rear view mirror for what may be catching up on them.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...illion-to-build-all-electric-cars-in-arizona/

When Mush tweeted about taking Tesla private, there was a rumor that the Saudis were the ones opening the billfold. Then, later it was said the Saudis were behind Lucid instead. This is now confirmed to be true.

 

[Texas Proud]

Maybe this will buy them a little time:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-has-no-credible-competition-analyst-says-2018-09-17

I think the problem with this is that it limits the market to Tesla.... IMO people are not just looking at all electric, but something that will save gas...


I was looking at another link (do not have it up now) but there were a number of plug in hybrids that looked interesting... I do remember the Hyundai Ioniq... IIRC it got like 28 miles on all electric and then used the engine... to ME, this would be the competition that I would compare to Tesla... I can do most of my driving with 28 mile range... I just do not go that far anymore... but, if I needed to do so this will take me all over the country and I can fill up quickly...


I just do not see the benefit of all electric... sorry for that to the true believers...

 

[samclem]

I was looking at another link (do not have it up now) but there were a number of plug in hybrids that looked interesting... I do remember the Hyundai Ioniq... IIRC it got like 28 miles on all electric and then used the engine... to ME, this would be the competition that I would compare to Tesla... I can do most of my driving with 28 mile range... I just do not go that far anymore... but, if I needed to do so this will take me all over the country and I can fill up quickly...


I just do not see the benefit of all electric... sorry for that to the true believers...

I agree that the plug-in hybrids make a lot more sense for most people. The Honda Clarity is a real car that can go over 50 miles on its batteries (plug it in at home to a 220V circuit and charge it an about 2 hours) then cruise on without interruption on its gas engine for another 300+ miles before refueling (in 5 minutes, at any gas station). Lots of real dealers who can fix it, too. Gasoline-free commuting, but no range limits, no special charging stations needed. It, and similar plug-in hybrids, seem to me likely to be more popular in the US than pure EV cars. But, that doesn't mean that there's not room in the market for some EV models, or even an EV car company--but if it is a company that can't provide what people expect of a car company, it won't make it.

 

[dixonge]

When Mush tweeted about taking Tesla private, there was a rumor that the Saudis were the ones opening the billfold. Then, later it was said the Saudis were behind Lucid instead. This is now confirmed to be true.

Not *instead* - in addition to...


The Saudi wealth fund bought Tesla stock. Now it's investing in Lucid, a Tesla competitor

I just do not see the benefit of all electric... sorry for that to the true believers...

No need to apologize for your denialism

 

[bobandsherry]

Perhaps fossil fuel and EV isn't the answer....

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-thriving-california/

http://www.thedrive.com/tech/14431/are-hydrogen-cars-the-next-big-thing-again

 

[ERD50]

.... IMO people are not just looking at all electric, but something that will save gas...


I was looking at another link (do not have it up now) but there were a number of plug in hybrids that looked interesting...

I agree that the plug-in hybrids make a lot more sense for most people. The Honda Clarity is a real car that can go over 50 miles on its batteries (plug it in at home to a 220V circuit and charge it an about 2 hours) then cruise on without interruption on its gas engine for another 300+ miles before refueling (in 5 minutes, at any gas station). ....

I'll try to get around to updating the other thread I started on "Does the ICE have a Future?" (something like that), but quickly, I agree that hybrids will be the answer for a large segment of the population. EVs can co-exist for those who want them.

I'll go into more detail in the other thread, but I think one segment of future 'plug in' hybrids will be ones that actually de-emphasize EV mode range. They could have just enough batteries to take the car maybe 15 miles (we need batteries that can take a higher burst rate, but they don't need to be better in other areas). And this could also de-emphasize even plugging it in at all.

The idea is, a car like that could get you up to highway speed and accelerate in EV mode. That would allow the use of some newer ICE designs (HCCI, opposed-piston, etc ) - that could be optimized for a narrow range of power/RPM. The ICE would not need to accelerate the car and deliver power from 800 RPM to 6000 RPM. A simple transmission could keep the ICE in a limited range, and modulate how much power goes to the wheels versus the generator/motor/batteries. And since you can start your drive on EV power, the engine can be allowed to warm up in an optimum cycle, it doesn't need to drive the wheels in that time. Start up is a large contribute to missions.

It's likely that combination would create less pollution than the electricity to power an EV. SO in that case, it would be best to never plug it in. But if you did want to plug it in (to save some $), a 15 mile range battery could be charged overnight with a standard 115 V circuit.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Perhaps fossil fuel and EV isn't the answer....

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-thriving-california/

Are Hydrogen Cars the Next Big Thing Again? - The Drive

Those articles are another hand-wave of the issues.

Hydrogen is currently produced from fossil fuel.

Then they make the same assumptions that the EV fans do - we will just create the hydrogen with 'clean energy'. But that begs the question - since we don't have enough clean energy to go around, consuming more of it just robs Peter to pay Paul. So until we have that steady, reliable excess of RE that I talk about, hydrogen cars and EVs are running mostly on fossil fuel.

Add the infrastructure issues to that, and I see hybrids as far more viable.

-ERD5-

 

[oneill225]

I agree that the plug-in hybrids make a lot more sense for most people. The Honda Clarity is a real car that can go over 50 miles on its batteries (plug it in at home to a 220V circuit and charge it an about 2 hours) then cruise on without interruption on its gas engine for another 300+ miles before refueling (in 5 minutes, at any gas station). Lots of real dealers who can fix it, too. Gasoline-free commuting, but no range limits, no special charging stations needed. It, and similar plug-in hybrids, seem to me likely to be more popular in the US than pure EV cars. But, that doesn't mean that there's not room in the market for some EV models, or even an EV car company--but if it is a company that can't provide what people expect of a car company, it won't make it.

Hybrids are fine and will attract buyers due to lower initial cost and ability to avoid charging issues. Over time, however, as charging anxiety fades and pure EV prices are on par, the advantages of hybrid will disappear. Why would you pay for a car that is more complex and more expensive to operate (a hybrid) if you can get an EV for the same price?

In two or three years, charging stations will be near ubiquitous when you consider that most EV owners will also have one at home. When EV's will reach parity in pricing with hybrids, I can't predict, but prices are coming down as battery tech continues to evolve. ICE has no chance in the long run except as the cheapest option. ICE in mid and luxury level cars will be the first to die.

 

[Texas Proud]

I'll try to get around to updating the other thread I started on "Does the ICE have a Future?" (something like that), but quickly, I agree that hybrids will be the answer for a large segment of the population. EVs can co-exist for those who want them.

I'll go into more detail in the other thread, but I think one segment of future 'plug in' hybrids will be ones that actually de-emphasize EV mode range. They could have just enough batteries to take the car maybe 15 miles (we need batteries that can take a higher burst rate, but they don't need to be better in other areas). And this could also de-emphasize even plugging it in at all.

The idea is, a car like that could get you up to highway speed and accelerate in EV mode. That would allow the use of some newer ICE designs (HCCI, opposed-piston, etc ) - that could be optimized for a narrow range of power/RPM. The ICE would not need to accelerate the car and deliver power from 800 RPM to 6000 RPM. A simple transmission could keep the ICE in a limited range, and modulate how much power goes to the wheels versus the generator/motor/batteries. And since you can start your drive on EV power, the engine can be allowed to warm up in an optimum cycle, it doesn't need to drive the wheels in that time. Start up is a large contribute to missions.

It's likely that combination would create less pollution than the electricity to power an EV. SO in that case, it would be best to never plug it in. But if you did want to plug it in (to save some $), a 15 mile range battery could be charged overnight with a standard 115 V circuit.

-ERD50

Interesting thought... and I will go way off script for this...


Does anybody watch Formula 1? They are using hybrid engines to race.. during a race the announcers or a driver will talk about their batteries... they have to get them recharged all the time... from what I heard it is an extra 160 HP to the car, but it appears the driver can discharge the batteries in a very short amount of time... they then have to do whatever they do to recharge them for the next burst.. I have even heard where one driver easily drove past another where they say the passed driver must not have had his batteries charged...


What does this have to do with ERD's post? Well, you can make a car with limited batteries for needed acceleration but not sustained driving that continue to get recharged for the next time you need acceleration...


I still think plug in hybrids that can go 20 to 50 miles might be the sweet spot, but who knows what will come out...

 

[bobandsherry]

Those articles are another hand-wave of the issues.

Hydrogen is currently produced from fossil fuel.

Then they make the same assumptions that the EV fans do - we will just create the hydrogen with 'clean energy'. But that begs the question - since we don't have enough clean energy to go around, consuming more of it just robs Peter to pay Paul. So until we have that steady, reliable excess of RE that I talk about, hydrogen cars and EVs are running mostly on fossil fuel.

Add the infrastructure issues to that, and I see hybrids as far more viable.

-ERD5-

I agree with you on hybrids, but let's face it that uses fossil fuels as well. So is hydrogen any worse option? And besides fossil fuels hydrogen can be produced by natural gas, two sources are better than dependency on one

And while not cost effective today, it's possible to create hydrogen from electricity through electrolysis. But that then requires "green" source to produce the electricity to make it clean.

Infrastructure is indeed a problem but instead of trying to build out supercharger and EV stations that $$ and effort could be put into hydrogen stations.

Just pointing out that there are other options, and maybe those not even thought of or economical today. Specific to Tesla, all eggs are in one basket, so def a single point of failure.

 

[bobandsherry]

Hybrids are fine and will attract buyers due to lower initial cost and ability to avoid charging issues. Over time, however, as charging anxiety fades and pure EV prices are on par, the advantages of hybrid will disappear. Why would you pay for a car that is more complex and more expensive to operate (a hybrid) if you can get an EV for the same price?

In two or three years, charging stations will be near ubiquitous when you consider that most EV owners will also have one at home. When EV's will reach parity in pricing with hybrids, I can't predict, but prices are coming down as battery tech continues to evolve. ICE has no chance in the long run except as the cheapest option. ICE in mid and luxury level cars will be the first to die.

So, let me ask. With all the love for Tesla and EV what % of your investments do you have in Tesla or other EV related companies?

 

[ERD50]

I agree with you on hybrids, but let's face it that uses fossil fuels as well. So is hydrogen any worse option? ....

What we need to look at is, which option is the best for the environment overall. That, and practicality comes into play.

Hybrids are here today, no infrastructure needed, and they keep getting better. While we wait for an excess of RE to power these other options, we can be conserving fossil fuel and reducing environmental impact today and for years/decades to come, by conserving with good hybrids. Instead of pushing EVs that run mostly on fossil fuel, and are probably dirtier than the hybrid, until this hoped for future of excess RE becomes available.

As I've said before, when we can see a path to an excess of RE available for EVs, then they make sense (environmentally). That won't happen over night and surprise us, we can plan the transition as it appears.

And don't forget, a lot of people simply don't have access to a charger at home, and many more don't have the high capacity circuit required for a pure EV and a long commute. Sure, that's not unsolvable, but it is another hurdle for a significant percent of drivers. Every single one of those people could drive a hybrid, today.

-ERD50

 

[oneill225]

So, let me ask. With all the love for Tesla and EV what % of your investments do you have in Tesla or other EV related companies?

I have bought Tesla on dips and sold on increases and will continue to do so. If you are implying that I am not convinced or willing to commit my own money based on my arguments, then you are mistaken. That being said, I am open to the idea that Tesla may start to fail at some point. If that happens I will invest in those who may have taken the lead from them.

I am excited about new technology and the obvious shift that is happening to EV. I understand disagreement as to the pace of this shift, but to think that ICE will be around in 20 years (except in very limited applications) is incredibly short-sighted. Do you recall Blockbuster falling to Netflix? I view Tesla as the "Netflix" of this shifting technology. I only wish that I had bought Netflix during those early days.

 

[oneill225]

What we need to look at is, which option is the best for the environment overall. That, and practicality comes into play.
Hybrids are here today, no infrastructure needed, and they keep getting better. While we wait for an excess of RE to power these other options, we can be conserving fossil fuel and reducing environmental impact today and for years/decades to come, by conserving with good hybrids. Instead of pushing EVs that run mostly on fossil fuel, and are probably dirtier than the hybrid, until this hoped for future of excess RE becomes available.
As I've said before, when we can see a path to an excess of RE available for EVs, then they make sense (environmentally). That won't happen over night and surprise us, we can plan the transition as it appears.
And don't forget, a lot of people simply don't have access to a charger at home, and many more don't have the high capacity circuit required for a pure EV and a long commute. Sure, that's not unsolvable, but it is another hurdle for a significant percent of drivers. Every single one of those people could drive a hybrid, today.-ERD50

Natural gas electric generation will have to do until RE is practical and capable of replacing it. At worst, this is an environmentally neutral solution because new natural gas plants are very efficient (relatively speaking). Now, this may not be an option in states like California where any attempt to build a carbon based power plant is verboten, but most states will continue to beef-up their electric grid by this method, as required. Where there is demand there will be supply.

 

[bobandsherry]

I have bought Tesla on dips and sold on increases and will continue to do so. If you are implying that I am not convinced or willing to commit my own money based on my arguments, then you are mistaken. That being said, I am open to the idea that Tesla may start to fail at some point. If that happens I will invest in those who may have taken the lead from them.

Buying on dips and then flips is not committing yourself. You either go long and strong or you don't truly believe your own hype. I've committed to several stocks that I truly believed had vision and legs to it, stayed long and continued to grow my holdings. I've also bet on some losers - wawa.... but Tesla isn't one of them. I myself have bought on the dips in Tesla and knowing there's a strong following of Musk (not necessarily Tesla) that I'd be rewarded for short term gains.

With all the hype and promise of Tesla, they have under performed the S&P, YTD, 1 year, 3 year and 5 year, and fallen well short of Nasdaq. That seems to be a telling story on market rewarding Tesla.

With Lucid and NIO there def appears to be interest in long term on EV, but with other car manufacturer's already in the mix it's going to get crowded before Tesla gets head above the waterline.

Remember, this isn't a thread on the future of EV but specific to Tesla. With the lack of skilled leader, a Board that concedes control to Musk, a crunch on cash (especially in light of convertible bonds coming due), growing # of players in the market, design that is getting stale looking (look at what Lucid and NIO are proposing) and hybrids that have made significant improvements, production issues, delivery issues, repair center issues, limited dealerships, etc.... And while autonomous sounds intriguing, I just don't see that viable in the broader market. These things all make Tesla not a long term play for me. If they do crush it, it won't be the first I've missed out on.

 

[oneill225]

Buying on dips and then flips is not committing yourself. You either go long and strong or you don't truly believe your own hype. I've committed to several stocks that I truly believed had vision and legs to it, stayed long and continued to grow my holdings. I've also bet on some losers - wawa.... but Tesla isn't one of them. I myself have bought on the dips in Tesla and knowing there's a strong following of Musk (not necessarily Tesla) that I'd be rewarded for short term gains.

With all the hype and promise of Tesla, they have under performed the S&P, YTD, 1 year, 3 year and 5 year, and fallen well short of Nasdaq. That seems to be a telling story on market rewarding Tesla.

With Lucid and NIO there def appears to be interest in long term on EV, but with other car manufacturer's already in the mix it's going to get crowded before Tesla gets head above the waterline.

Remember, this isn't a thread on the future of EV but specific to Tesla. With the lack of skilled leader, a Board that concedes control to Musk, a crunch on cash (especially in light of convertible bonds coming due), growing # of players in the market, design that is getting stale looking (look at what Lucid and NIO are proposing) and hybrids that have made significant improvements, production issues, delivery issues, repair center issues, limited dealerships, etc.... And while autonomous sounds intriguing, I just don't see that viable in the broader market. These things all make Tesla not a long term play for me. If they do crush it, it won't be the first I've missed out on.

Okay. You are assuming a lot based on my trading strategy for Tesla. What you missed is that I do not currently hold any stocks "long term". I rarely own a stock for more than a few months. Were the market less volatile, I would probably commit for longer periods, but buying into a stock that has taken a hit shows a belief that it will come back. If Tesla were on its deathbed, I would not be a buyer.

Not much to say about your doubts concerning autonomous value. I would suggest that you need to do a little more research because it is being incorporated quickly across the auto segment in the form of emergency braking, self parking, auto-cruise control, and in the case of Tesla, self-driving. So, already in the broader market and growing.