Tesla is raising up to $1.5B through convertible note and share sale(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Tesla is raising up to $1.5B through convertible note and share sale
https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/02/tesla-1-5-billion/
336 comments
Agreed, Musk/Tesla/SpaceX set very ambitious targets and then scramble like mad to meet them or almost meet them. This means they're always pushing the limit, and hence you get an endless parade of 'Tesla are going to go bankrupt' stories. In a way they are kind of right, Musk is pushing Tesla so hard that they teeter on the edge of disaster quite often. I wouldn't quite say bankruptcy, but they teeter on the edge of a serious loss of confidence quite often. I think this is kinda deliberate, a tactic of shoot for the stars or just dont bother. I wouldn't invest, but its great to watch whats being acheived from the sidelines.
I think people have forgotten what innovation looks like. Innovation, from the outside, looks like a huge gamble, and thats because it is. Tesla is a series of huge gambles, and the people pointing out 'hey what Tesla are doing could go terribly wrong' have a point. But they are also missing the point.
Thankfully I think Tesla have enough cars on the road now that if they do strike disaster, there will be enough momentum to have some sort of Tesla remnant to keep the fleet running. But the progress would stop.
I think people have forgotten what innovation looks like. Innovation, from the outside, looks like a huge gamble, and thats because it is. Tesla is a series of huge gambles, and the people pointing out 'hey what Tesla are doing could go terribly wrong' have a point. But they are also missing the point.
Thankfully I think Tesla have enough cars on the road now that if they do strike disaster, there will be enough momentum to have some sort of Tesla remnant to keep the fleet running. But the progress would stop.
Nothing wrong with innovation. But innovation on one front, in Tesla's case EVs, doesn't mean you have to innovate on other fronts like manufacturing and production. And the last thing is what might be killing Tesla at the moment.
When "we always did it that way" is a big corp disease, "we are doing it differently because we innovate" is just the start-up version of it. Tesla had, and still has, a great opportunity to disrupt the automotive industry. But not if they execute a lot worse then incumbents.
When "we always did it that way" is a big corp disease, "we are doing it differently because we innovate" is just the start-up version of it. Tesla had, and still has, a great opportunity to disrupt the automotive industry. But not if they execute a lot worse then incumbents.
There is an interview somewhere where Musk admits that their 100% automation plan was a bad idea. And the interviewer says 'well everyone told you it was a bad idea'. And Musk says (something like) 'everyone tells us everything we do is a bad idea'.
edit: interview is here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-13/-the-last...
100% automation was a gamble that didn't pay off. They scrabbled around a bit, and got to more-or-less where they needed to be via a different route.
edit: interview is here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-13/-the-last...
100% automation was a gamble that didn't pay off. They scrabbled around a bit, and got to more-or-less where they needed to be via a different route.
From watching some videos on the workings of their factory, it still seems like they've automated significantly more than their competitors. They reached for the stars and fell short, but that short is still ground-breaking.
If you think Tesla's factory is amazing, you need to check out Toyota's factories. It's like the difference between a Fisher Price playset and Disneyland.
Tesla talks big about automating...but Toyota actually did it, without fanfare, and managed to do so in a manner consistent with the kanban manufacturing philosophy that has defined their productivity and quality achievements of the past several decades
Tesla talks big about automating...but Toyota actually did it, without fanfare, and managed to do so in a manner consistent with the kanban manufacturing philosophy that has defined their productivity and quality achievements of the past several decades
Toyota used to produce ~440k cars out of that plant. Tesla does ~360k. I'm not sure that "fisher price playset" vs disneyland is the analogy that I'd use for that difference.
NUMMI was Toyota's oldest and least productive US factory, and the cars were produced on contract for GM, which sold them under a GM brand. This is one of the reasons Toyota closed the plant and sold it to Tesla.
NUMMI is also not the factory that Toyota shows off in its videos demonstrating the awesomeness of its manufacturing processes.
NUMMI is also not the factory that Toyota shows off in its videos demonstrating the awesomeness of its manufacturing processes.
There's more to plant quality than output alone. I'd expect a "disneyland" factory to have other metrics, like low rework, safety, worker satisfaction/retention, responsible procurement & disposal of raw materials, etc.
Are there decent videos of both factories to compare them? It might be interesting to see the state of the practice for an established player like Toyota.
I also remember way back when steve jobs tried to automate the production of NeXT cubes and broke his company doing it. I think a lot of folks do this sort of "follow one philosophy" into ruin. They want to be amazing and lose sight of what's doable/affordable/realistic.
I also remember way back when steve jobs tried to automate the production of NeXT cubes and broke his company doing it. I think a lot of folks do this sort of "follow one philosophy" into ruin. They want to be amazing and lose sight of what's doable/affordable/realistic.
Tesla's manufacturing capabilities are child's play in the automotive industry. Nothing Tesla has done here is revolutionary. Their quality control is abysmal compared to other major OEMs. They make the Model 3 in a tent. There are regular garbage fires at their Fremont plant.
https://boingboing.net/2018/08/24/fire-breaks-out-at-tesla-f...
And there was another one in February this year.
https://boingboing.net/2018/08/24/fire-breaks-out-at-tesla-f...
And there was another one in February this year.
How are fires at a paint shop indicative of abysmal quality control?
It is a sign for abysmal factory operations. And the first time pass rate is really bad compared to other OEMs.
> It is a sign for abysmal factory operations.
Not really. It's just a sign that their paint shop needs some work.
> And the first time pass rate is really bad compared to other OEMs.
For a few weeks in June. Great work taking isolated incidents and generalizing across the board.
Not really. It's just a sign that their paint shop needs some work.
> And the first time pass rate is really bad compared to other OEMs.
For a few weeks in June. Great work taking isolated incidents and generalizing across the board.
It wasn't just those few weeks in June. Their first time pass rate, on weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis is really bad compared to other OEMs. A large part of the reason they have a repair parts shortage is because spare parts that would go to existing customers are instead being used to repair newly-built cars before they leave the factory.
Tesla's gotten better at managing their first-time pass rates, but they're still close to the bottom compared to their peers.
Tesla's gotten better at managing their first-time pass rates, but they're still close to the bottom compared to their peers.
> really bad compared to other OEM
Compared to companies that have been in operation for decades, and in some cases a century? Sure, let's make sure to compare all start-ups to entrenched incumbents.
Compared to companies that have been in operation for decades, and in some cases a century? Sure, let's make sure to compare all start-ups to entrenched incumbents.
Tesla is not a startup! It's been in business for 18 years.
The fires aren't just in the paint shop. They are all around the factory property. Inside and outside. Garbage fires on the lot happen about once a year.
Regardless, you are trying to say that paint shop fires mean they just need a new paint shop. What I'm saying is that their entire manufacturing operation is amateurish compared to the rest of the auto industry.
Regardless, you are trying to say that paint shop fires mean they just need a new paint shop. What I'm saying is that their entire manufacturing operation is amateurish compared to the rest of the auto industry.
I mean, the BMW plant near here has fires about once a year two, if the last couple of years is a baseline. I'm not convinced that you are proving anything.
Manufacturing capabilities =/= % of process automated. I'm not saying they're effective at production output, or quality control, or a number of other things. I'm just saying that as far as I can tell as an interested outsider looking in, their automation processes are impressive compared to their competitors.
Tesla admits that large portions of their cars--even the Model 3--are essentially built or assembled by hand.
Meanwhile, Ford and Toyota have videos of almost an entire car being constructed by robots on their production factory lines (their are parts where humans assist the robots but otherwise most of the work is actually done by the robots). There'a a famous Ford video from a decade or two ago showing one of their (now-older/discontinued) model sedans from being built and finished--entirely by robots-from frame to final painting touchups. And if you don't believe the videos, you can tour their factories and actually see their factory lines in action, live.
Meanwhile, Ford and Toyota have videos of almost an entire car being constructed by robots on their production factory lines (their are parts where humans assist the robots but otherwise most of the work is actually done by the robots). There'a a famous Ford video from a decade or two ago showing one of their (now-older/discontinued) model sedans from being built and finished--entirely by robots-from frame to final painting touchups. And if you don't believe the videos, you can tour their factories and actually see their factory lines in action, live.
Unfortunately it is not looks that count but results. And there Tesla is far behind. Which kind proves the incumbents right on the way they are manufacturing cars. And that is my whole point. You can have a killer product, if you are unable to produce and distribute it that doesn't mean shit.
Ideas are a dime dozen, right? Execution is what matters is the start-up advice, right? And on that front Tesla is not looking good right now.
Ideas are a dime dozen, right? Execution is what matters is the start-up advice, right? And on that front Tesla is not looking good right now.
The 'tent' was an improvisation when they realised their automation plan wasn't going to work. It was 1 of 3 lines I think, a way to expand capacity quickly. You could scoff at the 'tent', or you could think about what it takes to come up with a rapidly implemented and physically massive plan B involving hundreds of people and huge amounts of hardware when there's a huge amount at stake.
edit: Here's some pics of the tent, and description of the large scale scrambling it took https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-25/the-futur...
edit: Here's some pics of the tent, and description of the large scale scrambling it took https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-25/the-futur...
Or you could ask yourself what happened that you needed a tent in the first place. Again, incumbents or any of their final assembly contractors know exactly how to launch and scale assembly lines for new plants and car models. Why Tesla choose to deviate from all industry best practices in that case still puzzles me.
It's curious to read this sort of reaction on HN, because it maps pretty well to process differences between startups and big, established (some would say "fossilized") software development firms.
"That startup has no idea what they're doing. Just last week they had to hire a bunch of new developers and they went all-remote and picked up a bunch of new management SaaS to do it. Look at IBM, they always know exactly how many developers they'll need for a project."
Tesla's got some significant problems, sure, but most of their problems seem to be the sort that a rapidly growing startup would have (including the lightning-rod CEO).
"That startup has no idea what they're doing. Just last week they had to hire a bunch of new developers and they went all-remote and picked up a bunch of new management SaaS to do it. Look at IBM, they always know exactly how many developers they'll need for a project."
Tesla's got some significant problems, sure, but most of their problems seem to be the sort that a rapidly growing startup would have (including the lightning-rod CEO).
Software =|= Manufacturing, comparing the two looks like a fallacy to me.
EDIT: That Tesla is still treated as a typical Silicon Valley start up and not an automotive OEM might be one of Elons greatest achievements.
EDIT: That Tesla is still treated as a typical Silicon Valley start up and not an automotive OEM might be one of Elons greatest achievements.
Innovation is a gamble, and Tesla take big gambles. That's my point. The Tent happened because one of their big gambles failed.
And resulted in production hell, didn't it?
This is only going off of what I've read from private interviews with Tesla employees (I'm sure there are some lurking on HN that can give a better idea), but it seems the production hell came mostly from the constant product updates that were rolling through. A connector on a wire harness becomes obsolete, and all of a sudden your camera that picks out that connector from a bucket needs updating, the arm that grips it needs changing, the milling machine that machines the hole for the connector needs changing etc. One up-issue knocks on to the entire production process. This isn't an issue with humans. You tell them the new part they need to use and that's it.
Often that's what it takes to achieve significant progress, even as an individual. Shoot for the stars and you'll likely see modest progress, but if you aim for mediocrity, you might not even attain that.
100% automation was a gamble that didn't pay off
For now.
When they have a solid product, and a lot more money in the bank, I'd expect them to be at the forefront of automation, and then it will pay dividends, they just tried to do it too soon.
For now.
When they have a solid product, and a lot more money in the bank, I'd expect them to be at the forefront of automation, and then it will pay dividends, they just tried to do it too soon.
There are plenty of car companies out there with solid products and very deep pockets. Nobody is going this direction.
All it will do is increasing the production issues ten fold if Tesla is facing the first facelift or model change.
In fact others seem to go just the opposite direction. For example Mercedes is reducing the amount of automation as it makes the change too slow [1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/26/mercedes-...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/26/mercedes-...
Nobody went in the direction of seamless internet payments before PayPal, despite banking existing for centuries.
Nobody went in the direction of landing boosters, despite rocketry existing for decades.
'Nobody is doing it', is more often than not, an argument for 'it' instead of against.
Nobody went in the direction of landing boosters, despite rocketry existing for decades.
'Nobody is doing it', is more often than not, an argument for 'it' instead of against.
It's not enough to have, 'Nobody is doing it.' If you want the full Musk analysis, you also have to do a 1st principles analysis of the true cost. Then you have to identify the factors holding things up across the entire industry. Is it that government regulation and meddling is distorting the pricing and scaring away competitors? Is it an entrenched industry with no motivation to innovate?
Often nobody's doing it, because "it" is truly stupid. What Musk is doing, is applying a formula for discovering when the majority are mistaken.
http://paulgraham.com/say.html
Often nobody's doing it, because "it" is truly stupid. What Musk is doing, is applying a formula for discovering when the majority are mistaken.
http://paulgraham.com/say.html
> Nobody went in the direction of landing boosters
Of course they did, but they only wanted to do it on DoD money. When that wasn't further forthcoming they pivoted to other projects that were funded.
Landing rocket as a stalled idea wasn't due to lack of technical foresight, it wad a result of big companies lacking financial foresight. I give credit to Space X for making that business leap, even though landing their boosters was actually an ad hoc response to their initial failure to secure cheap Russian engines.
Of course they did, but they only wanted to do it on DoD money. When that wasn't further forthcoming they pivoted to other projects that were funded.
Landing rocket as a stalled idea wasn't due to lack of technical foresight, it wad a result of big companies lacking financial foresight. I give credit to Space X for making that business leap, even though landing their boosters was actually an ad hoc response to their initial failure to secure cheap Russian engines.
I once found a study from EASA, conducted in the early 2000s if I remember well, on reusing boosters. The result was, in a nutshell, technically feasible financially not so much due the low number of launches, costs to refurbish and such.
And now Arianne Space is having a serious look at it with Arianne 6.
And now Arianne Space is having a serious look at it with Arianne 6.
True at first glance. But the better allogy would be a better way to process cheques in the case of PayPal. And in the case of producing cars ignoring the Toyota Production System, ignoring decades of experience in high volume car manufacturing is at best incredibly arrogant.
Remember Nokia?
They had decades of experience in the industry and the software guys (Apple and Google) drove them to bankruptcy.
Also look at SpaceX - he’s not a complete novice at complex manufacturing, and knows how to assemble and motivate a good team, and is used to competing against even more entrenched incumbents.
I’ll be interested to see how this works out but I think Musk was just too early and trying to do too much at once; he’s not wrong that automation is the future.
They had decades of experience in the industry and the software guys (Apple and Google) drove them to bankruptcy.
Also look at SpaceX - he’s not a complete novice at complex manufacturing, and knows how to assemble and motivate a good team, and is used to competing against even more entrenched incumbents.
I’ll be interested to see how this works out but I think Musk was just too early and trying to do too much at once; he’s not wrong that automation is the future.
And Nokia lost because the new products were better. Not because Apple or Google were better at manufacturing. After all Apple went to Samsung for screens and sub contracted manufacturing to Foxconn. Google designed and had the likes of LG build their Pixels and Nexus phones. And that is the difference I'm arguing here, not the product.
Also, building mostly single use rockets, reused boosters are pretty new even for SpaceX, in comparatively small number is totally different from building and running factories that spit out hundreds of thousands of cars. But I can understand why Elon might have thought he knew better. But drawing lessons from an industry like aerospace and rockets which had only a hand full of defacto state subsidized players to one as competitive as automotive was, it seems, a bad idea.
Yes, I fully agree that Elon wanted too early and too fast. And having the timing wrong still means you're wrong. And in that case this mistake and the underlying culture and way of thinking can very much doom the whole company. And that would really be a shame, wouldn't it?
Also, building mostly single use rockets, reused boosters are pretty new even for SpaceX, in comparatively small number is totally different from building and running factories that spit out hundreds of thousands of cars. But I can understand why Elon might have thought he knew better. But drawing lessons from an industry like aerospace and rockets which had only a hand full of defacto state subsidized players to one as competitive as automotive was, it seems, a bad idea.
Yes, I fully agree that Elon wanted too early and too fast. And having the timing wrong still means you're wrong. And in that case this mistake and the underlying culture and way of thinking can very much doom the whole company. And that would really be a shame, wouldn't it?
The Model 3 is better, it just needs to get cheaper - it’s already the best-selling EV in many markets.
> When "we always did it that way" is a big corp disease, "we are doing it differently because we innovate" is just the start-up version of it.
That's a very insightful and prescient statement -- thanks for that. Certainly food for thought.
That's a very insightful and prescient statement -- thanks for that. Certainly food for thought.
Hard learned insight, at least for myself :-)
Thanks for this comment.
The Internet in general, and HN lately, have become extraordinarily negative places full of comments trashing people who try to do things that are bold.
I wish people would have a little optimism, or at least just say things like "wow, I personally don't think it's possible, but damn it's going to be exciting to watch them try".
We need people who are working hard to build a better future, so lets not bury them in a pile of hate and negativity.
The Internet in general, and HN lately, have become extraordinarily negative places full of comments trashing people who try to do things that are bold.
I wish people would have a little optimism, or at least just say things like "wow, I personally don't think it's possible, but damn it's going to be exciting to watch them try".
We need people who are working hard to build a better future, so lets not bury them in a pile of hate and negativity.
I too am sick and tired of this zeitgeist and I hope it passes soon, because otherwise I think people will just tune out until every only community is nothing but a hateful cesspool.
Musk and Tesla attract more than the average share of hate, but this sentiment feeds on itself and grows like cancer. Yesterday's thread on Eric Schmidt leaving Google was dozens of people competing to see who could trash him better.
Apart from the bad effects of negativity itself, it is also supremely boring. HN's comments are slowly going from being able to find tons of interesting ideas/reactions/perspectives to finding only different ways of trashing the same person/company/idea.
Musk and Tesla attract more than the average share of hate, but this sentiment feeds on itself and grows like cancer. Yesterday's thread on Eric Schmidt leaving Google was dozens of people competing to see who could trash him better.
Apart from the bad effects of negativity itself, it is also supremely boring. HN's comments are slowly going from being able to find tons of interesting ideas/reactions/perspectives to finding only different ways of trashing the same person/company/idea.
There's a growing list of topics I just entirely avoid online now, and it's a damn shame because I enjoy most of them.
Cryptocurrencies, "smart" things or IoT, anything Google related, anything even slightly related to or made by Facebook (the other day Facebook released info on their rewrite of Facebook.com and zero comments were about the tech on HN, it was just a bunch of people arguing over how awful Facebook really is), and many things that deal with JavaScript (at least on HN).
Sadly I'm going to be adding Tesla to that list now, something I should have done years ago, at least on this website.
Every topic related to those things quickly devolves into a bunch of people just yelling at each other over semantics, and it's very hard to have any real nuanced discussion.
Cryptocurrencies, "smart" things or IoT, anything Google related, anything even slightly related to or made by Facebook (the other day Facebook released info on their rewrite of Facebook.com and zero comments were about the tech on HN, it was just a bunch of people arguing over how awful Facebook really is), and many things that deal with JavaScript (at least on HN).
Sadly I'm going to be adding Tesla to that list now, something I should have done years ago, at least on this website.
Every topic related to those things quickly devolves into a bunch of people just yelling at each other over semantics, and it's very hard to have any real nuanced discussion.
I completely agree with you and the parent comment.
It's like people now come online to just loudly scream their opinion about something, then leave.
Whether a tech person likes or loaths Facebook is not really of interest or any gain to us as a community. Like you said, it would be massively interesting to learn exactly what tech and how facebook are re-writing their app, but those conversations don't even happen on HN anymore.
It's amazing to think what the state of automobiles and driving will be in 5 and then 10 years (which is really not far away at all), and yet every single discussion thread just argues about the demise of Tesla instead of discussing, planning for and building the future that is inevitable, with or without Tesla.
> Every topic related to those things quickly devolves into a bunch of people just yelling at each other over semantics, and it's very hard to have any real nuanced discussion.
As much as I hate censorship, I think the moderation team at HN would be wise to shadow ban (or just outright ban) accounts that post negative rubbish, or simply expose their opinion on a topic.
Maybe there should be a rule that a person's opinion is off-limits in HN discussions. Discuss the topic at hand, but don't just cram opinions down throats. (yes, I get the irony, I'm expressing my opinion here)
It's like people now come online to just loudly scream their opinion about something, then leave.
Whether a tech person likes or loaths Facebook is not really of interest or any gain to us as a community. Like you said, it would be massively interesting to learn exactly what tech and how facebook are re-writing their app, but those conversations don't even happen on HN anymore.
It's amazing to think what the state of automobiles and driving will be in 5 and then 10 years (which is really not far away at all), and yet every single discussion thread just argues about the demise of Tesla instead of discussing, planning for and building the future that is inevitable, with or without Tesla.
> Every topic related to those things quickly devolves into a bunch of people just yelling at each other over semantics, and it's very hard to have any real nuanced discussion.
As much as I hate censorship, I think the moderation team at HN would be wise to shadow ban (or just outright ban) accounts that post negative rubbish, or simply expose their opinion on a topic.
Maybe there should be a rule that a person's opinion is off-limits in HN discussions. Discuss the topic at hand, but don't just cram opinions down throats. (yes, I get the irony, I'm expressing my opinion here)
Perhaps people are beginning to look at the downsides of innovation at all costs. Tesla's and Google's technical contributions can't be divorced from their failings. I'd think this would be a refreshing shift in startup culture.
It’s really hard to be optimistic when the good these companies do is bound by the same market dynamics that feed many of the crises we face today. I don’t like Musk, but I’m at worst neutral about the companies; what would optimism look like here in the best case scenario for carbon impact? SpaceX is cool but I don’t see it as the shortest route to solving any major problem we have. Same with the boring company—the impact will not be in the places that are facing a crisis. Sometimes it feels like optimism here is distracting from very hard problems. That’s not the fault of any single people or group of people it’s just the way the world works.
I really agree about the tone thing, these conversations are toxic and unproductive.
It might help if we stop referring to rich people as bold—it is honestly difficult to spend the type of capital Musk has access to, and he would have to intentionally give it away to be poor. What’s the risk? Not a risk most can empathize with.
I really agree about the tone thing, these conversations are toxic and unproductive.
It might help if we stop referring to rich people as bold—it is honestly difficult to spend the type of capital Musk has access to, and he would have to intentionally give it away to be poor. What’s the risk? Not a risk most can empathize with.
why is Tesla's public face almost exclusively Musk? There are hundreds of talented people there taking huge risks, I personally find Musk as annoying as Donald Trump. There are a lot of people at Tesla risking a lot to do something bold. I'd like to hear a lot more from them and a lot less from Musk.
I wish people would have a little optimism, or at least just say things like "wow, I personally don't think it's possible, but damn it's going to be exciting to watch them try".
Uninformed optimism? Not so much. How about some charity and informed, insightful analysis?
We need people who are working hard to build a better future, so lets not bury them in a pile of hate and negativity.
Agreed. By the same token, we can ditch the hate and have more informed negativity when it's warranted. It's mental laziness to just slam the lever all the way up because you like the feel of "up," or to slam it all the way down, just because you think "down is cool." The difficult and valuable thing is to move the lever to where it needs to go through technique and good judgement.
Uninformed optimism? Not so much. How about some charity and informed, insightful analysis?
We need people who are working hard to build a better future, so lets not bury them in a pile of hate and negativity.
Agreed. By the same token, we can ditch the hate and have more informed negativity when it's warranted. It's mental laziness to just slam the lever all the way up because you like the feel of "up," or to slam it all the way down, just because you think "down is cool." The difficult and valuable thing is to move the lever to where it needs to go through technique and good judgement.
> How about some charity and informed, insightful analysis?
I agree, that would be great. Let's analyze stuff instead of just screaming out our opinions.
> we can ditch the hate and have more informed negativity when it's warranted
How does negativity (even informed negativity) help us?
How does it increase our knowledge, or ability to do new exciting things, or our ability to "push the envelope"?
It doesn't. It's a waste of time and effort. Worst case, just say nothing at all rather than being negative about a certain topic.
When working on an extremely complicated problem the last thing in the world anyone needs is a bunch of people reminding them it's really hard and that nobody has done it before and that it's going to fail for reasons x,y,z.
Remember, every breakthrough that has ever happened had a long list of reasons why it was "impossible".
I agree, that would be great. Let's analyze stuff instead of just screaming out our opinions.
> we can ditch the hate and have more informed negativity when it's warranted
How does negativity (even informed negativity) help us?
How does it increase our knowledge, or ability to do new exciting things, or our ability to "push the envelope"?
It doesn't. It's a waste of time and effort. Worst case, just say nothing at all rather than being negative about a certain topic.
When working on an extremely complicated problem the last thing in the world anyone needs is a bunch of people reminding them it's really hard and that nobody has done it before and that it's going to fail for reasons x,y,z.
Remember, every breakthrough that has ever happened had a long list of reasons why it was "impossible".
What's needed in the skeptic analysis is people who actually understand the point Elon is making. So often, the skeptics just completely don't understand what he's saying as he's speaking in terms of limits and fundamental principles, i.e. as a physicist.
In any good discussion and healthy argument, it is critical to be able to understand your opponent's point, be able to restate it accurately in a way they'd agree with, before being able to point out exactly how it's wrong (or at least unlikely).
Instead, we often see pile-ons and other supremely mentally lazy attacks.
In any good discussion and healthy argument, it is critical to be able to understand your opponent's point, be able to restate it accurately in a way they'd agree with, before being able to point out exactly how it's wrong (or at least unlikely).
Instead, we often see pile-ons and other supremely mentally lazy attacks.
How does it increase our knowledge, or ability to do new exciting things, or our ability to "push the envelope"?
It keeps resources from being wasted that would otherwise actually contribute to our ability to "push the envelope."
It doesn't. It's a waste of time and effort.
When something which really is impossible or impractical is called out, then huge amounts of resources can be redirected to genuinely beneficial projects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obS6TUVSZds
Are you advocating that we never doubt? Should we just "listen and believe" and somehow our positive energy will make things happen? Sorry, no. Scientific analysis has predictive power. That's what Elon Musk is all about.
It keeps resources from being wasted that would otherwise actually contribute to our ability to "push the envelope."
It doesn't. It's a waste of time and effort.
When something which really is impossible or impractical is called out, then huge amounts of resources can be redirected to genuinely beneficial projects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obS6TUVSZds
Are you advocating that we never doubt? Should we just "listen and believe" and somehow our positive energy will make things happen? Sorry, no. Scientific analysis has predictive power. That's what Elon Musk is all about.
> ...and HN lately, have become extraordinarily negative places full of comments trashing people...
Considering that one of the tenets of good engineering cultures is blame-free environments, this negativity around ambitious engineering goals astounds me.
Considering that one of the tenets of good engineering cultures is blame-free environments, this negativity around ambitious engineering goals astounds me.
Me too. It's really sad, to be honest. HN used to be a place to come and learn really cool stuff, and I enjoyed the comments section much more than the articles themselves.
Now, the comments are hardly worth a glance.
Now, the comments are hardly worth a glance.
> He promised autonomous driving 2 years from 2016... Given 1 or 2 more years of incremental improvements, your tesla would be capable of driving you most places I would think
I think it's way further off than that, like, 10+, and almost certainly not without extra hardware being added to Teslas
As of today, Tesla's autopilot page says "All new Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features today, and full self-driving capabilities in the future—through software updates designed to improve functionality over time."
This claim imo is at best overly optimistic, and at worst outright fraud. I'd be surprised if they don't get sued at some point over this. (their website used to be much more explicit about promising full self-driving too)
Full self-driving is 90% edge cases. Adaptive cruise control is not a few incremental steps away from full self-driving
I think it's way further off than that, like, 10+, and almost certainly not without extra hardware being added to Teslas
As of today, Tesla's autopilot page says "All new Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features today, and full self-driving capabilities in the future—through software updates designed to improve functionality over time."
This claim imo is at best overly optimistic, and at worst outright fraud. I'd be surprised if they don't get sued at some point over this. (their website used to be much more explicit about promising full self-driving too)
Full self-driving is 90% edge cases. Adaptive cruise control is not a few incremental steps away from full self-driving
>I think it's way further off than that, like, 10+, and almost certainly not without extra hardware being added to Teslas
Doubting like this is a pretty common view outside of Tesla, and we've heard it repeated many times here. They clearly disagree.
>Full self-driving is 90% edge cases. Adaptive cruise control is not a few incremental steps away from full self-driving
This they would completely agree with, as you can see from watching their recent autonomy day presentations. And they have an overwhelming lead in collecting edge case data, so... they're in good shape with that.
Doubting like this is a pretty common view outside of Tesla, and we've heard it repeated many times here. They clearly disagree.
>Full self-driving is 90% edge cases. Adaptive cruise control is not a few incremental steps away from full self-driving
This they would completely agree with, as you can see from watching their recent autonomy day presentations. And they have an overwhelming lead in collecting edge case data, so... they're in good shape with that.
I'm a fan of Musk and his projects, but I also understand finance... And Tesla's cash burn is unsustainable... He uses tactics to keep his stock over a certain value in order to protect company debts. I can like what the man is doing in terms of innovation and also see that he's gaming the system in a way that could end in ruin. He's playing a dangerous game and it's he has a lot of shareholder money on the line. He can afford the losses, others can't.
An equity holder by definition signs up for that risk, and all it entails. Musk is playing a dangerous game but anyone that doesn't like it can just get out of the equity. He also has a responsibility to employees, but I'm guessing he has a very high approval rate internally.
You could have said the same thing about Enron. Some people have Tesla stock and don't even know it, because of their mutual funds and pensions.
Those who own so little Tesla stock as to not be aware of it will also not be noticeably impacted by their failure. One could say that's the whole point of diversification.
Portfolio theory largely eliminates specific-company risk by having funds hold many companies.
The problem is the purposeful deceit that causes retail investors to incorrectly assess risk. It's common in investor/public relations so I don't mind that Tesla and Musk do it better than everyone else.
It depends on how the company grows. The bull case is they grow exponentially taking share from incumbents because their technology is better. They sold very approx 40k cars in 2015, 100k in 2017 and talking 400k in 2019 and maybe 1.5m in 2021, 3m in 2023. (https://youtu.be/Y8dEYm8hzLo?t=252)
I remember with Amazon they were growing fast but the conventional analysts were saying but they make zero profit and then after a bit they are the worlds most valuable public company and Bezos the richest person. If Tesla keep up the growth it shouldn't be too hard to get finance.
Of course it remains to be seen if TSLA deliver the growth and self driving etc.
I remember with Amazon they were growing fast but the conventional analysts were saying but they make zero profit and then after a bit they are the worlds most valuable public company and Bezos the richest person. If Tesla keep up the growth it shouldn't be too hard to get finance.
Of course it remains to be seen if TSLA deliver the growth and self driving etc.
I remember a time where people were saying that Facebook would never manage to make money or monetize.
> He can afford the losses, others can't.
Then don´t buy the stock. Period.
I don´t like this idea of trying to protect every fool with 2 bucks. If you´re not qualified to make your own opinion about a stock then you shouldn´t be allowed to invest in the first place. Or at least, you loose your right to complain if you´ve not done your DD properly.
Some stocks are more risky than others; this is one of them. Hence why the returns might be amazing 10 years from now or be completely garbage. Pick a side and make a bet, or don´t. Either way, talking about protecting people from "risk" is a dead end.
Then don´t buy the stock. Period.
I don´t like this idea of trying to protect every fool with 2 bucks. If you´re not qualified to make your own opinion about a stock then you shouldn´t be allowed to invest in the first place. Or at least, you loose your right to complain if you´ve not done your DD properly.
Some stocks are more risky than others; this is one of them. Hence why the returns might be amazing 10 years from now or be completely garbage. Pick a side and make a bet, or don´t. Either way, talking about protecting people from "risk" is a dead end.
>Sure the CEO might be too active on twitter and at times say or do things typically considered inappropriate CEO behavior.
The problem is he's saying or doing things that are typically considered crimes, like securities fraud.
>Musk often makes bold claims and sometimes misses his projected dates.
Or, to use normal language, he's a serial liar.
>Part of what makes a great innovator is being able to fail sometimes. Musk will continue to make bold claims, sometimes he will fail to fulfill it, but many times he will deliver.
Being willing to fail and being dishonest aren't the same thing. It's bizarre how the Musk Cult contorts itself to avoid any possibility of criticizing the Great Leader.
The problem is he's saying or doing things that are typically considered crimes, like securities fraud.
>Musk often makes bold claims and sometimes misses his projected dates.
Or, to use normal language, he's a serial liar.
>Part of what makes a great innovator is being able to fail sometimes. Musk will continue to make bold claims, sometimes he will fail to fulfill it, but many times he will deliver.
Being willing to fail and being dishonest aren't the same thing. It's bizarre how the Musk Cult contorts itself to avoid any possibility of criticizing the Great Leader.
securities fraud is an ill defined, broad category, probably happens more than jay walking.
[deleted]
I'm not a cultist but certainly a fan boy. You try innovating and putting a time box on it.
You need to be optimistic and a little crazy to think you know better.
You need to be optimistic and a little crazy to think you know better.
A projection is always a messy mix of what you know at the time combined with your own emotional temperament and wiring. I think the big debate on Elon is if he's a serial liar or a serial optimist who's often wrong.
At some point, people realize that they are underestimating their projections and that leads them to re-calibrate expectations with stakeholders. In this case, there is no re-calibration, which leads "non-believers" to think he is a serial liar. The answer is likely in-between, he knows he underestimates it and he is aware that if he doesn't do so, there wont be enough pressure on the employees and the money would likely dry up fast.
>The answer is likely in-between, he knows he underestimates it and he is aware that if he doesn't do so, there wont be enough pressure on the employees and the money would likely dry up fast.
But that's the point, isn't it? We have a word for intentionally providing falsehoods to investors to get them to keep giving you more money.
But that's the point, isn't it? We have a word for intentionally providing falsehoods to investors to get them to keep giving you more money.
Mostly, it just that like any CEO, he will always paint the situation in the best light possible. "Semi is coming next year", "Model X deliveries will start in 2015" etc.
The going-private-at-420 thing was reckless, and he's paid the price for that.
But I don't think its accurate to brand him a serial liar. He's just doing what a CEO does.
The going-private-at-420 thing was reckless, and he's paid the price for that.
But I don't think its accurate to brand him a serial liar. He's just doing what a CEO does.
"He's just doing what a CEO does."
I disagree. At a certain point, Musk turned the corner and became delusional. It's beyond simple boasting now.
I disagree. At a certain point, Musk turned the corner and became delusional. It's beyond simple boasting now.
I've noticed the people who call him out for being dishonest are the same people who continually misquote him, claiming he "promised" things that he said were "expected" or "likely."
I'd go the other way: HN users bend over backwards to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, which he then sets on fire.
He just held an event for Tesla investors called "Autonomy Day" at which he went on at great length about how Tesla robotaxis will autonomously ferry passengers around, anywhere they want to go, as a running, regulator-approved, income-producing service, by next year. There is zero chance of this occurring and he knows it.
He just held an event for Tesla investors called "Autonomy Day" at which he went on at great length about how Tesla robotaxis will autonomously ferry passengers around, anywhere they want to go, as a running, regulator-approved, income-producing service, by next year. There is zero chance of this occurring and he knows it.
This is a perfect example. He said it could happen, pending regulatory approval that Tesla does not control, in certain locales, possibly with human supervisory drivers at the beginning, not at, but by (a different word with a different meaning) the end of next year. He had so many qualifiers on his statements, yet you missed every single one of them and came up with a totally different statement you just projected and attributed to him. Did you even listen to the event? This is basic listening comprehension 101.
Edit: ok you got the word "by" right but... everything else... wow. But it's not just you... the crazy thing is how many people do the same thing.
Edit: ok you got the word "by" right but... everything else... wow. But it's not just you... the crazy thing is how many people do the same thing.
Regulations are not the problem here. He is clearly trying to imply something about his technology that, given the reality of self driving cars, can not happen next year even if everything else went positivity for him. The fact that he is using caveats around regulation etc. doesn't get him off the hook. He knows people will report the story as some amazing breakthrough that will help pump stock and sell cars. It's dishonest.
> given the reality of self driving cars, can not happen next year even if everything else went positivity for him.
Why is that? They've now got tens if not hundreds of thousands of cars running their FSD tech all the time comparing it to what the driver actually does and using that to get edge cases to add their every growing dataset to test and train their algorithms. The average American has a commute of 16 miles [0] which gives an estimate 13173 miles driven per car by the end of next year. At a low estimate of 10,000 cars, that would give them a subset of driving data for 131,733,333 miles driven. Presumably, they label these interactions with what should have been done and then throw it into a training/test pipeline. The US car fatality rate is just over 1 per 100,000,000 miles driven [1] so they should have a training/test suite multiple times the US car fatality rate and that's not even counting regular crashes. Granted, it won't actually be that large since they don't report back when the car is running fine, but I don't see why it is 100% impossible for them to get their FSD tech to human quality driving in certain conditions (like geofenced and only run during nice weather) at some point next year when they have that much data to work with.
[0]: https://itstillruns.com/far-americans-drive-work-average-744...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...
Why is that? They've now got tens if not hundreds of thousands of cars running their FSD tech all the time comparing it to what the driver actually does and using that to get edge cases to add their every growing dataset to test and train their algorithms. The average American has a commute of 16 miles [0] which gives an estimate 13173 miles driven per car by the end of next year. At a low estimate of 10,000 cars, that would give them a subset of driving data for 131,733,333 miles driven. Presumably, they label these interactions with what should have been done and then throw it into a training/test pipeline. The US car fatality rate is just over 1 per 100,000,000 miles driven [1] so they should have a training/test suite multiple times the US car fatality rate and that's not even counting regular crashes. Granted, it won't actually be that large since they don't report back when the car is running fine, but I don't see why it is 100% impossible for them to get their FSD tech to human quality driving in certain conditions (like geofenced and only run during nice weather) at some point next year when they have that much data to work with.
[0]: https://itstillruns.com/far-americans-drive-work-average-744...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...
There's a lot more problems involved than just data collection. The algorithms do not exist to safely and reliably solve these problems even with all the data in the world. Simply put Tesla is declaring it can do something with a restricted set of sensors and compute that the current state of the art in research doesn't support. Even Waymo who have no real production restrictions and can spend >$100k in equipment per car and have a lot more compute is not claiming anything like this will be feasible in the next year. He is claiming cheaper, faster and better than anyone else.
The problems just get harder and harder as you move from a nice controlled environment like a freeway and even there Tesla has shown there are many issues with the system where a driver needs to pay full attention for it to be safe.
From first hand experience with these problems and their complexity I fully expect a slightly better version of autopilot to be delivered and Musk to declare success despite it not being anywhere close to an autonomous fleet of Tesla robo-taxis and justify the difference with the caveats he quietly snuck in that he knew wouldn't make headlines.
That might be enough for his customers and investors so from a business sense it might pay off.
The problems just get harder and harder as you move from a nice controlled environment like a freeway and even there Tesla has shown there are many issues with the system where a driver needs to pay full attention for it to be safe.
From first hand experience with these problems and their complexity I fully expect a slightly better version of autopilot to be delivered and Musk to declare success despite it not being anywhere close to an autonomous fleet of Tesla robo-taxis and justify the difference with the caveats he quietly snuck in that he knew wouldn't make headlines.
That might be enough for his customers and investors so from a business sense it might pay off.
Can you give some examples of those problems because you are coming off as very hand-wavy about it?
Simple case that Waymo etc still struggle with is making a left turn through an intersection or an unprotected left. Even something as common and predictable as crossing oncoming traffic that humans do every day is still causes disengaments for these cars. Cruise has a team just focused on issues at intersections. Throw in some pedestrians and this is very hard. Humans can intuit a lot from a pedestrians behavior that these cars just cannot handle. Is someone standing by the corner or about to walk into the street? People do a lot of weird unpredictable things in downtown areas. Tesla has done ok with the easiest part of driving, freeways, with the support of an attentive human but three are still many reported problems. Moving on to complex environments with multiple moving actors at such high reliability that it is a hands free production-grade system in 1-2 years is not likley, but good luck to them.
Isn't that the exact type problem that massively benefits from having tons of real world data because they will have examples to train their neural nets for practically every possibility?
Not really. Neural nets are good at detection and classification problems for objects in the environment but they are not a panacea. Assuming a neural net is good enough to detect everything a car will see (for pedestrians this isn't the case) path planning while predicting behavior of other actors is still a very difficult unsolved problem.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not cultist. I agree w/ you that what is going on with the SEC seems reckless, and I don't like it. There are a number of things Musk has done that I definitely don't agree with. (However, I wouldn't call him a serial liar. He may exaggerate or stretch claims as many CEOs do.)
That doesn't change the fact that he's produced a great car and seriously innovated in many areas.
I am rooting for them to succeed because I think what they are doing is important and good for humanity. I am hoping Musk does the right thing, and doesn't get in further trouble with the SEC, etc. And I am hoping that the company is able to survive the tumult of the markets -- that is, the costs associated with electric cars and the supply/demand of the market. Sometimes the best technology doesn't win. It happens often. It would be a huge loss if it didn't work out.
That doesn't change the fact that he's produced a great car and seriously innovated in many areas.
I am rooting for them to succeed because I think what they are doing is important and good for humanity. I am hoping Musk does the right thing, and doesn't get in further trouble with the SEC, etc. And I am hoping that the company is able to survive the tumult of the markets -- that is, the costs associated with electric cars and the supply/demand of the market. Sometimes the best technology doesn't win. It happens often. It would be a huge loss if it didn't work out.
Here's my take on Tesla. It's an 18 year old company that has never been profitable on an annual basis. It's had 4 profitable quarters out of 72 tries.
It has over $9 billion in debt. The future is bleak with these financials.
Musk has accomplished a lot, absolutely. But as a thriving business, it's a failure.
And lately, Musk's ego has really shown, and not in a good way.
It has over $9 billion in debt. The future is bleak with these financials.
Musk has accomplished a lot, absolutely. But as a thriving business, it's a failure.
And lately, Musk's ego has really shown, and not in a good way.
> What he's doing is nothing short of amazing. He's doing things people keep saying can't be done. Re-usable rockets that land? Electric cars? Cars that drive themselves? I'm willing to tolerate a little shenanigans in exchange for this kind of innovation.
Respectfully, I disagree. True, he has I think caused the spaceflight industry to think about re-usability again in a meaningful way. And arguably he has also generated a lot of hype for the battery electric car industry.
Having said that, his accomplishments often tend to be inflated by his followers. Tesla ultimately failed to deliver a $35k mass market affordable vehicle. Even Model 3, is out of reach for most people in U.S when the median household annual income is only $56k. At ~$40k, Model 3 essentially remains a luxury vehicle for most. Whereas the competition is quickly catching up. Arguably the Chinese electric vehicle market is now the global leader in electric vehicle market.
SpaceX still has yet to do a crewed launch to LEO. Rocket re-usability is great, but what we really need is a man rated launch vehicle. With the recent DM-2 anomaly, SpaceX won't be launching any people to orbit for at least a year.
Also, whilst propulsive landing looks very cool, it's been done before. SpaceX wasn't the first to do it successfully. Electric cars have been decades. Autonomous driving has also been conceptualized a long time ago, and hell, Tesla isn't even close to the leader in autonomous driving right now in terms of technology.
Respectfully, I disagree. True, he has I think caused the spaceflight industry to think about re-usability again in a meaningful way. And arguably he has also generated a lot of hype for the battery electric car industry.
Having said that, his accomplishments often tend to be inflated by his followers. Tesla ultimately failed to deliver a $35k mass market affordable vehicle. Even Model 3, is out of reach for most people in U.S when the median household annual income is only $56k. At ~$40k, Model 3 essentially remains a luxury vehicle for most. Whereas the competition is quickly catching up. Arguably the Chinese electric vehicle market is now the global leader in electric vehicle market.
SpaceX still has yet to do a crewed launch to LEO. Rocket re-usability is great, but what we really need is a man rated launch vehicle. With the recent DM-2 anomaly, SpaceX won't be launching any people to orbit for at least a year.
Also, whilst propulsive landing looks very cool, it's been done before. SpaceX wasn't the first to do it successfully. Electric cars have been decades. Autonomous driving has also been conceptualized a long time ago, and hell, Tesla isn't even close to the leader in autonomous driving right now in terms of technology.
Your biggest point for me is Tesla's failure to deliver an affordable electric car. I can buy a brand new Corolla for significantly less than 20k CAD, while realistically I won't get a model 3 for less than 50k CAD, except maybe in Quebec where big incentives are still in action (not for long).
I don't care that I get a better car for my money! When Tesla is saying that they have the best selling car in its class, you see the Mercedes C-class and the BMW 3-series in the chart. How can they seriously call it a mass-market affordable car when these are the cars that they are competing against?
I don't care that I get a better car for my money! When Tesla is saying that they have the best selling car in its class, you see the Mercedes C-class and the BMW 3-series in the chart. How can they seriously call it a mass-market affordable car when these are the cars that they are competing against?
SpaceX hasn't just caused the spaceflight industry to "think about re-usability". They are utterly crushing all competition in terms of price and launch cadence.
And while other companies are trying to play catch-up with them, they're testing their Raptor engine for a new rocket that will be dramatically larger than Falcon 9 but with a similar launch cost.
Name anyone who can do propulsive landing the way SpaceX does. They land their rockets on floating platforms in the ocean with amazing precision. Nobody else is remotely close to that kind of engineering feat.
And while other companies are trying to play catch-up with them, they're testing their Raptor engine for a new rocket that will be dramatically larger than Falcon 9 but with a similar launch cost.
Name anyone who can do propulsive landing the way SpaceX does. They land their rockets on floating platforms in the ocean with amazing precision. Nobody else is remotely close to that kind of engineering feat.
You are making some really silly assumptions that are common amongst laymen in spaceflight.
> They are utterly crushing all competition in terms of price and launch cadence.
Launch market is not the entirety of the spaceflight industry.
"The share of launch vehicles is as small as 4 percent of the overall market of space services." - Dmitry Rogozin
And Blue Origin can do propulsive landing like SpaceX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNRs2gMyLLk
Propulsive landing has been around for a while: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39cjZTCay24
Whilst it seems (and is!) very cool to see the boosters land, it seems to impress the laymen a lot more than the true technical worth of the feat. Here's an addon to the Orbiter spaceflight simulator with recoverable falcon 9 stages: https://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=7091
More or less requires college level kinematics at the core of the control/guidance.
Also with the recent DM-2 anomaly, SpaceX is playing catch up with Blue Origin, not the other way round.
> They are utterly crushing all competition in terms of price and launch cadence.
Launch market is not the entirety of the spaceflight industry.
"The share of launch vehicles is as small as 4 percent of the overall market of space services." - Dmitry Rogozin
And Blue Origin can do propulsive landing like SpaceX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNRs2gMyLLk
Propulsive landing has been around for a while: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39cjZTCay24
Whilst it seems (and is!) very cool to see the boosters land, it seems to impress the laymen a lot more than the true technical worth of the feat. Here's an addon to the Orbiter spaceflight simulator with recoverable falcon 9 stages: https://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=7091
More or less requires college level kinematics at the core of the control/guidance.
Also with the recent DM-2 anomaly, SpaceX is playing catch up with Blue Origin, not the other way round.
>Also with the recent DM-2 anomaly, SpaceX is playing catch up with Blue Origin, not the other way round.
Do you mean DM-1? Anyway, I don't see how SpaceX is playing catch up to BO when BO hasn't even built an orbital rocket or man-rated capsule yet...
Do you mean DM-1? Anyway, I don't see how SpaceX is playing catch up to BO when BO hasn't even built an orbital rocket or man-rated capsule yet...
You can buy a model 3 today for $35k US, and the car is better than what was promised. The sedan that Tesla released in 2012 has more range than any electric car produced by any competitor since then.
You are right that people overstate their accomplishments, but excessively downplaying them is actually the worse behavior.
You are right that people overstate their accomplishments, but excessively downplaying them is actually the worse behavior.
If you know the secret handshake. You need to call and spend couple hours on the phone with Tesla trying to upsell you to a more expensive model. Then, perhaps, if you are lucky, you will manage to order it. They don't even show it on their website.
Refer to the company website, cheapest configuration available is $39,500 USD. Not sure what you're on about.
Average new car price in the US is $37K. A $40K vehicle isn't a luxury car in any meaningful way.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/average-car-prices-more-1-110...
These price levels do seem high relative to median income and many buyers are overextending themselves. But the market is what it is.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/average-car-prices-more-1-110...
These price levels do seem high relative to median income and many buyers are overextending themselves. But the market is what it is.
It seems completely crazy.
I spent $18k on what I still regard as a really nice car a couple years back, and it felt like a completely over the top extravagance.
I can't imagine what would compel me to spend 37k on a car...
I spent $18k on what I still regard as a really nice car a couple years back, and it felt like a completely over the top extravagance.
I can't imagine what would compel me to spend 37k on a car...
> A lot of people want to trash Musk and Tesla
A lot of people also seem to forget that it is in the very nature of outrageous statements to be challenged and criticized.
Musk was right with his predictions a few times, but the same could be said about his challengers.
A lot of people also seem to forget that it is in the very nature of outrageous statements to be challenged and criticized.
Musk was right with his predictions a few times, but the same could be said about his challengers.
Literally no one on this earth has a Falcon Heavy except Elon Musk. His few right times are way bigger than your standard innovator BS like food delivery.
[deleted]
>It looks like the base model 3 I can order is about $39k
You can also order the $35k model which is distinct from the $39k model. Yes, it takes a phone call, but it is available.
You can also order the $35k model which is distinct from the $39k model. Yes, it takes a phone call, but it is available.
What exactly is your point?
You do understand that they have made it tougher to buy 35k$ model 3 only because they can't make profit off it?
According to Tesla they have the cheapest batteries, the best AI chips, the most automated factories, the most advanced self driving technology, have a driverless taxi coming soon etc. But after all these advantages they don't sell these technologies individually. They only sell cars with shitty interior and paint, panel, and quality problems at luxury prices. And even though they have a fanatic fanbase, and a lot of positive PR, they still make a loss on luxury priced shitty cars.
You do understand that they have made it tougher to buy 35k$ model 3 only because they can't make profit off it?
According to Tesla they have the cheapest batteries, the best AI chips, the most automated factories, the most advanced self driving technology, have a driverless taxi coming soon etc. But after all these advantages they don't sell these technologies individually. They only sell cars with shitty interior and paint, panel, and quality problems at luxury prices. And even though they have a fanatic fanbase, and a lot of positive PR, they still make a loss on luxury priced shitty cars.
He said $39k was the lowest.
My point was that $35k is the lowest.
My point was that $35k is the lowest.
Full complete autonomy is very far off. Don’t let the salesmen fool you. The problem is that of an infinitely long tail — no one is close.
The problem is that of an infinitely long tail — no one is close.
The long tail can't be truly infinite. It is some very large quantity driven by the combination of many, many factors. Just that amount of analysis gives us some actionable insight.
It would be very easy to miss out on some of the factors, and be off by many orders of magnitude in either direction. The actionable insight, is that the analysis needs to be pinned down and made concrete. You'd better be damned right about it, or you're very likely going to be very, very wrong.
With regards to Elon Musk, the question is, how good do you think the analysis is. They got it spot on with rockets at SpaceX. They got batteries and motors in EVs right at Tesla. What about Tesla scaling production, automation, and AI? I'm less sure about that last one.
The long tail can't be truly infinite. It is some very large quantity driven by the combination of many, many factors. Just that amount of analysis gives us some actionable insight.
It would be very easy to miss out on some of the factors, and be off by many orders of magnitude in either direction. The actionable insight, is that the analysis needs to be pinned down and made concrete. You'd better be damned right about it, or you're very likely going to be very, very wrong.
With regards to Elon Musk, the question is, how good do you think the analysis is. They got it spot on with rockets at SpaceX. They got batteries and motors in EVs right at Tesla. What about Tesla scaling production, automation, and AI? I'm less sure about that last one.
The long tail is exactly where Tesla's strength is btw.
Things that are improving exponentially seem far off when you look at them with intuitions developed on linear growth. Autonomy may be far off... or it may be closer than we think.
I don't trust my own judgement to know the answer, but I suspect the people at Tesla have a better handle on it than you or I.
I'm sure they see things in their long tail data that we would probably never think of. Even top experts at other self driving tech companies don't know all of what Tesla is seeing in its long tail data... so I think Tesla has a few more clues than the rest of us.
Things that are improving exponentially seem far off when you look at them with intuitions developed on linear growth. Autonomy may be far off... or it may be closer than we think.
I don't trust my own judgement to know the answer, but I suspect the people at Tesla have a better handle on it than you or I.
I'm sure they see things in their long tail data that we would probably never think of. Even top experts at other self driving tech companies don't know all of what Tesla is seeing in its long tail data... so I think Tesla has a few more clues than the rest of us.
His companies are exciting and I think we're all rooting for him to succeed.
I'm glad he's doing it privately though. If the government was spending the same amount of money (yeah, yeah, if the government was really doing it it would be 10x more expensive, slower, never gonna happen, etc.) and producing the same results I'm sure they would have pulled the plug already.
These companies could dramatically change the world and I'm glad he has the persistence and commitment to keep doubling down on these moonshots (or Mars shots).
I'm glad he's doing it privately though. If the government was spending the same amount of money (yeah, yeah, if the government was really doing it it would be 10x more expensive, slower, never gonna happen, etc.) and producing the same results I'm sure they would have pulled the plug already.
These companies could dramatically change the world and I'm glad he has the persistence and commitment to keep doubling down on these moonshots (or Mars shots).
[deleted]
It's really funny how all of the "failures" demonstrate more innovation successes than the impacted industries have had for decades. It's also apparent from the swarms of histrionic, doomsaying sponsored content out there (i.e. most contemporary "journalism", sadly) that the established companies have been very disrupted and are choosing to wage a media war. The fact that so many resources have been directed to making a furor over every Tesla crash (as if people don't literally die every day in fiery car crashes, often due to faults that necessitate recalls when the settlements get too expensive) and missed deadline does not necessarily mean that the other car makers won't also expend resources to catch up in actual material competition, but the sheer scope of it indicates that strategically they are in a panic. If you think you can directly compete with someone, you do so. If you cannot, then sow FUD.
I like what he has done for electric cars and without him we wouldn't have the shift towards them that is happening today. He made them cool and they are an important step forward which I respect.
What he has been saying about autonomy defies what anyone who works in the area knows about the state of the technology and is genuinely dangerous. People have died because he oversold autopilot.
https://gizmodo.com/tesla-autopilot-malfunction-caused-crash...
I wish he would just focus on building and selling great electric cars instead of pushing truth in areas where people's live are at stake.
What he has been saying about autonomy defies what anyone who works in the area knows about the state of the technology and is genuinely dangerous. People have died because he oversold autopilot.
https://gizmodo.com/tesla-autopilot-malfunction-caused-crash...
I wish he would just focus on building and selling great electric cars instead of pushing truth in areas where people's live are at stake.
The guy in that story had had autopilot malfunction several times on the same intersection so it seems unlikely he wasn't paying attention just because Musk oversold autopilot.
> The guy in that story had had autopilot malfunction several times on the same intersection
My point stands
My point stands
> They demoed true autonomy, and I believe it's actually getting quite close.
No. No no no.
Elon Musk has done some amazing things, but I am adamant his stance on Autopilot has led to unnecessary deaths and when anyone takes his side that they are actually close to true autonomy, you are undermining how dangerous it is to rely on Autopilot as anything other than advanced cruise control. As more time goes on, we find out more evidence about how Autopilot has been misrepresented, and while the NHTSA study being flawed cannot currently be directly tied to Tesla I cannot imagine that a governing body could be so incompetent without a corrupting influence from Tesla [1]. Elon Musk himself talks about how Autopilot requires driver attention when asked by critics, however when demonstrating the technology himself on national television he has his hands off the wheel and regularly is not watching the road [2]. He goes to great lengths to hide any negative data against Autopilot, as already referenced in [1] where it took 2 years to overcome the legal blockade just to get the data provided in a publicly released study, as well as getting Twitter to suspend someone's account for providing this spreadsheet of problems (including deaths) with Autopilot [3]. I absolutely believe an investigation, at the bare minimum for false advertising and personally I believe negligent homicide, should be brought against him because of it (I am not saying he is guilty, but there is certainly a need to find out).
How many people may have died because Elizabeth Holmes misrepresented (and in that case, quite obviously committed fraud) the capability of their product? I am not saying Musk and Holmes are the same, but people would not stop talking about how amazing she was until they found out she was just lying about everything.
Elon Musk is absolutely wrong about Autopilot. When lives are at risk, it is not okay to suspend disbelief just because of the hype.
[1] https://www.thedrive.com/tech/26455/nhtsas-flawed-autopilot-...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimmcpherson/2018/12/11/in-his-...
[3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ESnyJ4b7m96OCjs3GSQ6...
No. No no no.
Elon Musk has done some amazing things, but I am adamant his stance on Autopilot has led to unnecessary deaths and when anyone takes his side that they are actually close to true autonomy, you are undermining how dangerous it is to rely on Autopilot as anything other than advanced cruise control. As more time goes on, we find out more evidence about how Autopilot has been misrepresented, and while the NHTSA study being flawed cannot currently be directly tied to Tesla I cannot imagine that a governing body could be so incompetent without a corrupting influence from Tesla [1]. Elon Musk himself talks about how Autopilot requires driver attention when asked by critics, however when demonstrating the technology himself on national television he has his hands off the wheel and regularly is not watching the road [2]. He goes to great lengths to hide any negative data against Autopilot, as already referenced in [1] where it took 2 years to overcome the legal blockade just to get the data provided in a publicly released study, as well as getting Twitter to suspend someone's account for providing this spreadsheet of problems (including deaths) with Autopilot [3]. I absolutely believe an investigation, at the bare minimum for false advertising and personally I believe negligent homicide, should be brought against him because of it (I am not saying he is guilty, but there is certainly a need to find out).
How many people may have died because Elizabeth Holmes misrepresented (and in that case, quite obviously committed fraud) the capability of their product? I am not saying Musk and Holmes are the same, but people would not stop talking about how amazing she was until they found out she was just lying about everything.
Elon Musk is absolutely wrong about Autopilot. When lives are at risk, it is not okay to suspend disbelief just because of the hype.
[1] https://www.thedrive.com/tech/26455/nhtsas-flawed-autopilot-...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimmcpherson/2018/12/11/in-his-...
[3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ESnyJ4b7m96OCjs3GSQ6...
Tesla released their accident statistics, and their cars have a significantly lower rate of accidents when Autopilot is engaged.
To me, that seems to indicate Autopilot is a net safety gain, despite not being perfect.
To me, that seems to indicate Autopilot is a net safety gain, despite not being perfect.
Your response is not unreasonable, but rather than explain why their latest report is almost certainly misleading (it's complicated, and similar to the previous NHTSA study, data is missing so while I assume Tesla is misrepresenting the data as they have always done I cannot prove it today), I'll just say there is indisputable evidence that Teslas get into more fatal accidents than other cars.
https://medium.com/@MidwesternHedgi/teslas-driver-fatality-r...
https://medium.com/@MidwesternHedgi/teslas-driver-fatality-r...
> while I assume Tesla is misrepresenting the data as they have always done I cannot prove it today
Here's one way. Highway driving is already significantly safer per mile than local roads,
> The grim statistics provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also show that drivers on rural roads die at a rate 2.5 times higher per mile traveled than on urban highways. Urban drivers travel twice as many miles but suffer close to half the fatal accidents. [1]
That explains away Musk's "AP is twice as safe" comment. It's only twice as safe because people generally only activate it on the highway, which is already 2.5 times safer!
[1] https://www.npr.org/2009/11/29/120716625/the-deadliest-roads...
Here's one way. Highway driving is already significantly safer per mile than local roads,
> The grim statistics provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also show that drivers on rural roads die at a rate 2.5 times higher per mile traveled than on urban highways. Urban drivers travel twice as many miles but suffer close to half the fatal accidents. [1]
That explains away Musk's "AP is twice as safe" comment. It's only twice as safe because people generally only activate it on the highway, which is already 2.5 times safer!
[1] https://www.npr.org/2009/11/29/120716625/the-deadliest-roads...
>Tesla released their accident statistics, and their cars have a significantly lower rate of accidents when Autopilot is engaged.
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether people have died due to false claims about the ability of Tesla's autopilot. The cars may be safer, but if 1 person died or 100 people died because Musk/Tesla lied about autopilot that is a problem. It doesn't matter how many other accidents their cars have or have not been in.
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether people have died due to false claims about the ability of Tesla's autopilot. The cars may be safer, but if 1 person died or 100 people died because Musk/Tesla lied about autopilot that is a problem. It doesn't matter how many other accidents their cars have or have not been in.
Probably has more to do with the fact that people preferentially engage Autopilot when road conditions are fair to good.
> - Sure the CEO might be too active on twitter and at times say or do things typically considered inappropriate CEO behavior.
> - Musk often makes bold claims and sometimes misses his projected dates.
This strikes me as some serious euphemising for someone who lied about his company having a buy out offer and randomly accused a hero of terrible tragedy of being a pedophile. We should not excuse the complete lack of maturity.
> - Musk often makes bold claims and sometimes misses his projected dates.
This strikes me as some serious euphemising for someone who lied about his company having a buy out offer and randomly accused a hero of terrible tragedy of being a pedophile. We should not excuse the complete lack of maturity.
The base model listed on the website is indeed $39, but when you go to a store or call Tesla you suposedly can downgrade it to the base model that does cost $35k - the model on the website includes autopilot and a larger range than the $35k model.
"and always misses his projected dates."
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
In 2016 when you could pre-order a model 3, Musk said first deliveries of model 3 would begin in late 2017. About 2,500 to 3,000 model 3 had been delivered by the end of 2017, and over 200,000 have been delivered to date.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/31/11335272/tesla-model-3-an...
https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/31/11335272/tesla-model-3-an...
In 2016 when you could pre-order a Model 3, Elon Musk promised a $35,000 car with a $7500 tax credit.
The tax-credit is gone, never to return... and the $35,000 car is no where to be found.
> 200,000 have been delivered to date.
Elon Musk promised 20,000 Model 3 Cars created / month in 2017. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/881757617416056832
In Q1 2019, the company created 50,900 Model 3 over three months, or 17000 Cars/month on the average.
This 20,000 / month number is important, it is estimated that 20k/month is roughly the profitability point for Tesla. Elon Musk is over a year late, the profits haven't come in yet, and they can't sustainably create cars at the promised rate.
-----------
I understand your optimism here. But this $1.5 Billion raise is more debt to a company that never has seen a yearly profit. It HAS to make money to survive, and Elon Musk has been wrong on every financial metric worth a damn.
If Tesla doesn't make a profit, it will run out of money, eventually. It can't just keep borrowing $1.5 Billion in loans every couple of years when they are late on these kinds of targets.
The tax-credit is gone, never to return... and the $35,000 car is no where to be found.
> 200,000 have been delivered to date.
Elon Musk promised 20,000 Model 3 Cars created / month in 2017. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/881757617416056832
In Q1 2019, the company created 50,900 Model 3 over three months, or 17000 Cars/month on the average.
This 20,000 / month number is important, it is estimated that 20k/month is roughly the profitability point for Tesla. Elon Musk is over a year late, the profits haven't come in yet, and they can't sustainably create cars at the promised rate.
-----------
I understand your optimism here. But this $1.5 Billion raise is more debt to a company that never has seen a yearly profit. It HAS to make money to survive, and Elon Musk has been wrong on every financial metric worth a damn.
If Tesla doesn't make a profit, it will run out of money, eventually. It can't just keep borrowing $1.5 Billion in loans every couple of years when they are late on these kinds of targets.
> The tax-credit is gone, never to return... and the $35,000 car is no where to be found.
Where I live (CA), both Fed & CA tax credits are still valid. Go to tesla.com and configure your M3. I just did and it comes out as $33,250 (after tax credits) + $1,200 dest/doc fee = $34,450.
The above doesn't include the debatable "gas savings".
Where I live (CA), both Fed & CA tax credits are still valid. Go to tesla.com and configure your M3. I just did and it comes out as $33,250 (after tax credits) + $1,200 dest/doc fee = $34,450.
The above doesn't include the debatable "gas savings".
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/02/28/tesla-fi...
Just a few weeks ago, Elon Musk claimed $35,000 cars will be available without any credits what so ever. This isn't some long-standing promise that slipped off the schedule, this is something Elon Musk has REPEATEDLY claimed to come, but has failed to deliver.
Its a message he's been hammering since 2016: $35,000, before tax credits. The idea was for the M3 to compete against low $20,000 ICE cars.
I recognize that the goalposts have shifted. Maybe it wasn't possible. But maybe... just maybe... Elon Musk shouldn't have set $35,000 before he knew if it were possible to do. He's done incalculable damage to the brand, and is no longer able to raise prices to make the company profitable.
If Tesla could raise prices to $40,000 base or even $45,000 base, they probably would be in a far better financial situation than where they are right now. They can't do that because of the multiple years of price anchoring at $35k.
Just a few weeks ago, Elon Musk claimed $35,000 cars will be available without any credits what so ever. This isn't some long-standing promise that slipped off the schedule, this is something Elon Musk has REPEATEDLY claimed to come, but has failed to deliver.
Its a message he's been hammering since 2016: $35,000, before tax credits. The idea was for the M3 to compete against low $20,000 ICE cars.
I recognize that the goalposts have shifted. Maybe it wasn't possible. But maybe... just maybe... Elon Musk shouldn't have set $35,000 before he knew if it were possible to do. He's done incalculable damage to the brand, and is no longer able to raise prices to make the company profitable.
If Tesla could raise prices to $40,000 base or even $45,000 base, they probably would be in a far better financial situation than where they are right now. They can't do that because of the multiple years of price anchoring at $35k.
I'm pretty sure there is a $35k model before tax credits, at least there was for a bit on the website. My understanding is this is a "special order" item now, as in, you have to call them to get it, but still available, just not on the website.
https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/12/tesla-35k-model-3-pulled...
https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/12/tesla-35k-model-3-pulled...
Well, the general implication was that a $35k Model3 would be profitable for the company.
My issue is mostly with the financial situation of the company. Its clear that the $35k M3 has been relegated as a "loss leader", and there's no work on actually making the car profitable at that price.
Again, perhaps its impossible to make a M3 profitable at $35k, and I would rather have the company make money than lose money. Its just that the years of $35k price anchoring really weakens Tesla's ability to set prices from here on out.
My issue is mostly with the financial situation of the company. Its clear that the $35k M3 has been relegated as a "loss leader", and there's no work on actually making the car profitable at that price.
Again, perhaps its impossible to make a M3 profitable at $35k, and I would rather have the company make money than lose money. Its just that the years of $35k price anchoring really weakens Tesla's ability to set prices from here on out.
> My issue is mostly with the financial situation of the company. Its clear that the $35k M3 has been relegated as a "loss leader", and there's no work on actually making the car profitable at that price.
Doesn't it seem obvious that both processes and supply costs tend to improve over time? (this isn't Tesla specific actually)
A couple of simple examples:
- battery costs (they have been on a downwards trend for a while, and expected to keep falling)
- production/assembly line costs: initial hiccups are expected and costly, and as you fix them and learn to optimize your production, your costs also decrease. The rejection rate starts dropping, and rework costs also start dropping.
This is true of pretty much any production: you get better at it as you go, and generally your supply costs also decrease. As you get out of the ramp-up "hell" you start producing a lot more, which starts giving you economies of scale.
Lastly, innovation also offers improvements that can give you another knob. For example, the motors in the M3 are now being ported to Model S to improve the range. This gives an option to either offer a higher range, or keep the range the same but put in a smaller battery (where the savings are going to be). I expect incremental improvements in M3 to have a similar type of effect.
I consider all that "work". I imagine it will lower the production cost, given the same spec. That translates to profit, if the price point is kept the same.
Doesn't it seem obvious that both processes and supply costs tend to improve over time? (this isn't Tesla specific actually)
A couple of simple examples:
- battery costs (they have been on a downwards trend for a while, and expected to keep falling)
- production/assembly line costs: initial hiccups are expected and costly, and as you fix them and learn to optimize your production, your costs also decrease. The rejection rate starts dropping, and rework costs also start dropping.
This is true of pretty much any production: you get better at it as you go, and generally your supply costs also decrease. As you get out of the ramp-up "hell" you start producing a lot more, which starts giving you economies of scale.
Lastly, innovation also offers improvements that can give you another knob. For example, the motors in the M3 are now being ported to Model S to improve the range. This gives an option to either offer a higher range, or keep the range the same but put in a smaller battery (where the savings are going to be). I expect incremental improvements in M3 to have a similar type of effect.
I consider all that "work". I imagine it will lower the production cost, given the same spec. That translates to profit, if the price point is kept the same.
The Model 3 has positive gross margins. Its an issue of volume, not an issue of margins.
There's a lot of things they did wrong to get to this point: changing the design of the M3 too much and too often, making it difficult to stock parts for repairs and all that... but ultimately, the vehicle is actually positive margin.
That doesn't make the company profitable. They spend $700 Million / quarter on their Supercharger network, their sales channels, salaries for employees, and other such "static costs". They need to get to the 5000 cars / week (or higher) point to become profitable.
That's all it come down to. They've got a positive gross margin car, its an issue of selling more of them. If there's a ton of customers waiting for a cheaper vehicle, well that was an error in Musk's marketing. Too many people are holding out waiting for a cheaper car. IMO anyway.
At ~$40,000, they make $8k per vehicle or so. If they raised average prices to $50,000 or so (assuming a base price of ~$45k), they'd only need to sell 1/2 as many vehicles to make a profit.
There's a lot of things they did wrong to get to this point: changing the design of the M3 too much and too often, making it difficult to stock parts for repairs and all that... but ultimately, the vehicle is actually positive margin.
That doesn't make the company profitable. They spend $700 Million / quarter on their Supercharger network, their sales channels, salaries for employees, and other such "static costs". They need to get to the 5000 cars / week (or higher) point to become profitable.
That's all it come down to. They've got a positive gross margin car, its an issue of selling more of them. If there's a ton of customers waiting for a cheaper vehicle, well that was an error in Musk's marketing. Too many people are holding out waiting for a cheaper car. IMO anyway.
At ~$40,000, they make $8k per vehicle or so. If they raised average prices to $50,000 or so (assuming a base price of ~$45k), they'd only need to sell 1/2 as many vehicles to make a profit.
I've read about battery cost improvements around 18% per year. If you consider that the battery is somewhere between 30% and 50% of the cost of the car, they should be able to reduce the price of the car by thousands of dollar a year.
Edit: This 2017 PDF illustrates this well. While the 18% looks accurate for 2010 thought 2016 they are projecting that rate slowing down. Page 8 has a good chart illustrating how EV cars will soon be cheaper then ICE cars.
https://data.bloomberglp.com/bnef/sites/14/2017/07/BNEF-Lith...
Edit: This 2017 PDF illustrates this well. While the 18% looks accurate for 2010 thought 2016 they are projecting that rate slowing down. Page 8 has a good chart illustrating how EV cars will soon be cheaper then ICE cars.
https://data.bloomberglp.com/bnef/sites/14/2017/07/BNEF-Lith...
[deleted]
> Given 1 or 2 more years of incremental improvements, your tesla would be capable of driving you most places I would think.
Except for anywhere in snow or rain.
Except for anywhere in snow or rain.
The improvements in autopilot in my friends model 3 is truly astonishing to me versus the first gen auto-pilot in the model s. If the incremental improvements over the last 2 years are any indication of what's possible over the next 2 years, we are going to see amazing things. It may not go everywhere in every condition, but so what? Isn't it still totally mind blowing how far it's already come?
>It may not go everywhere in every condition, but so what?
The "so what" is that it isn't really an automomous vehicle of it can't navigate the roads for a solid 50 % of the year in a good chunk of North America.
>Isn't it still totally mind blowing how far it's already come?
Not really, to be honest.
The "so what" is that it isn't really an automomous vehicle of it can't navigate the roads for a solid 50 % of the year in a good chunk of North America.
>Isn't it still totally mind blowing how far it's already come?
Not really, to be honest.
i don't know why you got downvoted. The engineer in charge at the latest autopilot meeting explicitely mentionned snow as not beeing specifically adressed yet.
He did also mentioned that the autopilot performed quite well under snow right now, but that was indeed very surprising to hear that snow condition wasn't been specifically addressed yet, and yet they talk about robotaxi for next year.
[deleted]
was indeed very surprising to hear that snow condition wasn't been specifically addressed yet, and yet they talk about robotaxi for next year.
I've never yet seen a city with a taxi service which is reliable in heavy snow - things usually fall completely apart. (Not to mention buses, trains, planes, etc...)
Even if the robotaxis are shown to not be able to operate in snow, it's not necessarily an indictment of the whole robotaxi concept. If they can work in snow-free conditions, it's still covering the majority of time, in the majority of potential markets.
I've never yet seen a city with a taxi service which is reliable in heavy snow - things usually fall completely apart. (Not to mention buses, trains, planes, etc...)
Even if the robotaxis are shown to not be able to operate in snow, it's not necessarily an indictment of the whole robotaxi concept. If they can work in snow-free conditions, it's still covering the majority of time, in the majority of potential markets.
There's literally snow on the ground for the majority of the year in Edmonton. There's snow on the ground right now.
Hah, as I wrote my previous comment, inserting a caveat about Canada ran through my mind :)
My point still stands for most of the rest of the world, though.
My point still stands for most of the rest of the world, though.
They probably got downvoted for wrongly assuming the technology doesn't deal with rain or snow, and then presenting that assumption as fact. It works great in rain. Snow, I have less experience with, but it seemed OK during a winter vacation with snow.
With neural nets, a lot of things just get learned. You don't have to specifically address them to get great progress. I'm not saying snow is 100% solved, and yes specifically addressing aspects like snow in the future will help make it even better, but autopilot has worked pretty great so far.
With neural nets, a lot of things just get learned. You don't have to specifically address them to get great progress. I'm not saying snow is 100% solved, and yes specifically addressing aspects like snow in the future will help make it even better, but autopilot has worked pretty great so far.
Driving through snow and rain with the computer vision syste that Tesla uses, requires training its neural networks accordingly, which still has to be done. Driving through snow and rain with a system which requires LIDAR for operations, doesn't work.
This is something that Tesla fans don't seem to understand. LIDAR isn't an either-or proposition for anyone except Tesla. All existing LIDAR-based self-driving systems (Waymo, Uber, etc.) also use computer vision for reading signs and recognizing objects. LIDAR is used as a faster and more accurate way of determining distance and position in 3D space, with the visual data mapped into the 3d space, all in less time then it takes to finish the parallax-based positioning processing required by purely stereovisual systems like Tesla.
If you make the claim that Self driving cannot be done without LIDAR, then you are implying that if the LIDAR cannot provide accurate data due to weather, the car cannot drive autonomously.
Thanks, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. If you need LIDAR, you have a problem in bad weather.
> Re-usable rockets that land? Electric cars? Cars that drive themselves? I'm willing to tolerate a little shenanigans in exchange for this kind of innovation.
The only problem with little shenanigans is that its market manipulation- even if it appears to be legitimately accidental.
The only problem with little shenanigans is that its market manipulation- even if it appears to be legitimately accidental.
Meh, most of it’s just having capital.
Indeed, inert stacks of cash are widely known for being innovative.
Actually yea, the modern sense of innovation exists as an idea to serve capital. See: Joseph Schumpeter. The non-capital bound version is simply invention.
Hmm, I took the parent to be implying that capital is the main ingredient in innovation. It sounds like you are saying something different.
Capital is necessary but not sufficient for innovation.
Capital is necessary but not sufficient for innovation.
> Capital is necessary but not sufficient for innovation.
Yes, this is true. My point was more that innovative products are profitable, not necessarily the novel tool we need. See: smartphones and walled garden app stores. Innovative for sure, but an objectively shittier scenario than one built around the tool people want to use.
I don't see innovation (as in, using market forces to push forward technology) as playing any role in collective problems. The regulated market's popular hope for fighting global emissions with market effects, the carbon tax, will do very little to slow emissions on a global scale. We need to think outside the market to have any optimism.
Yes, this is true. My point was more that innovative products are profitable, not necessarily the novel tool we need. See: smartphones and walled garden app stores. Innovative for sure, but an objectively shittier scenario than one built around the tool people want to use.
I don't see innovation (as in, using market forces to push forward technology) as playing any role in collective problems. The regulated market's popular hope for fighting global emissions with market effects, the carbon tax, will do very little to slow emissions on a global scale. We need to think outside the market to have any optimism.
Interesting take, we definitely would agree on some things. Although, I perhaps would use a broader definition innovation. I wouldn't described it is as purely a market based phenomenon. Open source software is one obvious example of how innovation can occur outside of markets.
[deleted]
No, just for being simultaneously (a) the means of innovation and (b) the goal of innovation.
This!
Thank you for writing such a crisp response covering all the right points.
I feel most people just piss on Musk/Tesla and his daring moves - actually IDK why but I don't care.
What I care about is trying to understand the other party. Where they come from. Why are they doing this. What are the risks involved. And in the long term, where are they headed.
Your post answers all of this.
More power to Elon Musk. We need more bold entrepreneurs like him who aren't afraid to be themselves and take world changing risks.
Thank you for writing such a crisp response covering all the right points.
I feel most people just piss on Musk/Tesla and his daring moves - actually IDK why but I don't care.
What I care about is trying to understand the other party. Where they come from. Why are they doing this. What are the risks involved. And in the long term, where are they headed.
Your post answers all of this.
More power to Elon Musk. We need more bold entrepreneurs like him who aren't afraid to be themselves and take world changing risks.
I was on Jeju Island in South Korea and apparently it's where the South Korean government tests renewable technologies like electric vehicles. Our tour guide had this electric Hyundai that was indistinguishable from the gas-powered version. It was quiet, and that's about it.
I remember thinking that this is the future of electric vehicles. Boring. Reliable. No drama or shenanigans about CEOs doing weed or pissing off regulators or stiffing suppliers or "production hells" or falcon wing doors and touchscreen dashboards or getting rich people to adopt it first and making everybody else wonder if the price will ever come down. Everything just works.
China's already there with electric buses and electric scooters. I think they own those markets now (well-deserved based on their execution BTW).
If you haven't been paying attention to renewable tech in East Asia, you should definitely explore more; I think it would be valuable experience for the rest of the world's big-volume automakers. At least I learned a lot.
I remember thinking that this is the future of electric vehicles. Boring. Reliable. No drama or shenanigans about CEOs doing weed or pissing off regulators or stiffing suppliers or "production hells" or falcon wing doors and touchscreen dashboards or getting rich people to adopt it first and making everybody else wonder if the price will ever come down. Everything just works.
China's already there with electric buses and electric scooters. I think they own those markets now (well-deserved based on their execution BTW).
If you haven't been paying attention to renewable tech in East Asia, you should definitely explore more; I think it would be valuable experience for the rest of the world's big-volume automakers. At least I learned a lot.
The imitators always catch up to the innovators. Eventually. And everyone downplays the innovation, as if it were just part of some natural evolution of things.
But some people know the truth: That it could have easily been another 50 or 100 or 200 years before some OTHER innovator came along to lead the pack along.
The story is timeless.
But some people know the truth: That it could have easily been another 50 or 100 or 200 years before some OTHER innovator came along to lead the pack along.
The story is timeless.
That it could have easily been another 50 or 100 or 200 years before some OTHER innovator came along to lead the pack along
Give the fact that Musk didn't start Tesla I don't really understand this comment. Musk has done a great deal to further electric vehicle adoption, but it's not like it's he's the only person in the industry. It obviously wouldn't have taken another 50 years.
Give the fact that Musk didn't start Tesla I don't really understand this comment. Musk has done a great deal to further electric vehicle adoption, but it's not like it's he's the only person in the industry. It obviously wouldn't have taken another 50 years.
I read the "innovator" in that post as "Tesla" and not "Musk", FWIW. You don't need to buy in to the ridiculous cult of personality to agree that Tesla cars have absolutely pushed the market in new directions.
Especially since Tesla's success is one of the things stemming further EV incentives.
If Tesla didn't exist, I bet traditional motor companies would have asked for more and more incentives worldwide to make EV cars. And then they'd have ramped up production and collected all those sweet tax dollars.
With Tesla about, nobody lobbies for new EV incentives, because it would be helping the 'outsider', and it's fairly apparant they aren't needed.
If Tesla didn't exist, I bet traditional motor companies would have asked for more and more incentives worldwide to make EV cars. And then they'd have ramped up production and collected all those sweet tax dollars.
With Tesla about, nobody lobbies for new EV incentives, because it would be helping the 'outsider', and it's fairly apparant they aren't needed.
The imitators always catch up to the innovators.
Nissan was making (to quote parent) "boring and reliable" electric cars before Musk showed up. I don't know what you're on about with the rest, it's pretty non-sensical.
Nissan was making (to quote parent) "boring and reliable" electric cars before Musk showed up. I don't know what you're on about with the rest, it's pretty non-sensical.
>And everyone downplays the innovation, as if it were just part of some natural evolution of things.
And everyone plays up the Single Great Genius Who Did Everything Himself (including the men themselves) and how they personally boldly innovated everything. N
ever mind the fact that Musk did not start Tesla and is not the person actually designing or implementing its technology. He is the Great and Glorious Musk, so he deserves all of the praise.
That story is indeed timeless.
And everyone plays up the Single Great Genius Who Did Everything Himself (including the men themselves) and how they personally boldly innovated everything. N
ever mind the fact that Musk did not start Tesla and is not the person actually designing or implementing its technology. He is the Great and Glorious Musk, so he deserves all of the praise.
That story is indeed timeless.
You mean like Apple and the iPhone? Or the light-bulb before Edison made them commercially successful?
"Imitating" something in a way that is commercially successful to the point where the technology gains widespread adoption when before it had only niche adoption is innovation in itself.
Tesla is building the early smartphones. Someone else is going to build the iPhone and yet someone else will build the hordes of HTCs and the Samsungs running Android.
"Imitating" something in a way that is commercially successful to the point where the technology gains widespread adoption when before it had only niche adoption is innovation in itself.
Tesla is building the early smartphones. Someone else is going to build the iPhone and yet someone else will build the hordes of HTCs and the Samsungs running Android.
What innovation are we talking about? Did they steal some patent or IP to catch?
Electric Vehicles have been around for decades. Arguably, if it wasn't for the weed-smoking twitter troll, those established car companies would still not be investing in EVs. Notably, the Electric Vehicle that surpassed all measures of quality by Comsumer Reports; giving away patents to expedite the EV development, research, and related infrastructure; cutting out the middle man in the distribution channel...
A bit odd how quickly the cynics and Monday Morning Quarterbacks usurp the conversation.
A bit odd how quickly the cynics and Monday Morning Quarterbacks usurp the conversation.
> Arguably, if it wasn't for the weed-smoking twitter troll, those established car companies would still not be investing in EVs.
I think Tesla made EVs cooler or made them look like an actual option, but it isn't true that other car makers just ignored EV options. They produced them for decades, there just was no public interest. VW for example had a new electric model at least once every decade for over 50 years now (a golf each in the 70s, 80s and 90s, a EV bus in the 70s etc.), there just wasn't much mainstream interest.
I think Tesla made EVs cooler or made them look like an actual option, but it isn't true that other car makers just ignored EV options. They produced them for decades, there just was no public interest. VW for example had a new electric model at least once every decade for over 50 years now (a golf each in the 70s, 80s and 90s, a EV bus in the 70s etc.), there just wasn't much mainstream interest.
They are investing in EVs mostly because governments are moving towards mandating them to combat global warming and pollution eg. "Norway to 'completely ban petrol powered cars by 2025'" etc. Not mostly because of Tesla.
They didn’t give away patents. They publicly announced they would cross-license patents. You only get to use them if you also give Tesla all of your patents.
> Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
Not exactly: "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology."
IANAL, but I have no idea what that means.
In the US, Hyundai sells the Ioniq with ICE, hybrid, and EV drive trains:
https://www.hyundaiusa.com/ioniq/
Hyundai is taking a smart approach, making sure new platforms support electrification to varying levels. Take the Kona for example, it was introduced as an ICE vehicle and is shaping up to be an intriguing EV.
Unfortunately they're limiting EV model sales to certain states. Hoping they expand beyond compliance car status soon. The Kona EV is _actually on lots_, around $40k before any rebates/credits/incentives, and has a ~250 mile range.
https://www.hyundaiusa.com/ioniq/
Hyundai is taking a smart approach, making sure new platforms support electrification to varying levels. Take the Kona for example, it was introduced as an ICE vehicle and is shaping up to be an intriguing EV.
Unfortunately they're limiting EV model sales to certain states. Hoping they expand beyond compliance car status soon. The Kona EV is _actually on lots_, around $40k before any rebates/credits/incentives, and has a ~250 mile range.
AFAIK Hyundai Kona EV and Kia Nero EV have 1 year waiting list because they can't source batteries ?
Even the higher end Jaguar I Pace has a waiting list. AFAIK no EV manufacturer has managed to ramp the productions enough to meet the demand
Even the higher end Jaguar I Pace has a waiting list. AFAIK no EV manufacturer has managed to ramp the productions enough to meet the demand
There's a reason Tesla built the Gigafactory and has a second one coming on line in China. None of the other major western car manufacturers have invested in the infrastructure to be able to produce battery packs in volume. There's a lot of lip service being given to electric cars from traditional car makers but none of them can produce electric cars in any meaningful volume, and are realistically years from being able to produce packs by the tens of thousands per month. I guess their take is build the demand and then ramp up production. Then there's the issue insuring a supply of raw materials, Tesla has taken pains to insure they have a long term supply of Lithium, and have all but removed Cobalt from their batteries, which as far as I know is unique to their cells. The other manufacturers are going to have a hard time getting the raw materials in volume when they try to ramp up battery production, unless they've been making moves years ago to insure their supply.
It can be the case that it isn't worth ramping up production. It depends on what sort of demand they are estimating. If there are only about 18 months of orders at lower volumes, why bother filling them in 6 months...
Well all the manufacturers are paying lip service to "electric is the future" - IMO if they truly believed that then it would make sense to invest in scaling even if there isn't immediate demand to have the production capacity for future models.
I tend to think that battery cost has to hit some tipping point before vehicle volume matters much.
Of course vehicle sales can participate in improvements in battery cost, but there's plenty of investment there whether you are retailing cars or not.
Of course vehicle sales can participate in improvements in battery cost, but there's plenty of investment there whether you are retailing cars or not.
If there is one thing Capitalism is good at, its scaling to meet demand. It might take another 2-3 years but the writing is on the wall
No doubt about it - but my point is other manufacturers will be facing similar issues Tesla is facing right now - time will tell if they are better equipped at dealing with them - I have 0 insight in to the industry - but as a potential customer I see the results on the market and Tesla still seems ahead of others in terms of actually delivering.
Asia is doing a fantastic job with EVs. I really like what Hyuandai did with the Ioniq, they kept it simple and reasonable. I'd love to see more of the same from other manufacturers.
Tesla will always be a media circus company unfortunately. With or without Musk there are many people who have a lot to gain with it failing. I think they have a clear path forward and will succeed.
Tesla will always be a media circus company unfortunately. With or without Musk there are many people who have a lot to gain with it failing. I think they have a clear path forward and will succeed.
China is the biggest story in EVs, Tesla is the biggest story in EVs outside of China. However the potential emissions avoided is massive there, from a climate perspective all of the big Chinese EV makers are just as crucial as Tesla. Sadly Tesla is a controversy magnet.
And the Tesla Gigafactory in Shanghai is quite far along.
https://electrek.co/2019/05/01/tesla-gigafactory-3-drone-vid...
Tesla in China might be the biggest story for Tesla as a company.
https://electrek.co/2019/05/01/tesla-gigafactory-3-drone-vid...
Tesla in China might be the biggest story for Tesla as a company.
The Hyundai Kona Electric and Kia e-Niro are great EVs, and would be really strong competitors to the Model 3, but Hyundai/Kia can't hardly manufacture any of them because they can't secure a decent supply of battery packs. Whereas Tesla has the gigafactory.
On which Panasonic pulled the brakes.
Theoretical capacity of the gigafactory is currently 35GWh/year, current production is 26GWh/year. Panasonic has stopped increasing the theoretical number to concentrate on getting the actual number up to the theoretical number.
No brakes pulled whatsoever. They're discussing about further expansion beyond 35gwh.
[deleted]
It's a bit easy to say everything just works, after solving the easy problems and then chastising Musk for being weird while trying to solve the hard problems. A golf cart could reliably transport people from one side of Jeju to the other.
IMHO, Korean companies seem to be making a more direct beeline to electric than the major Japanese makers for some reason. I'm in Japan right now in fact and see many more variants of hybrids than in the states, but haven't seen a single all electric of any type yet. I've also seen a handful of fuel cell and other fuel type vehicles...last time I was in Korea I definitely felt a faster convergence on electric tech than here. The Japanese makers seem to be going at it more slowly...perhaps lessons learned from the leaf?
> The Japanese makers seem to be going at it more slowly...perhaps lessons learned from the leaf?
I'm not sure they learned anything from the Leaf tbh. It's a fine little car and I've never met anyone who owned one (myself included) who said anything other than "it needs more range and it's too expensive". Sure there's all sorts of things you could nitpick about, just like with any car, but at it's core the range and sticker price are the only major issues.
I'm not sure they learned anything from the Leaf tbh. It's a fine little car and I've never met anyone who owned one (myself included) who said anything other than "it needs more range and it's too expensive". Sure there's all sorts of things you could nitpick about, just like with any car, but at it's core the range and sticker price are the only major issues.
It looks like all the first generation Leafs from the USA are now here in Ukraine, selling like hot cakes for around 20k USD. For that price, the range that is left on their now-degraded batteries seems just fine.
20k USD? Yikes! You can get a 2015 Leaf in the US for under $9k.
I guess it depends on condition of each car, there are cheaper ones as well. But the point is, quite a lot of people even in my "poor" country are ready to pay $20k for a low-range EV. Which makes me conclude that range is not as much of an issue as price.
I bought a Certified PreOwned 2015 Leaf in 2017 near mint condition with 20k miles, full battery bars, and a warranty for $12k. Comparable cars are ~$3k cheaper now.
My Leaf has a reported range of 75-90 miles fully charged. I'm in the South Eastern US and my commute to work is roughly 25 miles of highway (65-80mph) driving one way. So in theory I should have 25+ miles of range when arriving home in the evenings but highway driving draws more power as does operating climate control so that's best case. It doesn't leave much room for errands in the evenings after work.
I lost a bar recently but oddly it does not seem to have affected the range at all.
My Leaf has a reported range of 75-90 miles fully charged. I'm in the South Eastern US and my commute to work is roughly 25 miles of highway (65-80mph) driving one way. So in theory I should have 25+ miles of range when arriving home in the evenings but highway driving draws more power as does operating climate control so that's best case. It doesn't leave much room for errands in the evenings after work.
I lost a bar recently but oddly it does not seem to have affected the range at all.
A big diff between Tesla and Hyundai is that Hyundai spends billions marketing and Tesla spends its CEO for it.
I ride an electric moped in Vienna, Austria, an UNU - and it is really a boring device - goes slow (60km/h max, low torque), but, like you I feel its the future.
Its just so nice to ride something that doesn't pollute.
The moment you realise you're sitting in traffic, and you're the only one not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it really change your opinion - I will never, ever go back to internal combustion engines.
Being able to charge at the house - amazing. I never have to go out of my way to fuel up - granted, I do have chargers all over the city if I need it, but the two batteries I use get me all over Vienna every day, with spare to get home with ease.
I wonder what a Tesla moped would look like? IMHO, this would be a greater move for Tesla in Europe - where mopeds just plain work.
Either way, I'm never going back to gas. Its just that great.
Its just so nice to ride something that doesn't pollute.
The moment you realise you're sitting in traffic, and you're the only one not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it really change your opinion - I will never, ever go back to internal combustion engines.
Being able to charge at the house - amazing. I never have to go out of my way to fuel up - granted, I do have chargers all over the city if I need it, but the two batteries I use get me all over Vienna every day, with spare to get home with ease.
I wonder what a Tesla moped would look like? IMHO, this would be a greater move for Tesla in Europe - where mopeds just plain work.
Either way, I'm never going back to gas. Its just that great.
Why can't a CEO do weed?
Because he fired, and continues to fire employees who do it on their own time, outside of work.
Because you generally can't contract for the federal government while breaking federal laws.
But, of course, the rules are not the same for him as they are for you and me.
Because you generally can't contract for the federal government while breaking federal laws.
But, of course, the rules are not the same for him as they are for you and me.
Elon doesn’t actively smoke weed. It’s highly unlikely he’d fire someone for trying weed for the first time outside of work. Doing it actively is different than doing it once. It’s more difficult to trust someone under the influence to operate machinery as someone who is not under the influence
> It’s highly unlikely he’d fire someone for trying weed for the first time outside of work.
Tesla drug-tests, and fires employees who test positive for THC, regardless of whether they are under the influence or not.
You can test positive for THC, and be stone-cold-sober when you show up to work. THC markers can stay in your system for weeks.
The fact is, they are not testing whether or not someone is showing up to work high. They are testing whether or not someone got high in the past few weeks.
Tesla drug-tests, and fires employees who test positive for THC, regardless of whether they are under the influence or not.
You can test positive for THC, and be stone-cold-sober when you show up to work. THC markers can stay in your system for weeks.
The fact is, they are not testing whether or not someone is showing up to work high. They are testing whether or not someone got high in the past few weeks.
I have family member who works in retail. Everyone including CEO is tested for alcohol levels every morning. Originally this was just for the guys operating the forklifts in the warehouse. I guess this was seen as discrimination to just test the warehouse guys. Anyway the point I wanted to make is there not a substantial reason Tesla tests for THC other than just wanting to fire employees?
> Anyway the point I wanted to make is there not a substantial reason Tesla tests for THC other than just wanting to fire employees?
They have a reason, the reason is unfair, unscientific, and is not consistently, or fairly applied throughout the company. One set of rules for the peasants, another for the executives.
They have a reason, the reason is unfair, unscientific, and is not consistently, or fairly applied throughout the company. One set of rules for the peasants, another for the executives.
Those are fair points. Did Tesla introduce this practice all of a sudden or did employees get hired well knowing or at least provided in the agreement that this was a known practice? I can understand the outrage for the former but not the latter.
Everything just works and its partly because of Elon that it works NOW. Massive amounts of money flowing into electric vehicles because manufacturers do not want to lose market share to Tesla. They were doing quiet ok with oil cars.
The Ioniq?
Quoting Musk on Twitter[1], about a year ago:
The Economist used to be boring, but smart with a wicked dry wit. Now it’s just boring (sigh). Tesla will be profitable & cash flow+ in Q3 & Q4, so obv no need to raise money.
[1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/984705630106673152
The Economist used to be boring, but smart with a wicked dry wit. Now it’s just boring (sigh). Tesla will be profitable & cash flow+ in Q3 & Q4, so obv no need to raise money.
[1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/984705630106673152
So the bank predicted 2-3 billion in 2018, and instead it's 1.5B in 2019. The CEO of a company is optimistic about his company, and the bank is pessimistic about the company. Truth ended up somewhere in the middle, I don't see anything noteworthy about this.
It's 1.5B after several rounds of gutting the company, closing stores, firing people, etc. Banks were predicting 2-3B, to sustain trajectory they were on in 2018.
2019 is much different time, with Tesla scaling back.
2019 is much different time, with Tesla scaling back.
You don't see anything noteworthy about a $1,500,000,000 gap in funding?
Tesla had a revenue of $20,000,000,000 in 2018. Yes those are big numbers. They had some problems, fell short by 5-10% (or 25% if the trend continues :P), yes that's a big deal short term, and yes if this were some big stable corporation people would get fired. But Tesla is not a big stable company, no matter how many people buy the stock on their Robinhood accounts. And no one said the gap wasn't noteworthy, what I'm saying is Musk's response to that article has very little relevance to this situation, at least from my perspective.
If the CEO misses the guideline by such an enormous margin, there clearly is a problem.
As an owner of one of their cars, my issue has been is he is horrid with managing money in regards to Tesla. It just seems this way. The typical response of someone who isn't use to money and goes in boom and bust cycles with it. Get it and have relief then find new ways to blow before shoring up what needs it and building a base. He is like the people who never look back and build on what they have let alone finish it.
If they need to raise money then it needs to be focused solely on delivering cars. Not some future taxi service or robot what evers. It should only be towards getting the model Y line up and running on time and under budget, getting the full refreshes of S and Y out. then once you are profitable by year car company, then you do robo. taxi.
Telsa doesn't need sayers to make shit up when the CEO is like a jack Russell terrier
If they need to raise money then it needs to be focused solely on delivering cars. Not some future taxi service or robot what evers. It should only be towards getting the model Y line up and running on time and under budget, getting the full refreshes of S and Y out. then once you are profitable by year car company, then you do robo. taxi.
Telsa doesn't need sayers to make shit up when the CEO is like a jack Russell terrier
Raise no money EVER? Or just in Q3+Q4?
This is from the Economist article that Musk was tweeting about:
Well before it confirmed the latest missed production target, investors worried about the firm’s cash-burn rate in 2018. In addition to the $2bn or so of capital that may be required to expand production of the Model 3, Tesla has some $1.2bn in convertible debt maturing by early next year. On March 27th Moody’s, a credit-rating agency, downgraded Tesla’s debt, cautioning that the firm “will likely need to raise additional capital during the second half of 2019”. Jefferies, a bank, predicts that Tesla will need $2.5bn to $3bn this year.
The cited prediction by Moody’s was very close, apparently ("likely need to raise capital in the second half of 2019").
Well before it confirmed the latest missed production target, investors worried about the firm’s cash-burn rate in 2018. In addition to the $2bn or so of capital that may be required to expand production of the Model 3, Tesla has some $1.2bn in convertible debt maturing by early next year. On March 27th Moody’s, a credit-rating agency, downgraded Tesla’s debt, cautioning that the firm “will likely need to raise additional capital during the second half of 2019”. Jefferies, a bank, predicts that Tesla will need $2.5bn to $3bn this year.
The cited prediction by Moody’s was very close, apparently ("likely need to raise capital in the second half of 2019").
"Tesla will need to raise $2.5bn to $3bn this year, according to Jefferies, a bank"
This was the tweet (April 2018) Elon has replied to.
This was the tweet (April 2018) Elon has replied to.
And Tesla raised half of it already by early Q2. Doesn't sound to far of, does it?
Sounds like the "this year" was 2018, in which I don't believe they raised money in
[deleted]
Note that there isn't a year mentioned there.
Tesla may well be cashflow positive in Q3/4 2050.
Tesla may well be cashflow positive in Q3/4 2050.
This comment seems prescient. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19723650
"Take a moment and think about why are they doing this event now. Elon is setting a stage for a capital raise, he's pitching the autonomy narrative after the Model 3 cash cow narrative failed. They're trying to convince investors (and customers) to give them money because money-printing autonomous taxi service is coming next year."
"Take a moment and think about why are they doing this event now. Elon is setting a stage for a capital raise, he's pitching the autonomy narrative after the Model 3 cash cow narrative failed. They're trying to convince investors (and customers) to give them money because money-printing autonomous taxi service is coming next year."
If they could do it for next year, why don't they just do it
and profit alone, not selling the autonomous cars to anyone -- and make trillions? :-)
It is probably because they can't
It is probably because they can't
Because they also need money now, so they started leasing Model 3 and telling lessees that Tesla will be keeping the car after the lease expires.
They get money now and keep the car for use as a robo-taxi.
They get money now and keep the car for use as a robo-taxi.
What an outrageous hedge story that I am shocked anyone believes. Tesla needed to lease model 3s because
- They were horribly late in delivering the car (and now claim they are going to have fully autonomous taxis by next year when they couldn't even deliver on a basic car on time)
- They can't make the $35k car they promised without losing money
- They have exhausted the market of people that will pay 50k for an electric car knowing the fuel savings will never make up for the premium so they have excess inventory
- They now are low on cash, high on inventory so they make up this moonshot story to get people to invest in them again. Simply saying they are doing standard leases would be too honest.
The day is going to come soon where the amount of people that believe the hype will dwindle and the debt will pile up even more where there is a liquidity crisis. It is essentially a legal pyramid scheme. I have to hand it to them though being able to convince a good amount of people that their leasing is actually ensuring a future supply of robo taxis is impressive. One day people will laugh at the outrageousness of that.
- They were horribly late in delivering the car (and now claim they are going to have fully autonomous taxis by next year when they couldn't even deliver on a basic car on time)
- They can't make the $35k car they promised without losing money
- They have exhausted the market of people that will pay 50k for an electric car knowing the fuel savings will never make up for the premium so they have excess inventory
- They now are low on cash, high on inventory so they make up this moonshot story to get people to invest in them again. Simply saying they are doing standard leases would be too honest.
The day is going to come soon where the amount of people that believe the hype will dwindle and the debt will pile up even more where there is a liquidity crisis. It is essentially a legal pyramid scheme. I have to hand it to them though being able to convince a good amount of people that their leasing is actually ensuring a future supply of robo taxis is impressive. One day people will laugh at the outrageousness of that.
Every day I see young people dreaming about owning a Tesla someday instead of the ICE dream cars of the past (Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, etc.) I don't know what the value of that is, but it ain't nothing.
No, it’s nothing.
If Tesla was aiming to be the size of Porsche (not VAG) or Lamborghini it’d be something.
But the same “conversion” rates from young person wanting a dream car to old person affording dream car apply regardless of if it’s an EV or a ICE, because the limiting factor is money.
So “stealing” the kind of volume that Porsche and Lamborghini get from... daydreaming young people, isn’t worth anything in the long run if you’re talking about keeping up Tesla’s 40B dollar market cap
If Tesla was aiming to be the size of Porsche (not VAG) or Lamborghini it’d be something.
But the same “conversion” rates from young person wanting a dream car to old person affording dream car apply regardless of if it’s an EV or a ICE, because the limiting factor is money.
So “stealing” the kind of volume that Porsche and Lamborghini get from... daydreaming young people, isn’t worth anything in the long run if you’re talking about keeping up Tesla’s 40B dollar market cap
Tesla already builds the same number of cars every year as Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini combined. Unless Tesla figures out a way to start selling these things for $200,000 I’m not sure that’ll be enough.
Dreams can’t pay for cars.
> - They can't make the $35k car they promised without losing money
Reminds me a tiny tiny bit about rpis. They were said to be a little smaller and a little cheaper. But truth is, you have a lot more chance getting a rpi+options at 50$ than a 10$ rpi w.
That said, the momentum is so huge, it doesn't matter anymore.. maybe this will apply too ?
Reminds me a tiny tiny bit about rpis. They were said to be a little smaller and a little cheaper. But truth is, you have a lot more chance getting a rpi+options at 50$ than a 10$ rpi w.
That said, the momentum is so huge, it doesn't matter anymore.. maybe this will apply too ?
If that’s seriously their plan, the company is doomed. Their self driving tech isn’t close to ready for prime time.
The first leases aren't up for three years, and the fate of the company doesn't rest entirely on self driving tech.
It's not "their plan," it's just an additional way to bring in cash. If the cars can't be robo-taxis in three years, they'll let lessees buy them out or sell the cars used.
It's not "their plan," it's just an additional way to bring in cash. If the cars can't be robo-taxis in three years, they'll let lessees buy them out or sell the cars used.
"use as a robot-taxi"
They're calling them robo-taxis, and who knows if they'll succeed, but I did want to point out that what they're doing isn't inconsistent with a company that genuinely believes in its near-future autonomous capabilities but also needs cash.
Likewise, they can still compete: as a driver would you rather be "driving" in a 99% of the time self-driving vehicles that's a Tesla, and as a passenger: would you rather order a vehicle from Tesla Network and know you're guaranteed to be picked up in a Tesla - with cameras for safety, security - in a quiet vehicle, etc. Tesla owning/controlling the whole supply line and at the scale they're ramping up for gives them advantage.
And if they do reach fully self-driving first - and someone will have to lead the way and prove it enough for regulators to allow them on the roads - then they'll have everything else already in place to relatively speaking own/efficiently capture a large portion of the market.
And if they do reach fully self-driving first - and someone will have to lead the way and prove it enough for regulators to allow them on the roads - then they'll have everything else already in place to relatively speaking own/efficiently capture a large portion of the market.
If you have a game plan that you know will work (whether you believe that or not) and all you need is more capital to ramp things up, to reduce costs, and scale exponentially faster than competitors - it's smart to allow individuals to be or feel like they're making an investment by contributing to something like the Tesla Network; as Elon mentioned in the long presentation they recently did it will be good for them to get the capital upfront.
They'd need millions of cars to make trillions of dollars. They can't afford the capital to buy millions of their own cars. They are primarily a car company, they sell cars, any additional revenue due to autonomous tech would be gravy on top of their current margins. They might raise prices, actually, if their cars are proven to be able to do ride-sharing autonomously.
They kind of are - usually with car leases there is the ability to buy the car at the end of your contract, but not with new tesla leases(because they will put those vehicles into the autonomous fleet).
I'm a little more cynical about that, tbh. I feel like they will ultimately offer most of these to the leasee as a purchase option, they just aren't providing the buyout price up-front.
My guess is that they will enforce it on the assumption that most leasees will just re-up with a new Tesla. Meanwhile Tesla can get more heavily into the resale game and hit lower price points by selling the same car twice.
That is possible, I guess, but they've done really badly as a purveyor of used cars in the past. It doesn't exactly seem like a profit center for them.
> autonomous taxi service is coming next year.
Are there any municipalities that have already passed regulations allowing driverless cars on the roads? Are any already working the regulations through the process? If the answer is no to both of those, there is no way autonomous taxis happens next year.
Having "autopilots" crash while drivers are in the car also does not help the case.
Are there any municipalities that have already passed regulations allowing driverless cars on the roads? Are any already working the regulations through the process? If the answer is no to both of those, there is no way autonomous taxis happens next year.
Having "autopilots" crash while drivers are in the car also does not help the case.
Yes, it's already happening. Waymo is currently trialling driverless with passengers in Phoenix, Arizona:
https://waymo.com/apply/
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/video/2019/mar/09/waymo-t...
Initial trials will probably include humans if required to avoid needing laws passed (as I think Waymo is doing), I don't really see that as a huge obstacle, and once the human-supervised models can prove they are safe, it'll be easy enough to change regulations if required.
I imagine Musk has had discussions with a few and felt emboldened to make his statement by that. Of course he constantly exaggerates, the projections of possible profit for owners were not realistic (at least in the next decade), and his timelines are about 2x faster than real life, so I'd be surprised if they have more than a small trial next year for this.
https://waymo.com/apply/
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/video/2019/mar/09/waymo-t...
Initial trials will probably include humans if required to avoid needing laws passed (as I think Waymo is doing), I don't really see that as a huge obstacle, and once the human-supervised models can prove they are safe, it'll be easy enough to change regulations if required.
I imagine Musk has had discussions with a few and felt emboldened to make his statement by that. Of course he constantly exaggerates, the projections of possible profit for owners were not realistic (at least in the next decade), and his timelines are about 2x faster than real life, so I'd be surprised if they have more than a small trial next year for this.
Also having sold the autonomous product already to customers ensures constituents will put a lot of pressure on politicians instead of the company having to do that lobbying by themselves.
In fairness to the quoted comment, its creating a story to tell investors.
If I come to you asking for $1 billion in funding. I don't tell you about the boring, low growth, probable outcome. I tell you about the exciting, new, unexplored potential market just waiting to be tapped.
But no, self driving taxis aren't just around the corner.
If I come to you asking for $1 billion in funding. I don't tell you about the boring, low growth, probable outcome. I tell you about the exciting, new, unexplored potential market just waiting to be tapped.
But no, self driving taxis aren't just around the corner.
This may work for start-ups. Tesla is way beyond that point now, so the story counts less then hard numbers.
Looking at Tesla's valuation, it isn't valued like a 'normal' car company though. Its valued like a growth stock.
Whether it works? I don't know, the stock rose on the news which would suggest some people are convinced.
Whether it works? I don't know, the stock rose on the news which would suggest some people are convinced.
Lyft operates autonomous taxis (with backup drivers) in Las Vegas.
I wonder what this commenters thoughts are on valuations of Uber and Lyft - and at least Uber's plans, and perhaps valuation they're aiming for, is based on having driverless vehicles.
Tesla is operating in a different industry than Uber or Lyft. And while Uber and Lyft are only facing Taxi operators as incumbents Tesla is up against all car manufacturers. That makes a big difference.
Indeed very different in terms of access to capital. Taxi markets are disjointed and divided, their access to capital is dwarfed by Uber's.
Tesla does not have that kind of advantage over established carmakers.
Tesla does not have that kind of advantage over established carmakers.
How can they spend all the money on autonomy [1] while refusing to share any more data [2] beyond the couple of sentences in their "safety reports" [3]? This makes no sense.
[1] https://youtu.be/Ucp0TTmvqOE?t=13330
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqvatzjHGyk&t=47m17s
[3] https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
[1] https://youtu.be/Ucp0TTmvqOE?t=13330
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqvatzjHGyk&t=47m17s
[3] https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
With 2.2 Billion in remaining cash and $700 million loss in Q1, it was clear that Tesla needed to raise more money to survive. Tesla can't take 3 more quarters of that kind of cash burn.
Assuming Tesla improves their cash flow, this new +$1.5 Billion raise will provide Tesla with another 1 to 2 years to turn the company around... for a total of 3ish years worth of cash reserves.
Remember the key profitability calculation from years past: 5000 Model 3 Cars / week is the break-even point. (Its a very blurry estimate, Tesla managed to be profitable with ~4500 M3 cars in Q3 2018... margins and other services may change that). With cheaper cars and fewer cash credits, maybe the new profitability point will be ~6000 cars/week instead. But that's Tesla's overriding goal.
Tesla is currently selling 2500 Model 3 Cars / week based on latest estimates. A drop from Q3 2018. USA is at the end of a car cycle, so the USA is dropping sales in general (this is why Ford and GM shut down so many of their factories, in preparation for this cyclical downturn). Tesla is feeling the effects of this as their sales drop. They HAVE to get Chinese and European sales numbers up now, to make up for the loss of American sales.
Assuming Tesla improves their cash flow, this new +$1.5 Billion raise will provide Tesla with another 1 to 2 years to turn the company around... for a total of 3ish years worth of cash reserves.
Remember the key profitability calculation from years past: 5000 Model 3 Cars / week is the break-even point. (Its a very blurry estimate, Tesla managed to be profitable with ~4500 M3 cars in Q3 2018... margins and other services may change that). With cheaper cars and fewer cash credits, maybe the new profitability point will be ~6000 cars/week instead. But that's Tesla's overriding goal.
Tesla is currently selling 2500 Model 3 Cars / week based on latest estimates. A drop from Q3 2018. USA is at the end of a car cycle, so the USA is dropping sales in general (this is why Ford and GM shut down so many of their factories, in preparation for this cyclical downturn). Tesla is feeling the effects of this as their sales drop. They HAVE to get Chinese and European sales numbers up now, to make up for the loss of American sales.
With the current chinese policy against anything non-chinese, as well as the tariff wars i don't think china is going to represent any kind of market for tesla (especially since electric vehicle are seing as a strategic industry for the chineese regime).
Europe is completely stuck in economical weak growth, and has an extremely high population density and good public transport system that makes it clearly try to steer away from personal vehicle. Not to mention the fact that german cars are starting to embrace electric engines, and have an insanely better reputation regarding manufacturing quality than tesla.
There again, i don't see how a 40k vehicle is going to sell well enough to compensate from the american market decline.
Europe is completely stuck in economical weak growth, and has an extremely high population density and good public transport system that makes it clearly try to steer away from personal vehicle. Not to mention the fact that german cars are starting to embrace electric engines, and have an insanely better reputation regarding manufacturing quality than tesla.
There again, i don't see how a 40k vehicle is going to sell well enough to compensate from the american market decline.
Don't underestimate how badly demand is dropping / going to drop.
You basically cannot get timely repairs on a tesla. This is getting mainstream coverage.
Your car could be out of service for 5 months. That's simply a no-go for a lot of more mainstream buyers myself included.
My own prediction, some skinny / dark days ahead until they work out some of the kinks. Execute on getting parts inventory up / available. Model Y execution. And price - a huge segment at 32K or so especially in Model Y segment - my worry is that with federal rebates going away the price issue becomes much worse.
You basically cannot get timely repairs on a tesla. This is getting mainstream coverage.
Your car could be out of service for 5 months. That's simply a no-go for a lot of more mainstream buyers myself included.
My own prediction, some skinny / dark days ahead until they work out some of the kinks. Execute on getting parts inventory up / available. Model Y execution. And price - a huge segment at 32K or so especially in Model Y segment - my worry is that with federal rebates going away the price issue becomes much worse.
>You basically cannot get timely repairs on a tesla. This is getting mainstream coverage.
You get a loaner Tesla during repairs so it's not that bad.
I was at work and discovered a flat tire at lunchtime. By 2pm there was a truck there with a loaner wheel, identical to my wheel. Not a lame low-speed wheel. The tire was also identical... same brand, same model. They took my wheel away and when it got to the service center, they called me and said that the tire would need to be replaced, as the flat was not fixable.
After a week they called me and said they couldn't find my wheel. It was lost somewhere. They said they would keep looking. Sounds like a nightmare, right? Well I had the perfectly good loaner wheel, so I was fine. It's a company going through some growth spurts, so there are bumps in the road sometimes.
Then a week later I came too close to a curb and put curb rash on their new loaner wheel. I had signed a document saying I would be responsible for damage. I called them (no hold time btw) and said hey, you lost my wheel, and you're taking a while to get it back to me, are you going to hold me to this thing about no damage on the loaner wheel? And they said, no, some wear and tear is fine. I mentioned the curb rash and they said don't worry about it, it's fine.
A week later they called and said they had found the wheel, replaced the tire, and the new tire replacement would be free, comped by Tesla because of the extra delay. That day they brought my wheel with the new tire on it to my workplace and mounted it onto the car in the parking lot, which took all of 10 minutes out of my work day. No charge for the tire, no charge for the time, no charge for the curb rash damage to their loaner wheel, no charge for anything whatsoever.
During this entire time notice I did not lose use of my car at all. Nor did I have to go to any service center.
People who do lose use of their cars get loaners... different from their own cars, but a bit too first world of a problem for me to complain about.
You get a loaner Tesla during repairs so it's not that bad.
I was at work and discovered a flat tire at lunchtime. By 2pm there was a truck there with a loaner wheel, identical to my wheel. Not a lame low-speed wheel. The tire was also identical... same brand, same model. They took my wheel away and when it got to the service center, they called me and said that the tire would need to be replaced, as the flat was not fixable.
After a week they called me and said they couldn't find my wheel. It was lost somewhere. They said they would keep looking. Sounds like a nightmare, right? Well I had the perfectly good loaner wheel, so I was fine. It's a company going through some growth spurts, so there are bumps in the road sometimes.
Then a week later I came too close to a curb and put curb rash on their new loaner wheel. I had signed a document saying I would be responsible for damage. I called them (no hold time btw) and said hey, you lost my wheel, and you're taking a while to get it back to me, are you going to hold me to this thing about no damage on the loaner wheel? And they said, no, some wear and tear is fine. I mentioned the curb rash and they said don't worry about it, it's fine.
A week later they called and said they had found the wheel, replaced the tire, and the new tire replacement would be free, comped by Tesla because of the extra delay. That day they brought my wheel with the new tire on it to my workplace and mounted it onto the car in the parking lot, which took all of 10 minutes out of my work day. No charge for the tire, no charge for the time, no charge for the curb rash damage to their loaner wheel, no charge for anything whatsoever.
During this entire time notice I did not lose use of my car at all. Nor did I have to go to any service center.
People who do lose use of their cars get loaners... different from their own cars, but a bit too first world of a problem for me to complain about.
Just out of curiosity, a flat tire is a warranty item? Was it something wrong with the wheel or the tire? Never realized you could claim a flat tire as a warranty item, I would have just gone to a tire shop.
No, flats are not covered under my warranty as far as I know. Did I seem to say that?
I didn't mind not going to a tire shop... tire shops are not my idea of fun.
I didn't mind not going to a tire shop... tire shops are not my idea of fun.
Oh ok, my bad then. Just would have never thought to call Tesla for something like that but glad it turned out ok in the end.
They have free road service for the first year (“free” means the coming and doing minor fixes part, I guess you still pay for non-warranty repairs) so calling them was an easy option. After the first year the cost is comparable to something like AAA except the mobile service person who comes out is trained on Teslas.
I think insurance rates are reflecting this, the Geico quotes I got so far for same coverage/6 months(300/300, $1k deductible), all these cars are about $40 - $45k.
2019 Model 3 - $530 2019 BMW 330i - $370 2019 Lexus ES 350 - $335
It's amazing that Geico wants 60% for Model3 compared to ES 350, which is a true 4 passenger luxury sedan.
I think Tesla is missing a trick by not clearly distinguishing the models for insurance purposes. The SR buyers are subsidizing AWD P buyers insurance.
2019 Model 3 - $530 2019 BMW 330i - $370 2019 Lexus ES 350 - $335
It's amazing that Geico wants 60% for Model3 compared to ES 350, which is a true 4 passenger luxury sedan.
I think Tesla is missing a trick by not clearly distinguishing the models for insurance purposes. The SR buyers are subsidizing AWD P buyers insurance.
Tesla are about to start offering insurance. Musk has been tweeting about it quite a lot. Starting with the US soon, and a recent tweet said probably over a year before they get it figured out for the UK/Europe.
All-out war between fanbois and the hate crew in 3...2...1?
I wish there were a forum were decent discussion about Tesla would still be possible but wherever (HN, Reddit, Ars Technica, ...) you look, it always ends the same way.
Any recommendations, maybe?
I wish there were a forum were decent discussion about Tesla would still be possible but wherever (HN, Reddit, Ars Technica, ...) you look, it always ends the same way.
Any recommendations, maybe?
It’s better to not read them. I usually try to debate and clarify to people who clearly don’t know what they are talking about how the actual cars work and etc., but the amount of bull crap that haters post in articles like this is so ridiculous that it isn’t even worth reading the comments.
They are still stuck hating the CEO, regardless of the company’s achievements, so it is useless to try to debate.
They are still stuck hating the CEO, regardless of the company’s achievements, so it is useless to try to debate.
The problem is that you do not know on first sight if they are just misguided or actually malicious.
I remember a few names of the worst offenders that I just ignore now but it sucks anyways.
Edit: Using Stylus, the following solution is possible to highlight the names of selected people (the list needs to be updated when you want to add someone):
I remember a few names of the worst offenders that I just ignore now but it sucks anyways.
Edit: Using Stylus, the following solution is possible to highlight the names of selected people (the list needs to be updated when you want to add someone):
a[href$="username1"],
a[href$="username2"],
...
{
color: darkred !important;
}
> I wish there were a forum were decent discussion about Tesla would still be possible but wherever (HN, Reddit, Ars Technica, ...) you look, it always ends the same way.
A forum where this is possible would be highly exclusionary, nothing like Ars Technica or Reddit or HN. Those forums handle simple disagreements in a decent, typical way but there is no way to have a balanced, thoughtful discussion with cultists. Elon Musk has cultists.
A forum where this is possible would be highly exclusionary, nothing like Ars Technica or Reddit or HN. Those forums handle simple disagreements in a decent, typical way but there is no way to have a balanced, thoughtful discussion with cultists. Elon Musk has cultists.
Arse Technica is a vortex of hate, purposely mind you.
Twitter and Reddit are good as long as you use the Mute/block buttons to weed out the crap from both sides.
Twitter and Reddit are good as long as you use the Mute/block buttons to weed out the crap from both sides.
[deleted]
They are raising capital to tool up for the Model Y, Semi and Pickup assembly lines as planned.
Q2 is going to be a positive quarter as the only reason Q1 fell short was missed deliveries from cars in transit to Europe and China.
Q2 is going to be a positive quarter as the only reason Q1 fell short was missed deliveries from cars in transit to Europe and China.
> Q2 is going to be a positive quarter
Tesla sold 10,000ish Model 3 cars in April. That's 2500 Model 3 cars/week. Remember, 5000ish cars/week is the breakeven point, when Tesla is profitable.
https://insideevs.com/news/347137/tesla-model-3-s-x-sales-ap...
Inside EV is pumping the story. But anyone paying attention recognizes that Q3 2018 and Q4 2018 were the quarters to look at. Q3 2018 sold 4653 Model 3 cars / week (and also sold way more Model S / Model X cars).
Tesla is severely behind on Q2 numbers, there's almost no way they're going to hit their guidance. 100%, Q2 will be a miss as well, I guarantee it. The numbers are already quite bad for Q2. Either that, or "Inside EVs" is wrong (quite possible... but buy the rumor, sell the news, amirite?)
Q3 is where you can hope for Tesla to become profitable. They gotta expand into Europe and China and make up for all the lost sales. Americans are at the end of an automotive cycle, Americans are not going to be buying cars for a long time (in general).
Tesla sold 10,000ish Model 3 cars in April. That's 2500 Model 3 cars/week. Remember, 5000ish cars/week is the breakeven point, when Tesla is profitable.
https://insideevs.com/news/347137/tesla-model-3-s-x-sales-ap...
Inside EV is pumping the story. But anyone paying attention recognizes that Q3 2018 and Q4 2018 were the quarters to look at. Q3 2018 sold 4653 Model 3 cars / week (and also sold way more Model S / Model X cars).
Tesla is severely behind on Q2 numbers, there's almost no way they're going to hit their guidance. 100%, Q2 will be a miss as well, I guarantee it. The numbers are already quite bad for Q2. Either that, or "Inside EVs" is wrong (quite possible... but buy the rumor, sell the news, amirite?)
Q3 is where you can hope for Tesla to become profitable. They gotta expand into Europe and China and make up for all the lost sales. Americans are at the end of an automotive cycle, Americans are not going to be buying cars for a long time (in general).
Just curious why you are in every Tesla thread providing critique? I understand the general skepticism/pessimism/negativity which goes along with HN comments but it seems as if you go out of your way to always be in Tesla-related threads arguing why they will fail or why their latest decision is pointless. The last month of your comment history proves my point.
1. I find stock analysis to be fun. There's a huge variety of information available because of the required 10k forms, quarterly filings, and so forth. I've been doing this since the start, you can ask the Tesla Bull "Toomuchtodo" about it, he and I often butt heads on this subject (but we both enjoy the discussion).
2. Tesla is such a divisive topic right now, that you can gather a lot of opinions and viewpoints on this stock. Other stocks, like Costco or Target, are less exciting. There's so little discussion that almost no one would want to talk to me about those stocks.
3. I can state strong opinions as a test to myself. They're documented, and sometimes I'm wrong. But making predictions and improving my own predictive skills in the market is absolutely essential if I want to make money in the long term. So I'll get my "paper practice" with Tesla, with regards to investing strategy.
4. The topics I DO care about deeply, don't get upvoted and don't get discussed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19702487 .
It takes two to tango. I post interesting subjects when I can, but everyone around here is talking about Tesla. I'd rather talk about GPUs and CPUs, but there really isn't as much discussion around that subject these days. (Unless... Tesla makes an ASIC chip. Then I get to talk about GPUs, CPUs, AND Tesla at the same time!)
If you're insinuating that maybe I have a greater reason... I own ZERO Tesla stock. The shares I do own are Costco, Lattice Semiconductor, Ford, SPY ETF, Pebblebrook, and a few others. Tesla is purely a theoretical exercise for me, since there's a lot of discussion online and analysis available. Other stocks don't even have a fraction of the analysis or discussion Tesla has, so its great "practice" as far as I'm concerned.
I don't short shares either. So no shorts, nor do I have any put options right now. (My last put options / bear bets were on Kellogg and on Bank of America, if you want to know my stock-trading history). I don't make many bear bets or play it short very often... its very difficult to predict short squeezes and other issues like that, so I recommend people to stay away from shorting.
2. Tesla is such a divisive topic right now, that you can gather a lot of opinions and viewpoints on this stock. Other stocks, like Costco or Target, are less exciting. There's so little discussion that almost no one would want to talk to me about those stocks.
3. I can state strong opinions as a test to myself. They're documented, and sometimes I'm wrong. But making predictions and improving my own predictive skills in the market is absolutely essential if I want to make money in the long term. So I'll get my "paper practice" with Tesla, with regards to investing strategy.
4. The topics I DO care about deeply, don't get upvoted and don't get discussed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19702487 .
It takes two to tango. I post interesting subjects when I can, but everyone around here is talking about Tesla. I'd rather talk about GPUs and CPUs, but there really isn't as much discussion around that subject these days. (Unless... Tesla makes an ASIC chip. Then I get to talk about GPUs, CPUs, AND Tesla at the same time!)
If you're insinuating that maybe I have a greater reason... I own ZERO Tesla stock. The shares I do own are Costco, Lattice Semiconductor, Ford, SPY ETF, Pebblebrook, and a few others. Tesla is purely a theoretical exercise for me, since there's a lot of discussion online and analysis available. Other stocks don't even have a fraction of the analysis or discussion Tesla has, so its great "practice" as far as I'm concerned.
I don't short shares either. So no shorts, nor do I have any put options right now. (My last put options / bear bets were on Kellogg and on Bank of America, if you want to know my stock-trading history). I don't make many bear bets or play it short very often... its very difficult to predict short squeezes and other issues like that, so I recommend people to stay away from shorting.
Why don't you provide a rebuttal to the critique rather than go comment hunting? If the argument is good then it doesn't matter whether the comment was made by an astroturfing shill.
Maybe you have some alternative definition of "positive quarter" but according to Tesla, Q2 will not be positive.
> ... we expect to return to profitability in Q3 and significantly reduce our loss in Q2.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459019...
> ... we expect to return to profitability in Q3 and significantly reduce our loss in Q2.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459019...
The big reduction in S/X played even a larger role, but these models got updated, the smaller and cheaper battery option available again. With the efficiency upgrades, the 80kWh Model S/X are greater value than ever.
Yep, Tesla looks like a nice investment target at this point. They have now proven that they can ship stuff that people want in volume with the model 3 and they have several other products planned that have the potential to be at least as disruptive. They require capital investment to make that happen. That's why they are raising capital.
I think the offering states that the money is for de-risking their balance sheet. I don't think it mentions using the money for any of those things.
Am I the only one who thinks Tesla is destined to be acquired by a proper Manufacturing company?
Can Tesla by itself exist after 5 years ?
Can Tesla by itself exist after 5 years ?
What if tesla acquires a traditional car company instead and start adding auto pilot to gasoline powered cars too?
As long as the cashflow is positive, from investors, the company will last.
I feel like "cashflow positive from investors" is a great title for a very snarky book about startups and SV culture.
"You Can't Run a Con Without Confidence"
“Cash-flow positive from investors” is a nonsensical concept. Investors invest because they expect a return. If cash flow, the real kind, is negative forever, eventually the investments will stop. Musk has delayed the reckoning for a while with showmanship, but it can’t go on forever.
Amazon had no profit for many years and here we are. Some could be told about Uber.
AFAIK Amazon had only a handful of unprofitable quarters in history. Even more important, Amazon was always cash-flow positive. Uber is a different story, so.
With Amazon we're comparing a web site that sells stuff they don't even make to an auto manufacturer, insanely capital intensive. It's quite a different bar. I realize you're just replying to someone who brought this up, but I'm not convinced comparisons make sense.
I do get your point, you cannot compare the two. Yet, every time Tesla's finances are brought up someone is repeating the false "Amazon lost money the whole time" statement. Which is wrong both on the P&L and cash flow side. And Tesla would be bankrupt already with their cash burn rate if it wasn't for Elon and his investor magic. But maybe they wouldn't have needed his magic without his other attics in the first place.
I believe the parent was making a joke.
Tesla has in excess of $11bn in debt; even if you could get the equity for nothing, an acquisition would still be extremely expensive - more than 25% of Ford's market cap.
I can't see a middle of the road outcome for Tesla; it'll either be wildly successful, or Musk will destroy it in the attempt.
I can't see a middle of the road outcome for Tesla; it'll either be wildly successful, or Musk will destroy it in the attempt.
Ford is in debt 154 billion as of 2017, with an unclear path to an electric future (other than Rivian's help). I'd be more worried about them making it in the next 5 years.
By what definition? The chance of bankruptcy over the next five years is undoubtedly higher for Tesla. I think you are grossly misrepresenting Ford's balance sheet:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/f/financials/bal...
Tesla is valued in large part based on the kind of math you'd commonly see applied to a VC backed company three orders of magnitude smaller; multiplying a large payoff value by a small chance of success.
People are making a bet on it becoming a trillion dollar behemoth that snatches tons of market share from energy and automobile companies during the turbulent switch over to renewable energy.
If you're confident in their execution, it's worth it to have Tesla swing for the fences chasing this vision even if there's a large chance of failure. Assuming of course you have diversified - I think you'd have to have a screw loose to go all in.
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/f/financials/bal...
Tesla is valued in large part based on the kind of math you'd commonly see applied to a VC backed company three orders of magnitude smaller; multiplying a large payoff value by a small chance of success.
People are making a bet on it becoming a trillion dollar behemoth that snatches tons of market share from energy and automobile companies during the turbulent switch over to renewable energy.
If you're confident in their execution, it's worth it to have Tesla swing for the fences chasing this vision even if there's a large chance of failure. Assuming of course you have diversified - I think you'd have to have a screw loose to go all in.
This is wildly misleading. Ford's debt mostly comes from it's financing arm. The name of the game there is to borrow money at a low interest rate and lend it out at a high one. The more debt Ford has the more money its making.
you really think tesla has a better chance of surviving than ford in the next 5 years?
Tesla is just alive because the crisis haven't arrived yet. As soon as a lot of investors hit the breaks, a lot of those companies will go away... or become profitable.
Still easily doable by Apple, if they only wanted to.
Apple could do it, sure. I personally think they're the most likely candidate of any potential acquirer.
But fundamentally, an acquisition of this nature is a simple build vs buy decision. In a situation where Tesla is ready to undergo a fire sale, its R&D will have already been cut to the bone.
If Tesla stagnates technically, "build" becomes infinitely more attractive; you're no longer desperately chasing a moving target, you're simply replicating what is known to work. Companies that can do this (as opposed to original R&D) are a dime a dozen.
If the company is still healthy, I just don't see who would have the means and motive to acquire it.
But fundamentally, an acquisition of this nature is a simple build vs buy decision. In a situation where Tesla is ready to undergo a fire sale, its R&D will have already been cut to the bone.
If Tesla stagnates technically, "build" becomes infinitely more attractive; you're no longer desperately chasing a moving target, you're simply replicating what is known to work. Companies that can do this (as opposed to original R&D) are a dime a dozen.
If the company is still healthy, I just don't see who would have the means and motive to acquire it.
Doable by companies like Apple/Google, the issue is why would they do it? Their shareholders would not approve such transaction as it's just throwing your money into a furnace.
Doable by a lot of companies if they wanted to, I think the suggestion was that someone in the domain would make the acquisition, which seems much tougher a prospect.
Larry Ellison invested in TSLA. I would not want to see Oracle buy them.
Model 3 suddenly cost $1,000 per wheel and come with a mandatory $40k/year support package, but don't worry, your rep got you a sweet 7.5% discount on future services — and he's never heard of a director approving such an incredible discount.
Hmm maybe TSLA should leverage Oracle for corp. fleet sales :)
I’m hoping they get out of building their own cars altogether. Sell the car manufacturing and focus on the infrastructure and important parts: charging network, drive train, battery packs, solar, and self-driving tech if that’s their goal. /armchair
I don't think they'll stop building their own cars. But I do think that partnering with other carmakers to produce powertrains for them is not a bad idea. They produced powertrains for the Smart EV and the Toyota Rav4 EV back in the day. Musk has hinted at partnering with utility van companies to electrify them.
You're not, but you should ask yourself why people with the same views have been predicting failure since 2012.
The product lineup is solid; even if they go bankrupt, the debt owners will simply wipe out the shareholders, prune away the less profitable parts of the business, and scale back the expensive R&D ambitions. The Model 3 will still be produced since the fixed costs are already paid.
(Not my view that they actually will go bankrupt. But failure due to overspending on fixed costs tends to work out differently than being unable to cover marginal costs.)
(Not my view that they actually will go bankrupt. But failure due to overspending on fixed costs tends to work out differently than being unable to cover marginal costs.)
Is this all going towards autonomy?
https://youtu.be/Ucp0TTmvqOE?t=13330
https://youtu.be/Ucp0TTmvqOE?t=13330
It's going towards not dying. The autonomy pitch (IMHO) was showmanship to distract investors from focusing on the real problem: not dying due to running out of funds.
If you can just avoid dying, you get rich. That sounds like a joke, but it's actually a pretty good description of what happens in a typical startup.
Ref: http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html
If you can just avoid dying, you get rich. That sounds like a joke, but it's actually a pretty good description of what happens in a typical startup.
Ref: http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html
FYI. Tesla Net income in millions.
Q1 2019: -702
2018: -976
2017: -1,961
2016: -675
2015: -889
2014: -294
2013: -74
2012: -396
2011: -254
2010: -154
2009: -56
2008: -82
2007: -78
Q1 2019: -702
2018: -976
2017: -1,961
2016: -675
2015: -889
2014: -294
2013: -74
2012: -396
2011: -254
2010: -154
2009: -56
2008: -82
2007: -78
I think it's odd that Musk says he's buying 10M of shares to boost confidence, but he is already very highly leveraged with loans against his current shares.
If you use a loan against your shares to buy more shares and that causes your share value to increase, that's a very interesting chain of events.
If you use a loan against your shares to buy more shares and that causes your share value to increase, that's a very interesting chain of events.
Ah, the self sufficient pyramid scheme!
He used Tesla to save SolarCity, he can still continue using SpaceX to save Tesla.
that's not how it works. thankfully.
In 3 years, it's not terribly unlikely that SpaceX will be worth more than Tesla is now (with most of the value from deploying Starlink). And Elon is significantly more vested in SpaceX than Tesla. If Tesla has continued to face challenges, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Starlink is spun-off as a highly profitable company (allowing Musk to maintain a majority interest in SpaceX proper) and Musk uses the capital from that to stabilize Tesla.
Of course, in 3 years, Tesla's situation could easily be vastly different in both directions. And Musk would probably prefer to fund Mars ambitions than necessarily Tesla.
Of course, in 3 years, Tesla's situation could easily be vastly different in both directions. And Musk would probably prefer to fund Mars ambitions than necessarily Tesla.
Where is Elon Musk getting the $10M of cash to buy into this offering? Isn't his wealth tied up in his companies?
- Sure the CEO might be too active on twitter and at times say or do things typically considered inappropriate CEO behavior.
- Musk often makes bold claims and sometimes misses his projected dates.
However:
- Musk also is often right.
- He delivered amazing things with the model s. The Audi e-tron looks quite nice and I think competition is nice, but it still doesn't match the 2012 model s specs.
- He wanted the model 3 entry price to be $35k. Lots of peopple doubted he could do it, and many projected it wouldn't be available until 2020 or later. It looks like the base model 3 I can order is about $39k and with tax credit brings you downt to $35k and change.
- He promised autonomous driving 2 years from 2016, and honestly many people thought he was nuts. And his prediction was overly optimistic here, but there have been a steady stream of amazing incremental improvements to auto-pilot. On freeways, the tesla can now determine when to change lanes and does it. It can follow navigation within freeways, and it can warn you if a stoplight or stopsign is approaching. They demoed true autonomy, and I believe it's actually getting quite close. Given 1 or 2 more years of incremental improvements, your tesla would be capable of driving you most places I would think. He didn't make his 2 year prediction, but his team at tesla is still doing amazing innovation in this space.
- Part of what makes a great innovator is being able to fail sometimes. Musk will continue to make bold claims, sometimes he will fail to fulfill it, but many times he will deliver.
What he's doing is nothing short of amazing. He's doing things people keep saying can't be done. Re-usable rockets that land? Electric cars? Cars that drive themselves? I'm willing to tolerate a little shenanigans in exchange for this kind of innovation.