Musk endeavours

[odysseus2000]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/tesla-mod ... ?r=US&IR=T

Apparently a new production line has been built from scrap parts in a tent in two weeks...and Musk says it is better than their existing production line!

All seems a bit Potemkinesque to me.

John

The only person accountable in all this wildness surrounding Tesla is Musk. If he makes statements which can be shown to be misleading investors he would be open to SEC sanctions.

All the media stuff is not subject to such constraints and from my studies is wildly inaccurate and imho in some cases the media are skirting the thin line between juicing up a story and operating in a mode designed to mislead the readers/viewers of the story. The more of the media I read that has, like the businessinsider "sources close to..." type phrases, the less I believe it. If e.g. the businessinsider article is accurate then with just over half of June gone, Tesla are well over 5000 model 3 cars. If this is true would Musk have remained silent or is he just waiting to announce much bigger numbers for June?

Dunno, it is kind of fun to read and keep several different possibilities in one mind at the same time, but fun and making money are not necessarily good companions.

My overall take is that Model 3 production is increasing but as to how many I haven't a clue.

Regards,

[BobbyD]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/tesla-model-3-production-in-2018-so-far-2018-6?r=US&IR=T

Apparently a new production line has been built from scrap parts in a tent in two weeks...and Musk says it is better than their existing production line!

All seems a bit Potemkinesque to me.

John

On Monday, Ars Technica reviewed Tesla documents on file with the Fremont building clerk to find out more about Tesla’s unconventional assembly line. According to those files, Tesla’s tent is actually several 16m (53ft) high by 46m (150ft) long tents connected end-to-end (and no, not the colorful sideshow kind). The city of Fremont granted Tesla approval to use the tent for six months, with the possibility of extending that approval for an additional six months (ah yes, the infamous tent-approval arm of local government).

- https://futurism.com/teslas-tent-model-3-production/

[PeterGray]

Slightly different perspective on the saboteur story:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06 ... s-at-tesla

[odysseus2000]

Great example of how polarising the US media is.

Around 25+ years ago a GM vehicle was cited as a fire risk due to external fuel tanks.

The media did some tests & the resulting video showed a massive fireball explosion in a crash test, so case proven. Then some one piped up to say the media had run several tests & only got the fireball by incorporating spark igniters.

The media said, yes they did put in spark igniters, only to demonstrate what would happen if there was a spark!

One can go further back to any significant US business & find folk who stated the business was wicked etc leading to numerous court cases, most of which no one remembers. There have been many examples of US workers being badly treated & one can read e.g. Steinbeck' novels of Depression era business for colour, but the tradition of the US & other advanced nations is that laws are made by rich folk for rich folk & poor folk do not get redress even if they are wronged.

Whether the Vanityfair article is accurate or today's equivalent of spark igniters is not something I know.

There have been many articles citing Tesla has committing dangerous manufacturing procedures & yet one does not see many reports of Tesla cars failing due to traceable bad manufacturing, nor does one see more official reported accidents at Tesla factories than in other manufacturers plant.

If articles like the Vanityfair one are accurate one should see evidence of the effects of the bad practice & maybe it will come, but for now it looks like feeding the folk who hate Tesla & driving sales for Vanityfair.

Regards,

[redsturgeon]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesl ... SKBN1JI013

Looks like Solar City is under pressure too.

The more I look at this the more I worry.

John

[BobbyD]

There have been many articles citing Tesla has committing dangerous manufacturing procedures & yet one does not see many reports of Tesla cars failing due to traceable bad manufacturing,

What are the odds of both cars Tesla produce in a month bursting in to flames?

Tesla recalls almost half the cars it ever built, as shares tank and Musk's billions shrink

- https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/ ... nk-n861421 March 2018

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-solar-exclusive/exclusive-tesla-to-close-a-dozen-solar-facilities-in-nine-states-documents-idUSKBN1JI013

Looks like Solar City is under pressure too.

It's not something I followed, but wasn't the rational of the merger that Tesla would help pull Solar City out of the trouble it was already in?

Musk seems to have a perverse desire to do everything possible to undermine his own attempt to introduce wide spread electric car take up...

[Meatyfool]

Musk seems to have a perverse desire to do everything possible to undermine his own attempt to introduce wide spread electric car take up...

Haven't read the Reuters article, but take exception to the above.

There are a very great number of people who would love to live the following lifestyle:

Go to work in electric car.
Solar roof on your home charges your domestic battery.
Come home from work.
Charge your electric car with your solar power stored in your domestic battery.

The reason why Tesla owns a solar pv company is because Elon wants us to:

Go to work in a Tesla electric car.
Tesla solar roof on your home charges your Tesla domestic battery.
Come home from work.
Thank God for Elon and plug in.

That's vertical integration , no?

Meatyfool..

[BobbyD]

Haven't read the Reuters article, but take exception to the above.

There are a very great number of people who would love to live the following lifestyle:

Go to work in electric car.
Solar roof on your home charges your domestic battery.
Come home from work.
Charge your electric car with your solar power stored in your domestic battery.

It's a massive diversion of resources away from the one Thing Tesla do well, need to do a lot more of, and the one thing Tesla was set up to do. Like the autonomous driving... Is there any reason why all those things needed to be achieved by one company? If the logic is sound and the market steady why not let the solar and the cars exist as two symbiotic companies feeding off each others success, rather than burdening Tesla with a business which wasn't pulling its own weight while Tesla itself was still haemorrhaging money? Tesla going bankrupt isn't going to help anybody live the Tesla lifestyle... Tesla concentrating on car production and producing 10,000 cars a week, and actually getting around to building and delivering the no frills budget option really would...

[redsturgeon]

Musk seems to have a perverse desire to do everything possible to undermine his own attempt to introduce wide spread electric car take up...

Haven't read the Reuters article, but take exception to the above.

There are a very great number of people who would love to live the following lifestyle:

Go to work in electric car.
Solar roof on your home charges your domestic battery.
Come home from work.
Charge your electric car with your solar power stored in your domestic battery.

The reason why Tesla owns a solar pv company is because Elon wants us to:

Go to work in a Tesla electric car.
Tesla solar roof on your home charges your Tesla domestic battery.
Come home from work.
Thank God for Elon and plug in.

That's vertical integration , no?

Meatyfool..

I think you may find that the real reason Musk bought Solar City was that it was owned by his cousins and they were in trouble so he used money siphoned off from his other companies to bail them out. Many people bought the "official" narrative. Musk is very good at selling the story.

John

[dspp]

It's a massive diversion of resources away from the one Thing Tesla do well, need to do a lot more of, and the one thing Tesla was set up to do. Like the autonomous driving... Is there any reason why all those things needed to be achieved by one company? If the logic is sound and the market steady why not let the solar and the cars exist as two symbiotic companies feeding off each others success, rather than burdening Tesla with a business which wasn't pulling its own weight while Tesla itself was still haemorrhaging money? Tesla going bankrupt isn't going to help anybody live the Tesla lifestyle... Tesla concentrating on car production and producing 10,000 cars a week, and actually getting around to building and delivering the no frills budget option really would...

Tesla needs the semi/autonomous stuff to work as part of its market-entry strategy at the high end. Churning out electric econo-boxes is just a way to go bust on low or negative margins, and that is the market entry strategy that the other auto makers tried with EVs for years. Churning out high end EVs to beemer/audi buyers at high volumes with high margins is the Tesla strategy. That is why the semi/autonomous stuff is so important to Tesla.

regards, dspp

[gryffron]

Just coming to this thread. You all keep saying "solar and storage"

But the problem is we DON'T have storage. We are already in a position where peak solar generation on sunny days exceeds requirements. There isn't any room for any more solar. Which is precisely why the govt have just slashed Feed-In-Tariffs.
Nuclear is still required to generate overnight base load. Something that solar can never do and wind is unreliable. But daytime nuclear+solar is already in excess of UK needs.

FWIW my position on Tesla is that they are never going to defeat the existing car giants. Tesla have never got close to their target car production. They are making cars in California, which has the most expensive employment costs and real estate in the USA. Once the gigafactory is in volume production, they'll have to sell batteries to the existing big car makers, and then their technological advantage flies out the window. Tesla would do better if the concentrated on what they are good at, making batteries, and dumped their car arm. But it seems to me all the investment and management effort is going into cars not batteries.

Gryff

[Meatyfool]

I think you may find that the real reason Musk bought Solar City was that it was owned by his cousins and they were in trouble so he used money siphoned off from his other companies to bail them out. Many people bought the "official" narrative. Musk is very good at selling the story.

John

From Wikipedia's SolarCity page:

"In August 2016, it was announced that the company planned to take up $5 million in charges to cover its planned layoffs. The company also cut the salaries of its two co-founders from $275,000 to $1 per year.[21]

Subsidiary of Tesla Inc. (2016–present)[edit]

On August 1, 2016, Tesla announced in a joint statement with SolarCity it would be acquiring the company in an all-stock $2.6 billion merger".

So whilst I would not be surprised if there was a below the table payment to his cousins, it would appear that Elon was being a bit more hardball than you suggested. And his cousins left the company within a year of the acquisition. Read into that what you will!

But yes, SpaceX investing £90 million in SolarCity stock does seem to be a strange investment decision!

Meatyfool..

[Meatyfool]

Tesla would do better if the concentrated on what they are good at, making batteries, and dumped their car arm. But it seems to me all the investment and management effort is going into cars not batteries.
Gryff

Yes, but to build a massive battery factory to supply the other motor manufacturers (it will happen at some point), you need to generate a demand. And that demand is NEVER ever going to come from consumers wanting to buy non-Tesla electric cars, because the other car manufacturers just do not want to cannibalise their existing cash cows.

Yes, Tesla's battery production is going to be their "big thing" - no question of that.

Existing auto are having their Kodak moment - and they still can't see it.

It isn't just Tesla trying to turn around a whole industry. It is Tesla and tens of millions of people who do not want to continue to have to burn fossil fuels to move from A to B. Whilst big auto has its blinkers on, Tesla will always look to produce cars.

If they can survive, then there is a chance they can end up being the top battery producer and one of the top auto manufacturers too.

Meatyfool..

[dspp]

Tesla would do better if the concentrated on what they are good at, making batteries, and dumped their car arm. But it seems to me all the investment and management effort is going into cars not batteries.
Gryff

Yes, but to build a massive battery factory to supply the other motor manufacturers (it will happen at some point), you need to generate a demand. And that demand is NEVER ever going to come from consumers wanting to buy non-Tesla electric cars, because the other car manufacturers just do not want to cannibalise their existing cash cows.

Yes, Tesla's battery production is going to be their "big thing" - no question of that.

Existing auto are having their Kodak moment - and they still can't see it.

It isn't just Tesla trying to turn around a whole industry. It is Tesla and tens of millions of people who do not want to continue to have to burn fossil fuels to move from A to B. Whilst big auto has its blinkers on, Tesla will always look to produce cars.

If they can survive, then there is a chance they can end up being the top battery producer and one of the top auto manufacturers too.

Meatyfool..

Panasonic are the battery maker, and battery technology owner (at the cell level). Tesla seems to have its brand on the side of the Gigafactory to make it easier to get pork out of Uncle Sam.

regards, dspp

[BobbyD]

Existing auto are having their Kodak moment - and they still can't see it.

Existing auto is making this thing which Tesla still haven't discovered yet, called profit.

When the time comes they'll order electric drivetrains from their suppliers rather than all the engine control gizmos they currently buy in, and fit those instead. Plus ca change...

[gryffron]

It is Tesla and tens of millions of people who do not want to continue to have to burn fossil fuels to move from A to B. Whilst big auto has its blinkers on,

There we disagree. Millions just want to get around. Big auto will use whatever is the BEST technology to deliver that. All the big auto makers are already producing hybrid and all-electric models. They'll build whatever is practical, and whatever people will buy. And they build them well, and on time, and have existing dealer and maintenance networks.

Tesla are a tiny niche player. And they're doing very badly at increasing their presence. They have never got even close to their own production targets. IMO "if they survive" they'll be bought out by one of the existing auto players in ten years, for a fraction of the current share price.

Gryff
(considered investing earlier this year, but walked, no ran, away after looking into it in detail)

[BobbyD]

It is Tesla and tens of millions of people who do not want to continue to have to burn fossil fuels to move from A to B. Whilst big auto has its blinkers on,

There we disagree. Millions just want to get around

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. There are doubtless 10's if not 100's of millions of people who given an all other things being equal choice would take electric over petrol or diesel, but for most of them it's a non-choice because electric hasn't filtered down to their sector of the market yet, and as long as Tesla concentrate on toys for execs it won't.

[Meatyfool]

It is Tesla and tens of millions of people who do not want to continue to have to burn fossil fuels to move from A to B. Whilst big auto has its blinkers on,

There we disagree. Millions just want to get around.

Yes. Let's agree to disagree. But you didn't really get my point about tens of millions of people.

For decades now, there has been an ever growing swell of people who want to do things differently. Tesla would never have got off the ground if there wasn't a massive number of people who wanted to make ethical, environmental decisions about the way they choose to live their lives. Those beliefs guide their purchases. So yes they do just want to get around, but not at the expense of their principles (or the planet).

The environmental movement isn't yet mainstream but only now has technology reached the point where an alternative to fossil fuels can even dream to go mainstream.

I drive a Nissan Leaf, I have solar panels on my roof, I would love to have domestic battery storage, but the price isn't yet right. I am just one person, but I am not alone. If Tesla does fold or get bought out, its legacy will be that big auto will never be able to snuff out electric cars: it is too late for that. They will bust a gut to delay the inevitable, but if they aren't nimble, some will get that Kodak moment.

Meatyfool..

[PeterGray]

Existing auto are having their Kodak moment - and they still can't see it.

I'm quite sure they can. The biggest electric car manufacturer - in terms of deliveries in early 2017 was Renault-Nissan, with Tesla in no. 2. BMW is in there, Hyundai, Chevrolet plus a list of big Chinese companies most of us have never heard of.

Now, I'll accept those figures are a year old, and Tesla may (only may though!) have managed to increase production since, but so I'm quite sure have the others.

The big car manufacturers will all have either electric cars in production or prototypes and detailed plans for models. Changing over to electric is not going to be a big deal for the big auto companies - they have the experience, the capital and the design teams. Plus they take the sensible route of buying in critical tech from those who do it best - that could even conceivably be Tesla for some items - such as batteries if they were prepared to sell them.

Peter

[Meatyfool]

I can't recall which channel it was but a vlogger discussed when they thought that car brands would go all electric in their product range.

Smart is already there (well, in the US they are, but also announced in RoW).

Jaguar was next in (I think) 2020-2022 - not so far away.

Both are niche manufacturers, so some would say "big deal!".

However, for those of you who can't get their head around the fact the Tesla's first business disruption model is their production method, I'll call up a truism of the existing auto industry that is as old as the hills.

What starts in luxury cars will filter down to the bottom of the range.

So why do I rail against big auto in support of Tesla if electric will ultimately prevail in personal transportation? Simply because big auto have sunk billions of capital into existing product, existing production, everything and they aren't going to take a hit on that. They will sweat those assets to within an inch of their productive life before they replace them.

Those practices speak of evolution. They speak of transitioning the vehicle population to electric over generations of people, decades of time. All the while those cars spewing out more and more CO2.

No, what we need is revolution. As speedy a transition to electric transportation as we possibly can. And whilst I'll make a nod to Nissan for creating the Leaf, only Tesla is committed to (their second) business model disruption - killing the ICE vehicle. The planet needs that.

And just to prove that I'm not a rabid "fanboi", I'm well aware that my pension is invested in part in ICE vehicle manufacturers. So if big auto does go south in a big way, I will pay some of the price.

Meatyfool..