Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?

[Curt Renz]

An article first appeared in EV Obsession by Christopher DeMorro claiming that a Model S would only last for 12 minutes at 125 mph on the German Autobahn due to an overheating battery pack: Tesla Model S Drives 125 MPH For 12 Minutes −

It actually slowed down after 12 minutes due to leaving the unlimited speed German Autobahn and entering Denmark: Tesla Model S P85 driving 200 km/h, 125 mph for 12 minutes on German autobahn - YouTube

The article with the incorrect assumption turned into a negative assertion has been reprinted in many media outlets, in some cases with the word "just" inserted in front of "12 minutes".

 

[AndreN]

Unfortunately the version of this article on CleanTechnica has "Just" in the title, and that's the article that got quoted on Benzinga, then Yahoo.

 

[atang]

Unfortunately the version of this article on CleanTechnica has "Just" in the title, and that's the article that got quoted on Benzinga, then Yahoo.

How did that happen? Zach?

 

[Johan]

Yeah that twisting if Bjørn's video is classic deliberate FUD-slinging.

 

[Curt Renz]

An article first appeared in EV Obsession by Christopher DeMorro claiming that a Model S would only last for 12 minutes at 125 mph on the German Autobahn due to an overheating battery pack: Tesla Model S Drives 125 MPH For 12 Minutes −

It actually slowed down after 12 minutes due to leaving the unlimited speed German Autobahn and entering Denmark: Tesla Model S P85 driving 200 km/h, 125 mph for 12 minutes on German autobahn - YouTube

The article with the incorrect assumption turned into a negative assertion has been reprinted in many media outlets, in some cases with the word "just" inserted in front of "12 minutes".

I notified Tesla Motors of the article. Here is the response I received:

"Thank you for drawing this to our attention. We will address this with the journalist directly."

 

[atang]

Thanks Curt, needed to be done!

 

[theschnell]

I'm glad we have this thread. I didn't read that article, but I believed the headline was probably true, given the track issues I've heard about. Watching the video gives the exact opposite impression of the Model S compared to the headline of that article. Can't believe anything you read on mainstream media these days.

How about the USA today article posted yesterday saying the CR car had to be taken to the service center, when the CR blog they link to says a technician came to them. Do journalist even know how to read?

 

[chickensevil]

http://investcorrectly.com/20150515...technology-sustainable-competitive-advantage/

Article is from a couple days ago, I was looking for something else and stumbled on it and I just had a huge facepalm... The crux of the article is that Tesla doesn't have an advantage because they are using 15 year old tech (referencing Lithium Ion, I assume, although that is actually more like 25 to 30 years old...) The first comment sums it up best:

"If Tesla uses 15 year old technology on their batteries (lithium-ion) it follows that modern Formula One cars use 150 year old technology (the gas powered combustion engine). Technological advances don't end with the initial invention."

 

[Incredulocious]

Here's more detail on that "near buyout" story from the book:
That time Tesla nearly failed, and investors had no idea - Yahoo Finance

The 2013 cash crunch developed just a few months after Tesla’s Model S sedan went on sale. Customers who put down a $5,000 deposit for the car were holding back as models became available, reluctant to commit to the full purchase price, typically around $100,000. Tesla’s cash reserves fell dangerously low.

When Musk learned of the crisis in February 2013, he did two things: First, he turned every Tesla employee into a salesperson, directing them to call everybody who had put down a deposit and turn those pre-orders into final sales. Second, he persuaded his friend Larry Page, CEO of Google (GOOGL), to buy Tesla if the company actually ran out of money.

Google did its homework and agreed to purchase Tesla for a reported $6 billion or so, if necessary. It turned out not to be. Tesla’s crash customer-outreach program worked, and Tesla sold enough vehicles to fix its finances. A month after Musk asked Google for a lifeline, Tesla announced it had sold 4,900 Model S sedans in the quarter and turned a profit for the first time since going public. Then Consumer Reports gave the Model S the highest ranking ever granted a car it reviewed. Tesla recovered and the Google deal went away.

That does match my experience as a deposit holder: I received at least one follow-up call from Tesla representatives in the early days of the Model S after I decided the vehicle was indeed bigger than I wanted and would wait for something more to my liking. I don't remember exactly when those calls were though. For what it's worth, they were very understanding and not pushy at all, just interested to know if I might change my mind.

 

[SteveG3]

Here's more detail on that "near buyout" story from the book:
That time Tesla nearly failed, and investors had no idea - Yahoo Finance



That does match my experience as a deposit holder: I received at least one follow-up call from Tesla representatives in the early days of the Model S after I decided the vehicle was indeed bigger than I wanted and would wait for something more to my liking. I don't remember exactly when those calls were though. For what it's worth, they were very understanding and not pushy at all, just interested to know if I might change my mind.

I still see Vance cherry-picking and rearranging information to fit his narrative.

1. In the excerpt a month or two ago, he gave the false impression that there weren't positive reviews until the recovery from this would be "near death" experience in the Spring of 2013. There were multiple very significant tremendously positive reviews, including unanimous MotorTrend Car of the Year, in the Fall of 2012.

2. His description of early consumer response to the car is at great odds to what we saw on TMC. If everything else he said measured up, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that TMC was disproportionately a friendly crowd... but everything else he says does not measure up.

3. He's not once mentioned the role of sensationalist shoddy journalism in whatever scale crunch Tesla did actually experience in February 2013... the NYTimes bogus story by John Broder. Bogus journalism misinforming the public and causing harm to Musk and Tesla is apparently something he'd rather not see included in the discussion.

4. He's completely glossing over the difference between sales and deliveries. Tesla delivered 4,900 vehicles in Q1 2013. If this was a crisis that hit in February 2013, it just seems unlikely Tesla could have had a surge in turning reservations into orders, and then got those cars built and delivered all in under 6 weeks.

There may have been issues with people holding back on finalizing reservations, and there may have been a push to work with this, but I think Vance is giving a distorted and over-simplified treatment of what actually happened.

 

[Curt Renz]

General Motors and particularly Ford shares are down today by almost the same percentage as Tesla. The Barclays note about autonomous driving eventually reducing car production is in Benzinga again today, but this time referencing all automakers: http://www.benzinga.com/analyst-rat...525003/we-hit-peak-horse-will-we-hit-peak-car

Yesterday a similar Benzinga article focused only on Tesla but is still featured today on their homepage: Barclays On Tesla: The Disrupter Gets Disrupted - Tesla Motors, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Benzinga

It would seem to me that if cars in the future are utilized more frequently throughout the day by rotating users, then the cars will wear out sooner and need to be replaced earlier than is currently the case. That could keep production nearly in line with current estimates, even if Barclays' speculation about future driving habits turns out to be correct.

Of course almost the entire fleet of non-autonomous cars would have to be replaced, if Barclays' guess is right, which would actually boost production for several years. Those in the forefront of autonomous driving like Tesla would benefit the most. Meanwhile, lesser developed countries have a continuously growing need for more cars.

 

[DarrenHD]

General Motors and Ford shares are down today by almost the same percentage as Tesla. The Barclays note about autonomous driving eventually reducing car production is in Benzinga again today, but this time referencing all automakers: http://www.benzinga.com/analyst-rat...525003/we-hit-peak-horse-will-we-hit-peak-car

Yesterday a similar Benzinga article focused only on Tesla but is still featured today on their homepage: Barclays On Tesla: The Disrupter Gets Disrupted - Tesla Motors, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Benzinga

It would seem to me that if cars in the future are utilized more frequently throughout the day by rotating users, then the cars will wear out sooner and need to be replaced earlier than is currently the case. That could keep production nearly in line with current estimates, even if Barclays guess about future driving habits turns out to be correct. Meanwhile, lesser developed countries have a continuously growing need for more cars.

I personally don't buy into Barclays' predictions. I can see a small number of automated cars that people can use, like renting a bike as they do in many cities, but I think that will take decades to change. People will still want to own their own car for lots of different reasons.

 

[austinEV]

Curt I agree. If you imagine a world where ALL cars are autonomous, then some people would choose to own, but many would just use "Uber" to call a car and go from A to B. The incentive to own your own car would go down dramatically, but the total miles driven would be flat, or way up as people just become more mobile. If an inexpensive automated car can take you wherever you might drive 50 miles to go to lunch while you watch "unbreakable Kimmie Schmidt" season 5 on your tablet.

 

[mrdoubleb]

Curt I agree. If you imagine a world where ALL cars are autonomous, then some people would choose to own, but many would just use "Uber" to call a car and go from A to B. The incentive to own your own car would go down dramatically, but the total miles driven would be flat, or way up as people just become more mobile. If an inexpensive automated car can take you wherever you might drive 50 miles to go to lunch while you watch "unbreakable Kimmie Schmidt" season 5 on your tablet.

I am not sure I agree with the assumption autonomus cars would result in falling demand. Of course a lot depends on pricing, but what that service essentailly means is that you do not need to own a vehicle, you can just order one and go from A to B. Well, newsflash, we have had that for a few decades now, it's called a taxi cab. Or, to be more trendy, Uber. Now, obviously the driver's fee comes down from the price, so such a service would be cheaper, but at most i see this as being to the taxi industry what the mp3 was to the CD.

 

[Curt Renz]

I am not sure I agree with the assumption autonomus cars would result in falling demand. Of course a lot depends on pricing, but what that service essentailly means is that you do not need to own a vehicle, you can just order one and go from A to B. Well, newsflash, we have had that for a few decades now, it's called a taxi cab. Or, to be more trendy, Uber. Now, obviously the driver's fee comes down from the price, so such a service would be cheaper, but at most i see this as being to the taxi industry what the mp3 was to the CD.

Indeed, in fact taxicabs have been around since the mass production of automobiles and long before in the form of horse driven carriages including stagecoaches. That's not to mention other forms of public transportation such as buses and commuter trains. Nevertheless, for a century people have been buying their own automobiles for independence, pride and personal convenience to arrive at a wide variety of destinations, and before that their own horses and carriages. They also need to easily transport items other than themselves, hence the popularity of pickup trucks.

I agree that speculation about autonomous cars eventually serving widely as taxicabs, thus causing automobile production to shrink, is vastly overblown and misunderstands human nature. Meanwhile, people in developing countries will continue demanding more and more of their own cars. Autonomous vehicles may put taxi and bus drivers out of work, but the production lines should keep humming.

 

[Cattledog]

There's a fundamental reason people like to own things - to control their own destiny. If not owning was the preferred method for all goods, you'd see far more people looking to rent than own houses, furniture, recreational equipment, tech devices, etc. Little impact on auto manufacturing for at least two decades if not ever.

 

[JRP3]

Then there are all of us who don't live in the middle of population centers, who will likely never have convenient access to shared vehicles. Also, the low per mile operating costs for EV's could rekindle a move away from city dwelling.

 

[mrdoubleb]

Then there are all of us who don't live in the middle of population centers, who will likely never have convenient access to shared vehicles. Also, the low per mile operating costs for EV's could rekindle a move away from city dwelling.

Yeah and also I do expect cars on the long run to actually become cheaper thanks to EVs. The EV drivetrain is so much cheaper that once battery prices come down, they may actually have a price advantage.

 

[JRP3]

McIntyre at it again. "Petersen light". http://247wallst.com/autos/2015/05/26/tesla-market-value-tops-chryslers/

 

[Hogfighter]

McIntyre at it again. "Petersen light". http://247wallst.com/autos/2015/05/26/tesla-market-value-tops-chryslers/

Yep, just read it. Apparently there are analysts and investors that have never heard of the distinction between 'value' and 'growth' stocks in the same industry.