-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
@Lump, my apologies for being blunt, but I do see it being spun, as we speak - by you.
The truth is that the highway range on 85D increased at the expense of the reduction of the range in city. Given the fact that it is very hard to drive in the city more than 200 miles in a day (except for a taxi duty) the slight decrease of the city range is irrelevant. The increase in hwy range, though, is very important because that is exactly the case when extra range is needed.
Last edited:
I am not getting personal at all, just pointing out that your original post was misrepresenting what actually happen.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I don't think the perception of a change in range is going to affect the stock in any significant way. Remember the S was advertised as a 300 mile vehicle, and the EPA came in lower.
MartinAustin
Active Member
The original, higher figures came from Tesla's own tests, which are not the same as what the EPA is doing (and honestly we are in the first few years of the EPA's new testing electric car tests and they are changing what they do every now and again. Might change again, who knows).
It should be clear that you can get better (or lower) than the number resulting from the EPA's test, depending on external conditions and your driving style.
I have been able to get more than 265 miles in my P85 before, and I am sure there are may others here on this forum who have too. The EPA's "265" is not a hard limit. Nothing has changed about the car from the original reveal event... just that the EPA finally did its test.
Lump, about your "spin" question - there are plenty of crappy blogs and news sites out there who patently refuse to ignore facts, and publish big, awesome-sounding clickbait headlines. They will easily be able to spin anything they want, to that end. I would not be surprised if, in order to get clicks, someone proclaims the range of the car has somehow gotten worse, even though that is simply not true.
It should be clear that you can get better (or lower) than the number resulting from the EPA's test, depending on external conditions and your driving style.
I have been able to get more than 265 miles in my P85 before, and I am sure there are may others here on this forum who have too. The EPA's "265" is not a hard limit. Nothing has changed about the car from the original reveal event... just that the EPA finally did its test.
Lump, about your "spin" question - there are plenty of crappy blogs and news sites out there who patently refuse to ignore facts, and publish big, awesome-sounding clickbait headlines. They will easily be able to spin anything they want, to that end. I would not be surprised if, in order to get clicks, someone proclaims the range of the car has somehow gotten worse, even though that is simply not true.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
Agree. Main point is that the Model S is the only long-distance performance electric car in the planet (also equipped with the SC network).
Of course someone is going to try to spin it, but so what? They spin everything but it's the same people and the agenda is known. To vgrin's point, an established TMC member worrying about spin actually makes me more concerned about my TSLA investment than a clearly biased article from someone like Santos or Wahlman.
Re: range, I still wonder if the EPA ranges of the 60 and 85 from 2012 are apples to apples with the 2014 P85D range. It is obviously misleading to have two differently calculated EPA ranges side by side, so I would think they wouldn't do it. But maybe TM can't list what the 60 and 85 would score if tested today because they would need to go through the whole process again.
Another possibility is that the 5-cycle EPA is biased toward low speeds. From greenercars.org | automobiles the environment it looks like three of the five cycles are at low-speed, one is at medium speed, and one is low/high speed.
Re: range, I still wonder if the EPA ranges of the 60 and 85 from 2012 are apples to apples with the 2014 P85D range. It is obviously misleading to have two differently calculated EPA ranges side by side, so I would think they wouldn't do it. But maybe TM can't list what the 60 and 85 would score if tested today because they would need to go through the whole process again.
Another possibility is that the 5-cycle EPA is biased toward low speeds. From greenercars.org | automobiles the environment it looks like three of the five cycles are at low-speed, one is at medium speed, and one is low/high speed.
Mike, I think everyone worries about 'spin' wherever it comes from. What we need is response from knowledgeable analysts or TM itself to explain/counter the FUDsters. Lately we have had very little support.
In the long run the results of the company will speak for itself and be reflected in the long term TSLA price. The short run is where we have our issues.
I just don't think the noise from the shorts really makes much difference in the stock price. They may scare off some weak longs or discourage some people from investing, but I don't think those few retail investors make much difference when 5 million shares are traded every day. Anyone who is relying on SeekingAlpha-type articles to make investment decisions is probably not going to be holding onto those shares much longer anyway. OTOH, I really hope institutional investors aren't relying on SeekingAlpha spin to make decisions.
Over the weekend I talked to several people who know Tesla and have invested at various points and are generally traders rather than investors. Common them from their talk has been that cheap oil for extended period hurts Tesla specially when it enters into the low price range markets. Market is thus selling off considering cheap oil is here to stay for foreseeable future. They expect to breach 200.
Tesla along with solar stocks have been down along with oil. I somehow think the downturn has a bit to do with perception of such market chatter and traders who react to such news. Specially when we are not expecting any substantial news out of Tesla anytime soon.
Tesla along with solar stocks have been down along with oil. I somehow think the downturn has a bit to do with perception of such market chatter and traders who react to such news. Specially when we are not expecting any substantial news out of Tesla anytime soon.
I can't understand why you guys are all arguing about 15 miles of range. We all know the EPA numbers are inaccurate and under specific conditions. The average consumer knows that your range will vary (this goes in both directions). Civics and corollas were getting 40+ mpg's while being rated at 30 mixed historically. The point is, the cars are out and being delivered. Once reviews come in and if it satisfies the consumer we'll be fine.
- - - Updated - - -
I heard this argument many times over as well. If you are liquid, capitalize on it. People who are buying Model S' don't generally take fuel consumption and gas prices into consideration. They buy a Model S because it's a superior vehicle in its own right. Which does jive with the argument about going down into lower price points. What DOES matter is Global Warming and the increased publicity it gets. I'm seeing some serious carbon taxes in the future or some kind of penalty that must be paid. Traders can react all they want till they get caught with their pants down.
- - - Updated - - -
I heard this argument many times over as well. If you are liquid, capitalize on it. People who are buying Model S' don't generally take fuel consumption and gas prices into consideration. They buy a Model S because it's a superior vehicle in its own right. Which does jive with the argument about going down into lower price points. What DOES matter is Global Warming and the increased publicity it gets. I'm seeing some serious carbon taxes in the future or some kind of penalty that must be paid. Traders can react all they want till they get caught with their pants down.
Chickenlittle
Banned
Sure don't want to get political but too many unstable countries are hurt by oil drop. It's an incentive to start a crisis to raise the price of oil. Even if that view is too jaded, these unstable countries will have a political event/ crisis that will jack up oil price
- Status
Similar threads
