-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Alright, I'll stop now. Back to the previous topic, let me just remark that tftf never answered my recent question as to what hir bet is, as opposed to us TSLA folks. Not that surprising, but perhaps worth noting. Over & out.
What he is saying is, more cleverer people are generally less wrong, and less cleverer people are generally more wrong. I hope it is crystal clear now.
The fire thread is pretty much up to date with the most recent information: A Model S just caught fire while supercharging in Norway (link in Norwegian) - Page 37
Thanks for posting the info, obviously luca is quite out of line to say nothing of the general content emptiness of his recent posts.
The fundamental flaw in tftf's argument is that the electric car market is not a zero-sum game. There is plenty of room for Tesla, GM, Nissan, BMW and etc. to sell as many compelling EV as they want. the total world car market is approximately 70 Million vehicles and growing. Tesla can be immensely successful with less that 0.5% of the total market. That is well within reach. As has been previously stated, ICE car makes are the ones losing sales not Tesla to the new entrants into the EV market.
Yes, I meant to compare the model 3 with the bolt. I clearly disagree that we know what the model 3 is going to be like, and especially the model is that is price competitive with the bolt. Elon musk claiming 'it's going to be like a BMW3' is 1) vague and 2) doesn't necessarily make it so. Those who follow Tesla communication know the CEO is prone to overexcited hyperbole. Personally, I am not trading on the qualities of the model 3 (positive or negative) before more information is out there.
Just one example of a very important question : will the model 3 that is price competitive with a bolt include free supercharging? Or for that matter : will it even have supercharger capability? There is simply no way of knowing yet it makes a huge difference in the value proposition of the car.
Julian isn't wrong about FTFT's approach. He rotates through a list of disprovable bear arguments as though they are new and factual, sends us into a tizzy and, ignores the rebuttals, goes to the next point etc.
Breakdown of some common Bear arguments
1) TM will need capital to build factories in the future, thus will do capital raises, which will cause dilution which will cause the stock to go down. (Yes it will do raises, no it won't tank the stock.)
2) If the majors enter the EV market TM will fail (they won't, and it wouldn't)
3) If other startups enter the EV market TM will fail (it wouldn't, competition is all transport).
4) the EV change if it happens will be really slow, since factories take a long time to build (True, so what? The yield on our ever increasing stock will be somewhat lower? up is up. The competition will not be able to do it faster so the speed is not relevent.)
5) If another battery company makes cells TM will fail (it won't, more the merrier).
jhm
Well-Known Member
I think you only got half my point. If the auto industry as a whole can get to 8 million long range EVs by 2025, this really is a disaster for the oil industry because EVs will continue to double every couple of years. So by early 2030s, nearly all new vehicles are electric and the existing fleet of gas vehicle declines about 6% every year. This is way less oil demand than OPEC is hoping for.
I put this moderate scenario up to challenge tftf to bound his expectations about how quickly an auto company can grow into the EV market. He was smart enough not to take the bait. Tftf is not in the position to affirm that yes GM can grow EVs at 40% per year. Not that it is not posible, but that it does not serve his bear argument. And yet tftf wants to claim that traditional automakers can out compete Tesla. Fine, but then tftf would need to affirm that GM or somebody could at least hit this modest growth scenario. If a.traditional automaker cannot grow EVs faster than 40% annually, it really cannot catch up to Tesla which has proven it can grow EVS at 50% or more.
So tftf is smart enough to know that he could neither affirm nor deny that any automaker could hit my moderate growth scenario. He would have exposed the contradiction of his own rhetoric.
So Tesla is playing a very special role. The only way for competitors to slow Tesla's growth is to grow into the EV market faster than Tesla is growing. But this comes at a cost of destroying the ICE industry at an accelerated pace. So Tesla is the pacesetter in this race. For now, all incumbents want to keep the pace as slow as possible, but this strategy simply cedes market share to Tesla and any other EV makers moving at pace with Tesla. So Tesla is the pace setter. If you grow as fast as Tesla you keep your share relative to Tesla. If you are slower than Tesla your lose share to those keeping pace with Tesla. Every auto major should make it their goal to sell a certain multiple of EVS to whatever Tesla can put on the market. Anything short of that is losing market share in the EV market. Seriously, the auto industry should have sold over 500k long range EVS last year to keep pace with Tesla selling 50k. Will they be ready to deliver at least 1 million in 2017, 2 million in 2019, 4 million in 2021? If it really takes decades for the auto industry to change, can they really afford to sit on their hands for another 5 years? The industry does not set the pace. Tesla is setting the pace.
Really hope this "start selling" wording isn't Tesla being coy. I will assume "Model 3 is on schedule" means deliveries rather than "start selling".
Those that are familiar with Elon's communications style would entirely disagree that he is prone to "overexited hyperbole".
I would strongly disagree with that statement. Elon goes to extraordinary lengths to speak with accuracy, including upon topics that are determinable deep into the future. Those he typically couches in the appropriate statistical language. As far as I am aware he as never yet issued a materially misleading statement among a great many material statements that have proven accurate by the passage of events. Speaking of the future is often considered to be the definition of hype by those wired to believe the future is by definition indeterminable. That is not Elon's problem.
On the subject of Model 3 there is a great deal more that is knowable than 'BMW 3 Series killer'. It would take a side of A4 to explain and this is not the place for it. The end result is that battery cost, energy density, scaling of 2D surfaces and 3D load-bearing structures, scaling of motor and inverter power handling, design for automated assembly and parts commonality for things like brake system, wheels, wipers, lights, glass and suspension components with very mass market cars all conspire to deliver a 80% scale Model S 70 type vehicle with performance and range to match at $35K. Which I think anyone would agree would be a worthy BMW 3 series competitor (and nothing like a GM Bolt). Recall the Q3 conference call - the GM managed to publish LG's $145 per KWh and an analyst asked if that price was a competitive concern to Tesla - to which the answer was essentially 'no and good luck getting close to Tesla's battery cost reductions'.
Whether they will include Super Charging in the $35K base model I don't know but I can guess. Looking at the Model S 60 experience vs the Model S 70 I think they will aim for it and cost-wise I think it is possible. With a smaller battery that is further optimized for fast charging both the total energy use and the time required to occupy a Supercharging stall will drop considerably compared with the Model S and X. Straubel was talking about getting Supercharging down to under ten minutes for the Model 3 and aiming for five - as you say it makes a huge difference to the value proposition. It is also likely to be the case that Model X and Model S is more likely to be purchased by people with leisure time and attending meetings that require lengthy Supercharger trips where the Model 3 demographic is probably younger and more centered around home, centralized work and family life. Certainly the average car driver uses the Interstate less than the average Model S owner assuming the 10% Super Charger stats is suggestive (if not conclusive) of a lower per vehicle Super Charger demand of a more averagely priced vehicle.
It is also a thing that come 2017 and beyond Solar City will be up and running with its own solar panel manufacturing facility in Buffalo NY likely benefiting Tesla with a reduced energy installation cost and Tesla will be producing storage batteries of its own. Finally on these musings I think that providing customers with Supercharging is a way more effective use of an auto makers advertising budget than buying TV spots. Together IMO this adds up to a 65% chance of Tesla including Supercharging in the base Model 3 (and being able to do so within the base price).
I pop in here from time to time to lurk. "Here" meaning this thread, obviously not the rest of the forum. Other threads are not nearly as fortunate to avoid my posts.
To the topic - I'm not an outright shareholder, but probably to some degree have incidental holdings in TSLA. I am a big fan and follower of the company, and have watched the stock trade in this range for a long while. I'm a MS owner, and more than likely will be an MX owner before very long. All of that said, I don't trade in/invest in TSLA mainly because it's such a tricky/risky play. There are a lot of great participants in this thread, on both sides, who have added valuable commentary. That said, it's hard for me to think of the short-term movements as much more than noise in the scheme of a market testing some tops.
There is good reason that there's short interest in TSLA. The valuation is hard to wrap one's mind around. I say this despite the rationalizations made in this thread - I don't care what you see happening, the valuation is high. That said, valuation is in the eye of the market, and TSLA's been able to support it for longer than I'd have thought. And it could very well increase, depending on the situation in China and the overall market.
What I am here to say, mostly, is that as someone who is an active investor in the market and an avid follower of all things Tesla, I still can't get myself to buy shares outright because of the valuation issue. Aside from the valuation issue, which is a big hangup for me, it's also because I personally believe that TSLA will not buck the market when and if it turns downward. On the contrary, I could see it getting hit harder just because the valuation is relatively high.
Keep up the good conversation, though. Often very interesting stuff here when the mud stays on the ground.
To the topic - I'm not an outright shareholder, but probably to some degree have incidental holdings in TSLA. I am a big fan and follower of the company, and have watched the stock trade in this range for a long while. I'm a MS owner, and more than likely will be an MX owner before very long. All of that said, I don't trade in/invest in TSLA mainly because it's such a tricky/risky play. There are a lot of great participants in this thread, on both sides, who have added valuable commentary. That said, it's hard for me to think of the short-term movements as much more than noise in the scheme of a market testing some tops.
There is good reason that there's short interest in TSLA. The valuation is hard to wrap one's mind around. I say this despite the rationalizations made in this thread - I don't care what you see happening, the valuation is high. That said, valuation is in the eye of the market, and TSLA's been able to support it for longer than I'd have thought. And it could very well increase, depending on the situation in China and the overall market.
What I am here to say, mostly, is that as someone who is an active investor in the market and an avid follower of all things Tesla, I still can't get myself to buy shares outright because of the valuation issue. Aside from the valuation issue, which is a big hangup for me, it's also because I personally believe that TSLA will not buck the market when and if it turns downward. On the contrary, I could see it getting hit harder just because the valuation is relatively high.
Keep up the good conversation, though. Often very interesting stuff here when the mud stays on the ground.
It is impossible to predict what car competes with what other car, two years before either car hits the market. Car buying is mostly an emotional decision, more so than an economical or sensible one. Nothing is guaranteed based on product alone. When the Chevy Cruze was launched in 2010, it was miles ahead of the competition. Better economy, 6spd auto compared to 4spd auto in the Corolla/Civic and vastly superior fit and finish but that didn't affect how many Corolla/Civics were being sold. I have followed the midsize truck segment for several years as someone who owns one. Even though I own a Colorado, I will admit that the Nissan Frontier looks better, is several thousand cheaper, and is a much better value. Despite this the Chevy trucks handily outsell Nissan trucks.
The Bolt and Model 3 will not compete because the consumers buying them will not be the same. An Impala and BMW3 are in the same price range, neither is a bad car and they both do well sales wise. One group wants a soft riding full size sedan with a powerful motor while the other wants a nimble canyon carving RWD sports sedan. I wouldn't berate an Impala buyer for not buying a superb handling BMW, because what is important to me would not be what is important to someone else. Buying a $70,000 electric car may be one person's idea of going green while buying a $35,000 EV and spending $35,000 on solar panels for their house may be another person's idea of going green. They are both commendable and neither should be mocked for their choice.
The Bolt will be a compliance car but that doesn't mean it will be a bad one. The Volt and Spark EV are compliance cars too, both good cars (not great like the Model S) with very satisfied owners. Volt owners hate their car for four reasons, The low AER range, ICE backup, lack of DC fast charging capability and a 5th seat. The Bolt will address all four issues. It will not be a competition to the Model 3 and won't be as great, but it still has it's place. The Nissan leaf( and its Renault sibling) is by far the most popular EV globally. The Bolt will cost about the same, have twice the range with a liquid cooled battery. Since looks are subjective I will not comment on it.
The Bolt is a business decision. Two of the biggest auto markets(US and China) are rapidly embracing EVs, either due to policy reasons or changing consumer preferences. GM is the largest in one and the second largest in the other. 99% of their profit come from these two countries. GM will be dead in months without a competent EV if these two markets take to EVs in huge numbers. Everyone is wrong in assuming that GM and it's dealers are worried the Bolt will steal sales from ICE models. A Tahoe or Silverado buyer is not going to buy the Bolt. Bolt sales will either come from other non profitable cars or the competition. CAFE and CARB are two other reasons for GM and it's dealers to get very excited about selling EVs. You want to sell that Suburban with a $20K markup? Better move a few Bolts. One Bolt sold = 4 ZEV credits = $20,000 not paid in fines or $20,000 not paid to a competitor to buy credits.
The Bolt and Model 3 will not compete because the consumers buying them will not be the same. An Impala and BMW3 are in the same price range, neither is a bad car and they both do well sales wise. One group wants a soft riding full size sedan with a powerful motor while the other wants a nimble canyon carving RWD sports sedan. I wouldn't berate an Impala buyer for not buying a superb handling BMW, because what is important to me would not be what is important to someone else. Buying a $70,000 electric car may be one person's idea of going green while buying a $35,000 EV and spending $35,000 on solar panels for their house may be another person's idea of going green. They are both commendable and neither should be mocked for their choice.
The Bolt will be a compliance car but that doesn't mean it will be a bad one. The Volt and Spark EV are compliance cars too, both good cars (not great like the Model S) with very satisfied owners. Volt owners hate their car for four reasons, The low AER range, ICE backup, lack of DC fast charging capability and a 5th seat. The Bolt will address all four issues. It will not be a competition to the Model 3 and won't be as great, but it still has it's place. The Nissan leaf( and its Renault sibling) is by far the most popular EV globally. The Bolt will cost about the same, have twice the range with a liquid cooled battery. Since looks are subjective I will not comment on it.
The Bolt is a business decision. Two of the biggest auto markets(US and China) are rapidly embracing EVs, either due to policy reasons or changing consumer preferences. GM is the largest in one and the second largest in the other. 99% of their profit come from these two countries. GM will be dead in months without a competent EV if these two markets take to EVs in huge numbers. Everyone is wrong in assuming that GM and it's dealers are worried the Bolt will steal sales from ICE models. A Tahoe or Silverado buyer is not going to buy the Bolt. Bolt sales will either come from other non profitable cars or the competition. CAFE and CARB are two other reasons for GM and it's dealers to get very excited about selling EVs. You want to sell that Suburban with a $20K markup? Better move a few Bolts. One Bolt sold = 4 ZEV credits = $20,000 not paid in fines or $20,000 not paid to a competitor to buy credits.
mmd
Active Member
Let's hope "the design" actually means a prototype and some preliminary specs, like last year's Bolt reveal. . And selling = delivering, although Elon has insisted many times they are not.
For anyone interested in Bolt at CES: It's live now at GM's facebook page.
To Ohmman: Thanks for your post. We need to maintain some minimum level of respect and decency for each other on this forum to keep this readable.
Chevy just unveiled their Bolt.
Around $30k after incentives, 200 mile range, 80% charge in 60 minutes.
http://jalopnik.com/2017-chevrolet-bolt-meet-americas-30-000-200-mile-ele-1751426729
Thoughts on reaction tomorrow?
Around $30k after incentives, 200 mile range, 80% charge in 60 minutes.
http://jalopnik.com/2017-chevrolet-bolt-meet-americas-30-000-200-mile-ele-1751426729
Thoughts on reaction tomorrow?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
