Fred is at it again. Tesla released the Autopilot crash rate, which is essentially unchanged from last quarter to this quarter at 1 in 2.91 vs 1 in 2.89 million miles driven. The difference between the two quarters is a tiny rounding error. Hardly worth the Headline that there were more Autopilot crashes in the last quarter. Both round to 1 in 2.9 million miles. The Headlines should be that Autopilot continues to be much safer than human drivers. That is the real news.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Huh, someone is ignoring statistics...
Given that there are more Teslas on the road each quarter, the accident rate would need to decrease by a similar fraction to not have a higher accident count...
I think the title you made would be more appropriate. Jan~March is snow/ice season for colder places, this February we got record amount of snow and ice. It seems some cities ran out of salt, many roads were covered with ice for a while. However, accident rate under autopilot remained essentially the same compared with Q4, that's good news.
Accident rate under human driver improved 11.4% compared with Q4 (1.58 million miles ->1.76 million miles per accident). This is great news! I think drivers are the same, the system is improving. Q3'19 we will have the first same quarter comparison, I expect major improvement from Q3'18 to Q3'19. National average is at one accident every 0.436 million miles.
larmor
Active Member
Still Saudi PIF hold just under 5%, and probably quite pleased with shorts allowing even better entry point... Hmmm who is funding the shorts.
anthonyj
Stonks
Lol,that’s an outdated list, I’m sure a nice chunk of those “investors” sold at the top... *cough* T Rowe *cough* and some definitely sold after Q1 profit warning, store closing/reopening/SEC.
I really don’t understand why Gerber is such a cheerleader for Tesla 24/7 when he only holds a small percentage in his fund. Kind of reduces his credibility and he should put his money where his mouth is
THIS
This is what I've been wrapping my mind around since the Q1 numbers are out while at the same time ''shopping'' my M3 to replace my ecodiesel (change of job tittle/tasks so I don't have to wait for Tesla pickup anymore, Hurray! end of side note).
Tesla does not need to get a high share price, an over performing stock to please wall street for another stock offering.
Tesla DOES need a high, super performing stock price to get a whole bunch of early believer, fans, retail investor to buy TSLA and profit from it so they can transfer a part of that profit back to Tesla by buying higher priced products!
Now it could be just me but I was waiting 2 weeks more to see if share price would improve and if I could put a bigger deposit on that car. I t did not
... I will buy the car anyway because I drive from 45 000km up to 60 000km per year with a pickup truck, so it still does make sense financially to switch and I'm a fan.But I don't think it is just me. How many times I've read '' if the share price goes to xxxx$ <---insert your own number, I will be able to afford xxxxxxxxx <---- insert autopilot, solar roof, roadster gen2, etc...'' just right here on this forum.
I mean, probably a lot of SR reservation holder are not in that investor/buyer category. But the more I think about it, the more I think that this is a major demand lever for higher priced Tesla products.
N.B. I don't link this theory with poor S/X numbers, that is something else ; Tesla does not need to make any shenanigan any more with those two flagship to make them more affordable ; if you want affordable, buy a model 3 or reserve your Y. Moving forward Tesla will just not screw their margins anymore on those 2 higher end models. If you were in the market for a 75D, you are now in the market for an AWD/P 3 or Y... with higher margins.
And, I get it, some of TMC members really think or just want a refresh on model S and/or X. PLLLLEEEEASE, make a suggestion. I mean, those are the most efficient vehicle relative to size that you can have and Elon stated many times that they get improvements, hardware and software, all the time (from front grill to battery chemistry passing by cup holder...). I concede battery pack redesign, but from what I understand, that is too much of a change for at least a year or two and then Fred Lambert will whine that it's free model S doesn't have the 2170....
anthonyj
Stonks
I’m starting to think that the negative media isn’t to make longs sell, it is to make dumb retail short more. They consistently have been shorting the bottom and covering the top. Permabear are the most gullible and emotional investors
jhm
Well-Known Member
Tesla Owners Silicon Valley on Twitter
Here's how Tesla deploys the Semi as a marketing asset. Make no mistake: this is a form of advertising. The Semi is iconic, just like this:
Here's how Tesla deploys the Semi as a marketing asset. Make no mistake: this is a form of advertising. The Semi is iconic, just like this:
tinm
2020 Model S LR+ Owner
As Foghorn Leghorn might say, “Ah do believe, ah say ah do believe yes it’s time ah put good, ah say good til canceled sell ohdahs on all mah TSLA shares with a limit, ah say a limit price of $4999. Jes’ doin’ mah paht to keep, ah say keep mah shares away from those infernal shorts.”
Carl Raymond
Active Member
OT
As an Australian, this Elon tweet is just delicious.
I’ll have to watch the evening news to see if he’s managed to embarrass either Scott Morrison or Bill Shorten. Both have two faces - in the city they talk environment protection, in the bush they talk coal jobs.
The last time Cannon-Brookes and Musk exchanged tweets we landed the world’s biggest battery in South Australia.
We have an election weeks away, so he’s playing with (safely distant) dynamite.
Edit: And thank you, thank you, Norway, for making this tweet possible.
Elon Musk
Replying to
@mcannonbrookes
and
@DigitalMedia_LM
Norway has already proven it could be done last month. No question Australia could do this in far fewer than 11 years.
As an Australian, this Elon tweet is just delicious.
I’ll have to watch the evening news to see if he’s managed to embarrass either Scott Morrison or Bill Shorten. Both have two faces - in the city they talk environment protection, in the bush they talk coal jobs.
The last time Cannon-Brookes and Musk exchanged tweets we landed the world’s biggest battery in South Australia.
We have an election weeks away, so he’s playing with (safely distant) dynamite.
Edit: And thank you, thank you, Norway, for making this tweet possible.
Elon Musk
Replying to
@mcannonbrookes
and
@DigitalMedia_LM
Norway has already proven it could be done last month. No question Australia could do this in far fewer than 11 years.
It was a big morale boost to Tesla when vehicle owners realized the pressure on Tesla and pitched in to help with deliveries last year.
As volunteer “brand ambassadors” we can help with a response to FUD as Musk and Tesla cannot. When they respond, it can be spun as ‘defensive,’ ‘desperate,’ ‘scoundrels’ etc, while poorly representing a Tesla/Musk response and using the response as an opening to regurgitate all the false narratives it was meant to respond to.
Owner volunteer “brand ambassadors” cannot be so easily spun. It’s a grassroots effort with direct contact with the public it's meant to inform. Calling the guy/woman who just spent 15 minutes listening to your questions, debunking many falsehoods, letting you sit in the car, maybe even ride in it and drive it, calling the person who just gave you that direct one-to-one time a ‘cultist’ from a TV studio is not so effective. Can even backfire and discredit media doing so more than the Tesla owner/volunteer.
Maybe we can try to reach out to YouTubers to try to get this “volunteer brand ambassador” concept into a higher gear.
Perhaps the theme could be... “I’m so glad I didn’t let the disinformation stop me from getting this vehicle. Don’t let it stop you from seeing what these cars really offer.”
Last edited:
One channel to try to get this going some...
vistacruiser7 on Twitter
If you agree, liking and/or retweeting would make it more likely this idea becomes visible to Musk and/or Tesla.
Good God, can't Tesla sue for something like that?
Thanks @Prunesquallor !
I did some digging into this, and was surprised at the conclusion. I posted this on the quarterly results discussion thread, but probably should be elsewhere, or its own thread. I am x-posting here as the feedback is quicker.
_____________________
Did a deep-dive into what FCA would have paid for pooling with Tesla, and the issue here is pretty involved relative to anything I read on MSM.
To set the stage, here are the targets that automakers have to hit in 2019, and where they are, as of 2017. The targets for 2019 are the same as 2015. They effectively go up in 2020 (ignoring worst 5%), and full compliance by 2021
Source: https://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EU-LCV-CO2-2030_ICCTupdate_20190123.pdf
On the surface, 2019 doesn't seem like an issue as everyone is below target. But the devil is in the footnotes. Beginning 1/1/2019, EU mandated WLTP to replace NEDC, which is more realistic. This caused about a 25% increase in CO2 g/km of emissions on paper. So the bureaucrats came up with a NEDC-Correlated (NEDC-c) measure that converts back the WLTP numbers to NEDC-c. There is a good bit to read here, but effectively, the NEDC-c numbers are about 8% (10g/km) more than the old NEDC numbers.
Source: JATO Warns of Widening Disparity between WLTP Correlated NEDC Values and existing NEDC Data - JATO
So, this delta pushes FCA over the edge. Assuming the 10 g/km penalty, FCA ends up at 130 against a target of 124. Assuming some optimizations, they probably can optimize to 5 g/km in the hole. Now they sell around 900k per year in EU, which translates to roughly 95 Euro per g/km times 900k vehicles. That is 95*5*900,000 which is roughly 430 million Euro in fines for 2019.
This market gets pretty tight for everyone in 2019, except for Toyota. That doesn't leave a lot of options for FCA, leaving Tesla in a fairly decent negotiating position. Given this, I think ARK's $0.5B estimate is unlikely. I'd reckon they went roughly 50-50 for about a 200-250 million Euro deal. Interestingly, Tesla only needs about 45K deliveries to pull FCA into compliance. This explains them leaving the pool open, potentially for Ford. Ford probably decided to pass purely for reputational reasons or didn't want to help Tesla.
The real fun starts in 2020 though, where these 0 g/km EVs are pure gold. EU is on track to levy 95*30*15million (95Euro/g * 30 g/km shortfall * 15 million sales) in fines - Or a mindboggling 40 Billion every year. An EV at 0 g/km is worth 9k Euro (95*95) in avoided fines. Tesla could easily sell these credits for a small 10% haircut until it gets to 15-20% market share. And it gets progressively worse for the legacy manufacturers as the limits keep going down. No wonder the likes of LG Chem are playing hardball because next year, the European manufacturers don't have an option to not try building EVs.
Where the eff is the European Gigafactory?
You want an ice machine in your Model 3? I can make a custom tissue box for you if you want one. It will fit in the area under the sliding door...Just let me know the height width and depth I need to work with, I don't have a Model 3 yet.
So the 20 biggest Tesla shareholders all (expect 2 which had an immaterially small decrease) added to their positions. Any lesson to learn from that?
I really like the idea of Tesla opening up the Tesla Network to drivers at first. Get the network some revenue and market value. Offer free supercharging for drivers who have been on shift for 2 or more hours.
This would put more people in Tesla cars, generate revenue, establish the network, and use less petrol.
Edit: If folks want to see a market moving announcement, this is it. Left hand turns and other technical displays will do very little from a market watcher perspective. Show how money will flow into Tesla's coffers and you will see a change in perception. The timing is perfect as Lyft just IPO'd and Uber is approaching theirs (90B market value??).
Last edited:
Maybe a Musk-related show today. Forecast looking promising for a 4:30 pm eastern U.S. launch...
Thanks @Prunesquallor !
I did some digging into this, and was surprised at the conclusion. I posted this on the quarterly results discussion thread, but probably should be elsewhere, or its own thread. I am x-posting here as the feedback is quicker.
_____________________
Did a deep-dive into what FCA would have paid for pooling with Tesla, and the issue here is pretty involved relative to anything I read on MSM.
To set the stage, here are the targets that automakers have to hit in 2019, and where they are, as of 2017. The targets for 2019 are the same as 2015. They effectively go up in 2020 (ignoring worst 5%), and full compliance by 2021
Source: https://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EU-LCV-CO2-2030_ICCTupdate_20190123.pdf
On the surface, 2019 doesn't seem like an issue as everyone is below target. But the devil is in the footnotes. Beginning 1/1/2019, EU mandated WLTP to replace NEDC, which is more realistic. This caused about a 25% increase in CO2 g/km of emissions on paper. So the bureaucrats came up with a NEDC-Correlated (NEDC-c) measure that converts back the WLTP numbers to NEDC-c. There is a good bit to read here, but effectively, the NEDC-c numbers are about 8% (10g/km) more than the old NEDC numbers.
Source: JATO Warns of Widening Disparity between WLTP Correlated NEDC Values and existing NEDC Data - JATO
So, this delta pushes FCA over the edge. Assuming the 10 g/km penalty, FCA ends up at 130 against a target of 124. Assuming some optimizations, they probably can optimize to 5 g/km in the hole. Now they sell around 900k per year in EU, which translates to roughly 95 Euro per g/km times 900k vehicles. That is 95*5*900,000 which is roughly 430 million Euro in fines for 2019.
This market gets pretty tight for everyone in 2019, except for Toyota. That doesn't leave a lot of options for FCA, leaving Tesla in a fairly decent negotiating position. Given this, I think ARK's $0.5B estimate is unlikely. I'd reckon they went roughly 50-50 for about a 200-250 million Euro deal. Interestingly, Tesla only needs about 45K deliveries to pull FCA into compliance. This explains them leaving the pool open, potentially for Ford. Ford probably decided to pass purely for reputational reasons or didn't want to help Tesla.
The real fun starts in 2020 though, where these 0 g/km EVs are pure gold. EU is on track to levy 95*30*15million (95Euro/g * 30 g/km shortfall * 15 million sales) in fines - Or a mindboggling 40 Billion every year. An EV at 0 g/km is worth 9k Euro (95*95) in avoided fines. Tesla could easily sell these credits for a small 10% haircut until it gets to 15-20% market share. And it gets progressively worse for the legacy manufacturers as the limits keep going down. No wonder the likes of LG Chem are playing hardball because next year, the European manufacturers don't have an option to not try building EVs.
Where the eff is the European Gigafactory?
This is an amazing analysis and a game changer for Tesla. Mind blowing $40 bn. Hidden costs of polluting the environment are now redirected to the once causing it instead of all people on earth.
Thanks great work, thanks. Material that should be published at CleanTechnica
@ZachShahan you may want to look into this. It's huge.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
