Happy Quarterly P&D Report weekend, everyone!
-
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
MartinAustin
Active Member
I thought "demand cliff" was buried in the same tomb as "Tesla killer"
3,000 might not be the correct number but I doubt the actual number is meaningfully more impressive.
So far, solar roof has been a dud.
A bit of a catch 22 though isn't it. Can't blame someone for getting a number wrong if they are reporting on a story (The Woods report was published) and Tesla will not comment. So EVERYONE (it is all over the place) ran with the consulting study results. it's now going to be taken as fact. Just as last fall they could have maybe kept the stock from falling below $100. My feeling it's the trap EM set for himself. Then the whole "chessboard" thing is such a silly statement. Is the chess move to follow behind Ford? Ford signed a deal with CATL a few weeks ago and now Tesla announces the same deal. Is that some magnificent chess move?
Tesla has done a lot of things well. Being agile on chip shortages, focusing on manufacturing cars (giga casting, in house chips and software, battery management), etc. My criticism would be they did not focus enough on batteries and energy. Why are others gaining marketshare. Why are tesla solar installations now falling to 4th place? Tesla solar business is so...lackluster that it is a two edged sword to respond. The solar roof has been a failure but tesla solar as a whole has lost marketshare for 3 years. There is no "chessboard" move here. IF I were nice I'd say its been poor. The fact that Tesla is now copying Ford (and the CT is a reaction to the ford lightning) on battery provisioning is...troubling. It could mean that the 4680 investment and efforts are about to be leapfrogged by someone that put nothing into battery research and development. Maybe not...not sure but that is surely one way to read today's announcement.
Tesla shouldn't have bothered to comment. The Tesla solar panel install marketshare is the really telling number and it is not good.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Someone has been taking too many Stellantis crazy pills.
Stellantis CEO: Earth Doesn't Have Enough Lithium For EVs
At a Stellantis-hosted event, CEO Carlos Tavares remarked that there might not be enough lithium to replace every internal-combustion vehicle with an EV.jalopnik.com
Which is it, Carlos?
️ “Like other automakers that earn profits from combustion vehicles, Stellantis is under pressure from EV maker Tesla & other pure #EV startups such as Rivian.” https://t.co/9KhJVXK590 $STLA $TSLA #Tesla" / TwitterOoh, maybe he means to go asteroid mining with a new space company, Stellaris...
Cheers to the Loopers!
Last edited:
There are so many strawmen arguments in here I don't even know how to stay on topic.
Still a 2 year wait on a megapack. Could just be waiting on trucks (we pull our hair out on trucking) or that the project required 100 units or something. For the next 18 months I can't see Tesla having any issues shipping megapacks. In fact I look forward to that in 2 years so we can get a better deal on storage. For now just too expensive.
MartinAustin
Active Member
WAIT. If a study says "OMGZ only ONE solar roof has been installed anywhere since 2016!!!" and Tesla won't respond to you, do you go ahead and publish that obvious garbage?
LK has a track record of writing overwhelmingly negative (and uniformly incorrect) articles about Tesla. She isn't going to hesitate to format a study like that into an article, and to some people, publication by CNBC makes it real. Does not mean that LK is "innocent" - she ought to be able to evaluate 3,000 roofs as suspicious, or call some installers or something. I mean let's say she calls five installers and they all say (for the sake of simplicity) "gee, we have prolly installed about 800 roofs since we started doing that" - the 3,000 number is out the window.
Looks like she did none of that, assembled a bunch of largely irrelevant historical factoids (as per her usual M.O.) about Solar City & Tesla Solar Roof so that there was enough to make it look like a large article, and published.
Or you know you could read the study itself....because you know I did. LK often dings Tesla- sells ads. In this case Tesla should have refuted the study authors who most surely did reach out to all the manufacturers.
3000 solar roofs is in the range of plausible.
Tesla’s non specific response should tell you that. What is a “large margin” ? 20%, 50%, 10,000%.
If the article was off by 50% and Tesla had actually installed 4500 solar roofs, would that change the main point of the article ?
Tesla’s response is too vague to base serious discussion on.
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
It’s not the responsibility of a company to confirm numbers so journalists can publish accurate information. They are under no obligation to do so. On the contrary, it is precisely the responsibility of journalists to verify and confirm their information before publishing it, or don’t publish it at all. If info cannot be confirmed, at the very least it should be presented as conjecture, not fact. Lora presents conjecture in her stories as fact. That’s her fault, not Tesla’s.
Last edited:
The research from Wood Mackenzie appears to be compiled by a young individual named Max Issokson.
If people on social media don’t care to wonder what the actual number is, then discussing it seems like kind of a moot point. Go to the Twitter comments and most of it is super toxic stuff and personal attacks like people asking how this person (Max) is employed, where these fake numbers come from, etc. Imagine having your work subjected to this.
People truly are the worst examples of themselves on this form of media.
If people on social media don’t care to wonder what the actual number is, then discussing it seems like kind of a moot point. Go to the Twitter comments and most of it is super toxic stuff and personal attacks like people asking how this person (Max) is employed, where these fake numbers come from, etc. Imagine having your work subjected to this.
People truly are the worst examples of themselves on this form of media.
Gosh wasn't there a ruling somewhere...that Tesla is not allowed to publish material information such as production and delivery numbers on Twitter?
For someone who has been witching this dance with the media FUD on Tesla since 2013, the best option for Tesla is not to respond to any queries from the Media.
There was a time when they had a PR department and they did diligently respond. But every response only fawned more FUD and more negative news, or the journalist will simply look for a different negative angle. At the end of the day these presstitutes are looking for hit pieces. Let them write crap. Public has completely tuned out of media noise. They look to Twitter to what Musk & Tesla says and the other Tesla events.
Last edited:
MartinAustin
Active Member
Changing gears... (perhaps the wrong metaphor)
Tesla has no problem telling us GigaBerlin just hit 5000 a week on Twitter or that cumulative vehicle production just hit a certain milestone. They’ ve even announced DBE milestones on Twitter. I’d say cumulative solar roofs is a lot less important
She wrote an article on a fire in a parking lot in NJ and blamed it on Tesla Supercharger equipment. Turns out the fire marshal report says it started in an adjacent structure well away from the Tesla equipment and spread.
It was brought to her attention, but she never corrected it. Not convinced? Twitter to the rescue.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
A vacuum gets filled one way or another. If Tesla would respond with facts FUD would have a lot less traction. Instead lack of data from Tesla makes it look as if the company is hiding something.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
