Elon Musk's finances

Post by toomuchtodo » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 7:35 AM UTC

RealityVoid wrote: post #80

toomuchtodo wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon has specifically said he's targeted a million miles of reliabiiity on the drivetrain. Maybe not 10 times longer, but still far more service life than a traditional ICE. Tesla doesn't need to share the repair manuals. You're not touching the battery pack internals or the electric motors; if they fail, they are swapped out entirely and sent to the Gigafactory refurbishment line.

The Tesla is far more than a battery pack on wheels. There are plenty of things that can fail and need to be repaired. Failing to facilitate that means the lifespan of the car si significantly reduced.

Post by TenJack » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 11:00 AM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #60

jondubois wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm generally critical of companies which have high valuations yet continuously lose money, but in the case of Musk's ventures, I think what he's doing is so genuinely innovative that I would be more inclined to put the blame on the system than on Musk himself. Elon uses long-term thinking but unfortunately our economic system tends to favour short-term returns. In my mind there is a huge difference between Tesla los…

Technological edge Tesla has seems to be relatively thin. The innovation is in good productization, PR, risk taking and bold business strategy. If I understand it correctly, Panasonic is the more tech-heavy partner (patents for example). Tesla makes good cars with very low reliability and I see it as conscious choice. They add performance features and cool factors at the cost of reliability. Bigger car makers could h…

Post by toomuchtodo » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 10:42 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #84

toomuchtodo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you be specific what non-drivetrain components could fail that can't easily be swapped out on site or at a service center?

You mean other than the chassis, body panels, doors, undercarriage... Not to mention the question of repair costs and parts availability, both of which are pretty bad. Where are you going to get (say) a replacement for the incredibly complex and unreliable door handle mechanism for the Model S in a few years time once the car's no longer in production? The model-specific battery pack? All the electronics systems base…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 25, 2016, 6:07 PM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #54

dilemma wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any credible sources that show Teslas as more environmentally friendly? Electric vehicles run on coal and natural gas to varyingly large extents.

Here you go: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-... This is a short-sighted question, however. If I buy a new gasoline-powered car, it will pollute the same amount until it is crushed. If I buy a new EV, it gets cleaner over time as more renewables are added to the grid. It's not just a question of how clean the car is today.

Post by jacques_chester » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 1:10 AM UTC

codeulike wrote: post #88

jacques_chester wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Musk is basically undertaking a moon shot: either a huge success or crash and burn. I wish people would stop using the Apollo program as an example of an expensive gamble. There was no market uncertainty. The problem was complex but the physics showed it could be done. The overall plan was tested in multiple stages (which is why the first landing was by Apollo 11 ) undertaken with massive armies of bright folk over…

There are plenty of ways the moonshot could have failed. It just didn't fail so that's how it's remembered. Going from 'physics showed it could be done' to actually doing it is very hard and armies of bright people is not necessarily enough.