Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla Roadster

tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 729 posts

Re: Tesla Roadster

#711

Post by mgoetzke »

wintermute2001 wrote: post #606
bilkoo wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> struggling to produce their most important car ever Isn't this part of not executing the roadmap as planned? Put another way, how do you know if they are on the right trajectory to profitability? How much are they ahead/behind?

Tesla projected that it would produce 5K Model 3s per week by the end of 2017. In all of Q3 they produced 260! That kind of shortfall is clearly not part of any plan, unless it's one drawn up by GM and Ford. Source: http://autoweek.com/article/green-cars/tesla-model-3-product...

They also moved this timetable up a year due to high demand, meaning more CapEx required. A few months won't scare people in the know, and thinking this would work without a hitch would have been naive anyway.

Re: Tesla Roadster

#712

Post by knuckles78 »

PunchTornado wrote: post #475
dkhenry wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have been reading too many finance blogs. Their finances are far from a mess, they are just not what finance people like to see. They have cash on hand and a roadmap to execute on. If they don't execute they will go out of business, and they will take my money as an investor with them. I'm OK with that and as long as they continue to have a path to profitability I am all on board. I want to see them burning money…

Exactly. As a small investor in them I fully support them. Even if I lose all my money I know it went to cool research that has benefit the progress of science in a cool way.

either that or it was snorted from Amber Heards tits

Re: Tesla Roadster

#713

Post by grkvlt »

andyjsong wrote: post #672
grkvlt wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the tires are acting like torsion springs then?

It increases the footprint of the tire at the start, giving the car more grip. Here is a video: https://youtu.be/-VF0JwxQqcA?t=10m42s

Thanks, that's really interesting - there's some amazing technology going into what I had previously assumed was a fairly boring static (modulo the rotation, of course) component of these vehicles.

Re: Tesla Roadster

#714

Post by Tyrek »

canttestthis wrote: post #706
vkou wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon could have had a wildly profitable quarter by slightly slowing their expansion. Doing so would not kill the company. It's not clear if Tesla can do the same.

There was a time in the past where Amazon could not have done that at all.

Sure, but how many companies have been in the same position and failed?

Re: Tesla Roadster

#715

Post by Tyrek »

dkhenry wrote: post #613
jonknee wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their finances are far from a mess, they are just not what finance people like to see. They have cash on hand and a roadmap to execute on. In other words, their finances are a mess . Negative free cash flow of $1.4b in the most recent quarter with $3.5b in the bank is cutting it very close. They're going to have to raise a ton more capital or issue debt just to execute on the Model 3, let alone all the other stuff…

Spending money while building out your main product pipeline is perfectly acceptable to me. How many quarters of runway would you want them to hold on hand? If in six months when their cash on hand gets low they can issue a new round of funding and investors can decide if its worth pumping more money into the company or if they won't be able to turn a profit. This would be the exact behavior you get from any company…

That's kind of the point though - it's much more acceptable (to the markets) for a private company to be doing crazy things, low runway, etc, because if the company goes broke, the damage is limited to 'skilled' investors (those with enough means and know-how to get in on the investment). If a public company goes bust (which is the risk here) the damage is much more widespread, and will undoubtedly hit retail investors as well as professionals.

Re: Tesla Roadster

#716

Post by wpdev_63 »

It's a bit unbelievable they were able to double the range of the already highly efficient model S...

Maybe a significant reduction of weight + increase in battery? Whatever it is, it's amazing that they were able to pull it off.

Re: Tesla Roadster

#717

Post by TimTheTinker »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #700
dmode wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can probably get a P150D or whatever it will be at that time. Which will give you Roadster like acceleration, probably 400-500 mile range, and will still be a family sedan.

I don't want a family sedan, I want a small, reasonably agile coupe. My current car is a Subaru BRZ. I want something that still has that kind of handling.

Have you test-driven a Tesla Model S?

Re: Tesla Roadster

#718

Post by mxschumacher »

dkhenry wrote: post #448
wintermute2001 wrote: post #125

Am I the only one who's worried that Tesla is really starting to bite off more than they can chew? Right now their finances are a mess, they are publicly struggling to produce their most important car ever, their CEO is spending time figuring out how to dig holes underneath LA...and now they're announcing a semi truck and a roaster in the same day? Don't get me wrong, Teslas are incredible cars. But this seems like a…

You have been reading too many finance blogs. Their finances are far from a mess, they are just not what finance people like to see. They have cash on hand and a roadmap to execute on. If they don't execute they will go out of business, and they will take my money as an investor with them. I'm OK with that and as long as they continue to have a path to profitability I am all on board. I want to see them burning money…

when it comes to finance, it matters what finance people want to see

Re: Tesla Roadster

#719

Post by boznz »

PunchTornado wrote: post #475
dkhenry wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have been reading too many finance blogs. Their finances are far from a mess, they are just not what finance people like to see. They have cash on hand and a roadmap to execute on. If they don't execute they will go out of business, and they will take my money as an investor with them. I'm OK with that and as long as they continue to have a path to profitability I am all on board. I want to see them burning money…

Exactly. As a small investor in them I fully support them. Even if I lose all my money I know it went to cool research that has benefit the progress of science in a cool way.

I have done the same with two fusion energy companies, almost zero chance of payback but always the slim chance for a breakthrough to save the world. Think of it as a lottery ticket for rich and middle income people. Tesla is a lottery ticket that will probably pay dividends many years down the line, and if not they have at least kickstarted a better future.

Re: Tesla Roadster

#720

Post by dmead »

grkvlt wrote: post #615
dwaltrip wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's grammatically correct, but conceptually incorrect (sorry, it's always fun to correct a correction :)

They're both incorrect, I think. Acceleration rate would be the rate of change of the rate of change of speed, or what is known as 'jerk' in engineering. I guess that would be the time that it takes to go from 0 to the '0-60 in 1.8s' acceleration? The correct term is simply 'acceleration' on its own.

alls i'm saying is that if anyone wrote "acceleration speed" on reports in high school physics class they'd get points off. acceleration is a kind of rate.
Post reply on HN