301–310 of 384 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They timed production to maximize federal tax credits for US consumers.
No. They timed DELIVERY. There are many reports of them holding assembled complete cars and sending stock to Canada. Among other reports: https://electrek.co/2018/05/25/tesl-model-3-massive-shipment...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Toyota or Ford or any other car company can enter any of those fields, either directly or through investment. That they choose not to probably indicates that the risk/reward doesn't make sense for them, and they probably aren't worth that much if Tesla manages to pivot. They chose not to play in EVs until recently, for example, because the market appetite wasn't there
I am surprised to see this type of argument on HN of all places. One of the primary goals of any start up is to either create a new market or to serve a market that an incumbent is failing to properly serve. You can't just assume that because a company like Toyota hasn't done any of these things yet that there is no potential to gain from them. There are countless reasons why traditional powers fail to innovate and a…
After watching what Tesla is doing, they have chosen not to invest those resources even though if they did, they would beat Tesla at its own game quite easily because they eclipse it both in capital and experience.
Either their analysts are wrong and failing to see a winning strategy here, or there is no winning strategy. One of these two statements must be true. I've put my money on option #2, but I'm aware that large competitors aren't idiots and there is a risk here.
Elon Musk has also publicly stated that he wants the other big players to compete with Tesla. He doesn't actually care if Tesla is ever profitable or not, he just wants to force the world to transition off fossil fuels by dispelling the myths sown by the oil industry with concrete examples of success. It is stupid to ignore Musk's stance on this matter as an investor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My question is who R&D's these cars at the limits of adhesion? Every single auto maker track tests their cars using real racing drivers who understand vehicle dynamics and can comfortably drive street cars on the limit, and over it. Track testing ensures a car is safe for the average driver, who has no idea that the throttle steers the back of the car-to give just one example. How will these cars behave when little J…
come on, that's a silly fear mongering ignorant post. They've had designers and engineers from many other car companies working on their cars and you can see endless pictures and videos of people driving their cars on tracks since even before 2012, when the S first came out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So when they do maintain this rate for the next few weeks, is that still within an inch of fraud?
The cars aren't fraud, it's a weird belief system that leads to people honestly repeating that over and over. They make cars, real cars. You can order one but it takes a long time to get one. They work.
The anti-Tesla posts are always overflowing with empty, overly emotional statements. No matter how many times Musk overcomes and ultimately delivers in the end, it doesn't matter, the anti crowd returns for the next fight with the exact same emotional arguments.
Maybe it's just all BMW, Toyota and Mercedes employees doing the trolling around the Internet (joking). Every ~$40k+ vehicle that Tesla sells comes directly out of their pockets (it's certainly not coming out of the pocket of GM and Ford). Over the next year, Tesla will take $20+ billion in sales away from the luxury auto makers. The bigger that number gets, the more desperate BMW, Mercedes and Toyota (Lexus) are going to get. Hundreds of billions of dollars are on the line.
If you go back and read forum threads around the time the Model S was launched, people were claiming back then that Tesla could never build it in any volume period, that it would be a failure across the board. Similar claims were made about the Model 3 right out of the gate; they weren't supposed to ever make it in any volume, the venom in every thread was extreme to say the least.
There's a type of person that aggressively hates successful people, and often success in general. They resent everything about it, they lust after tearing people down. Musk succeeding with Tesla is a perpetual open wound for those types.
Does quality match the quantity here? I remember Tesla having lots of quality issues (misaligned doors etc)
Given that half of those 5000 are being produced in a tent in the parking lot with summer heat and no AC, I can only imagine.
Tesla is still maturing as a company; more to the point, they’re maturing as a manufacturer. While other companies would order whole componants from vendors - Tesla will only order parts - and assemble in house. For instance - Toyota will order brake assemblies. While Tesla orders guards. Toyota will order a door - and Tesla a door panel. Even worse - Tesla has a history or delivering third parties sub-par China made…
Tesla's stock is 40% above its 52 week low and was just near its all-time highs two weeks ago. That's pretty forgiving. Must drive the bears crazy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't. GP is completely misrepresenting everything about this situation: not a tent, not canvas, not scrap. Musk's tweet about scrap in a tent was very clearly a joke.
I can't link NYT because I get the paper version and lost my login, but I'm quoting from the paper in front of me: > A tent, about 50 feet high, its taut grey canvas membrane supported by aluminum columns. I don't think it was a joke. The tweet was specifically in the context of trying to convince investors that the cost of that tent production wasn't substantial and by "scrap" he meant equipment they had discarded f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A company's true function is to benefit society. Could you elaborate on how did you come to said conclusion?
Sure, at its basics, society has needs, known or unknown, good or bad so companies are created to fill the needs. Companies survive if they reach enough people with their solution. Sure there are ways to manipulate needs but at its basics companies are supposed to benefit society by filling those needs. We are fed the idea that companies are created to profit the investors but profits are a side effect of meeting nee…
It's the other way around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 4. other car makers trail behind Tesla more and more in terms of technology. Remember, all these car makers had DECADES of head start developing EVs before Tesla was even born. Tesla was supposed to trail them in tech, not the other way around. > It's easy to assume that because a company is bigger, and have more resources and manufacturing experience, that they can move fast in developing tech. It's easy to judge…
> most people don't care about EV right now > Americans are buying SUVs and crossovers right now Tesla is building SUV EVs. Other makers are planning to.
Tell me when they make one people can actually afford.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 4. other car makers trail behind Tesla more and more in terms of technology. Remember, all these car makers had DECADES of head start developing EVs before Tesla was even born. Tesla was supposed to trail them in tech, not the other way around. > It's easy to assume that because a company is bigger, and have more resources and manufacturing experience, that they can move fast in developing tech. It's easy to judge…
> GM is not a power company GE is.. why are they separate companies?