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

Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

ir.tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 418 posts

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#401

Post by jacques_chester »

dang wrote: post #322
jacques_chester wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think Tesla is fine. But I think Musk is a bit of a wanker and I have an allergic reaction to the hero-worship that's grown around him.

Can you please not take HN threads into tedious flamewars? Of all the stupid loops we get into, Musk Mania—hate him, love him, boo, yay—is about the stupidest. It's worse than bickering about Spiderman.

I can't really answer the implicit or explicit question of "what have you got against Tesla?", or the accusation of being emotional, without bringing in an alternative.

Which makes it difficult to have the discussion about Tesla-as-Tesla. Admitting that I have an emotional reaction to an individual is the honest response.

My policy, in your position, would be to just ban Tesla posts. When a conversation topic becomes repetitively boring, I ban it, as there are plenty of places to discuss Tesla or Elon Musk or any other topic.

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#402

Post by js2 »

Wehrdo wrote: post #373
jread wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree - I've been driving EVs exclusively (Ford Focus Electric followed by Tesla MS) since 2013 in So Cal and can attest to how poor user experience is with 3rd party charge networks. First of all, there are 4+ distinct networks each requiring separate account/payment setup and RFIDs. They are often broken, fully used, overpriced or cumbersome to start. Most are L2 with 20-30A - charging at To the contrary, user…

> charging at I've never heard charging speeds referenced in this way, but it's a really clever way to take into account the charging rate and vehicle efficiency, while being very intuitive! Is this a common "unit" in the EV space?

I only have a Volt and it's used commonly on the Volt forums and what not, so I'd say yes.

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#403

Post by hikari-boulders »

propman wrote: post #24

Tesla could realistically hit 500,000 cars next year, almost 10% of total cars sold in America. The electric revolution is here and it’s finally profitable! Budget EVs with solid range are coming next year too with the 2019 leaf! Convince congress to extend the federal tax rebate (no real increase in spending just keeping what’s already there) by like 2 years which is just maybe $1-2B more and electric will be the wa…

I don't understand how "just maybe $1-2B more" is "no real increase in spending".

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#404

Post by Latteland »

Robotbeat wrote: post #376
pwagland wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only on the low power "AC" version of CCS, this is limited to 17KW, and so is quite slow in comparison to the high power DC CCS-2 adapter, which can (at least in theory) pump out 350kW. There are quite a few 150kW stations already available, but the Tesla can't use them either.

Tesla’s can use CHAdeMO with an adapter. In the States, there are still more Chademos than CCS, and most new DC Fast chargers have both CHAdeMO and CCS. CHAdeMO is the better standard for fast charging, IMHO, since it allows bidirectional charging.

I've never heard it was bidirectional use, are there any vehicles that support that? The main negative against chademo (besides the huge plug format) is that it's not Hugh enough power in practice.

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#405

Post by mrguyorama »

dragontamer wrote: post #380
706f6f70 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. A lot of the numbers seem suspicious as well, mostly in the expense around salaries. Time will tell if these are sustainable.

The only thing suspicious to me is the number of executives who have left the company in Q3. Why would they leave if the numbers were going to be good?

I'm sure many executive level people simply got tired of Musk's antics

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#406

Post by londons_explore »

pwagland wrote: post #364
Latteland wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget tesla's can charge on ccs in europe too.

Only on the low power "AC" version of CCS, this is limited to 17KW, and so is quite slow in comparison to the high power DC CCS-2 adapter, which can (at least in theory) pump out 350kW. There are quite a few 150kW stations already available, but the Tesla can't use them either.

Tesla could use DC CCS-2 with a software update an adaptor.

They choose not to make such an update though...

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#407

Post by tanderson92 »

erikb wrote: post #339
tanderson92 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting that Tesla didn't really experience those losses due its special stock issuance to Musk to cover the portion of the fine that was due to Tesla. The only material effect to Tesla's corporate finances from that debacle was Musk now has more concentrated equity ownership of the company.

> Musk now has more concentrated equity ownership of the company You mean Musk gained control through that, not lost it? How so? That's quite different an assumption from what I expected.

Correct. Details can be found discussed in the "Tesla" section of this link: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-22/front-...

Yes, it's an interesting result of corporate mismanagement, that he gets to sign off (with board approval, but let's be honest about the control they have) on even more equity stake. However, he did have to give up the chairmanship, so overall he lost control of the company though in this dimension (portion of equity ownership) it is an interesting curiosity and contradiction.

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#408

Post by tim333 »

lechiffre10 wrote: post #94

NON-Gaap reports are a joke. Honestly, why are they still legal? All reports should be GAAP. Accounting mechanics make it easy for non-gaap to show a profit!

GAAP can give an inaccurate picture so management can give non GAAP numbers to show how they see things. They still have to produce GAAP figures as well by law. Or:

>Management also believes that presentation of the non-GAAP financial measures provides useful information to our investors regarding our financial condition and results of operations because it allows investors greater transparency to the information used by Tesla management in its financial and operational decision-making so that investors can see through the eyes of Tesla management regarding important financial metrics that Tesla management uses to run the business as well as allows investors to better understand Tesla’s performance.

as they put it

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#409

Post by rconti »

nikofeyn wrote: post #306
rconti wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a number of reasons those cars aren't sold in the US, and inability to pass any kind of safety standard is certainly going to be one of them. Of course, the fact that our market is (probably) smaller than theirs with way more red tape (including the aforementioned safety standards) doesn't hurt.

those are all excuses that, in my opinion, causes one to ignore the progress over there. it's dangerous thinking. do you really think that tesla is as safe as other established car manufacturers? (i am aware of their "ratings", which i find hard to believe.) edit: and you can see my other reply or do a google search to see that china's car manufacturing revolution, including their massive and unparalleled surge into…

I have not ignored the progress made 'over there'. I recently rode in a JAC S5 and a Great Wall sedan (I forgot the model).

I never said they wouldn't be able to catch up, I said they would not be able to sell in the US today for many reasons, one of which is the small size of the US market compared to the domestic market. I'm not sure why i'm still typing, I'm just restating what was clearly apparent in my original comment that you ignored.

I'm sorry you're not willing to believe a thing called 'data'. Yes, I believe Tesla vehicles are precisely as safe as the results show they perform on the various crash tests. Crash tests that every automaker designs their cars to perform well on. Crash tests whose parameters every automaker knows full well.

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#410

Post by Robotbeat »

Latteland wrote: post #404
Robotbeat wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla’s can use CHAdeMO with an adapter. In the States, there are still more Chademos than CCS, and most new DC Fast chargers have both CHAdeMO and CCS. CHAdeMO is the better standard for fast charging, IMHO, since it allows bidirectional charging.

I've never heard it was bidirectional use, are there any vehicles that support that? The main negative against chademo (besides the huge plug format) is that it's not Hugh enough power in practice.

There is 100kW Chademo available. The protocol is the strong aspect of it; everyone should just use Tesla's much better plug.
Post reply on HN