Q2 2020 Update • Hacker News Board

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#291

Post by ckdarby » Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 7:51 PM UTC

jennyyang wrote: post #249

ckdarby wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife & I are considering our next vehicle our last non-electric one. We consider every vehicle brand a joke aside from Tesla.

There are many reasons why Tesla is not optimal. If you get into an accident, your car will be in the shop for months. Literally months. I have a Tesla with a minor trim at the bottom of the car got damaged. It took 3 months, and they had to take apart the entire car. Literally even the back seats were taken apart just to change the trim on the bottom. It cost over $10,000. Tesla's quality has dropped so much that JD…

Nobody in my circle of aged 25-35 North American friends talk about buying a Tesla because it is only an electric car. It is the whole package that gets people to buy it. Not only does it look good, it feels smooth while driving, it actually feels like it is a modern vehicle, the software updates and "autopilot".

Every known vehicle manufacture outside of trucks & SUVs have no brand value to "millennials". I don't know anyone I communicate with who is excited to buy a ford, toyota, and or even a porsche car.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#292

Post by notJim » Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 8:10 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #281

notJim wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you have 2 cars (or are willing to rent) and a short commute (covid? why buy a car at all?). I rarely drive more than like 25 miles in a day. Even most of the close hikes I do are within about 30 miles of my house.

I could see the e-Golf being a good second car for a couple, and then use the longer range car for longer weekend trips, but as an only car, no. That range is just too limiting, and if I owned a car I would be driving around on an average of at least one drive per month that the e-Golf wouldn't be capable of doing without a recharge but that the Model 3 can. We're talking vacations, going hiking, visiting family who…

The big surprise for me with the non-Tesla electric cars is that they're not even that much cheaper, if at all than a Tesla. The e-golf is apparently around $30k, when for $5k more you could get a TM3 with 100 miles more of range. The Chevy Bolt is closer in both range and price, but you don't get supercharging, and a much crappier interior.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#293

Post by H8crilA » Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 8:45 PM UTC

labcomputer wrote: post #285

H8crilA wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was flat pre-covid too. It has been flat for 2 years.

Referencing your other comment, this claim really starts to fall apart. * You're cherry-picking 2018Q3. So it's not exactly 2 years, it's actually 1.75 years (2018Q3 - 2020Q2). * But now you're saying pre-covid too, so now it's actually 1.25 years (2018Q3 - 2019Q4). That period in question is the time after Tesla finished ramping Model 3 production (using a tent!) at Fremont in 2018Q3, and before they finished buildi…

I hope it works out for them! Good luck.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#294

Post by vardump » Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 9:00 PM UTC

DanCarvajal wrote: post #276

vardump wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're already producing in Fremont and on track for TWh scale battery production in Texas. I think it's fair to say Tesla is a battery company, at least in part.

No and no, the don't produce cells in Fremont at best they pack cells into packs. Given there's no plant in Texas there's nothing concrete to substantiate your claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily evidence.

Assembling batteries is assembling batteries. Next they'll produce cells, but I guess you won't accept it either because they don't produce anode material or whatever.

It irks me because you clearly do understand they're currently building the factory after years of research (and buying up some startups).

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#295

Post by contingencies » Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #274

contingencies wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

flow diagrams they've published on the floor layout and the path through a factory a car takes to go from start to finish in Fremont vs. GF3. URL? I found a 2016 Fremont planned layout http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODN/SanFranciscoChron... and a 2019 Fremont layout https://villanyautosok.hu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019_09... plus GF4 images https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOVTM-avTBP0VMbqc3dynh6... N…

Yes, your last link was what I was thinking of. It’s page ~16 of 2019 Q4 Letter: https://ir.tesla.com/static-files/b3cf7f5e-546a-4a65-9888-c9...

It appears to be the same process. Reading junk on the internet the main process innovation they appear to have made appears is large scale die casting to produce entire chassis frames in a single aluminium part. This - like most "innovations" - is less an innovation and more adopting a known process with different tradeoffs, increasing initial capital outlay to obtain enhanced production speed and a simplified production process.

In vehicle manufacturing process engineering, an interesting recent startup is UK brand 'Arrival' who decided to avoid stamped chassis parts entirely and instead assemble from sheet and extrusions (IIRC). They can allegedly assemble a whole van in a 1000m2 'microfactory' and have just brought out a bus concept. https://www.electrive.com/2020/03/20/arrival-moves-into-new-... https://www.pesmedia.com/arrival-bicester-electric-van-manuf... https://www.pesmedia.com/arrival-zero-emissions-bus-17062020... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrival_(company) 3B valuation.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#296

Post by BbzzbB » Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

marvin wrote: post #219

BbzzbB wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to defend TSLA's valuation, but the argument of other car giants being "able to flip a switch and make something better" has been proven wrong many times. There are plenty of rational "TSLAQ-arguments", that one is no longer on that list.

I think we're beyond TSLAQ by now. Are you saying there is a high likelihood that Tesla will go out of business? (The 'Q' means de-listed from the stock exchange). Maybe the valuation is a bit steep, sure. But there aren't many reasonable arguments left for the company going under, apart from perhaps investment overextension due to some future initiative, or some magical and incredible accounting fraud.

True, I still use it to designate the short-TSLA/anti-TSLA crowd which tirelessly uses this argument despite the evidence that it is false. As for the chances of Tesla going under being slim to none at this point, which I agree with and believe explains (partly) the stock's repricing, I think it's still a popular argument for the die-hard Tesla shorts à la Einhorn.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#297

Post by jliptzin » Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

notJim wrote: post #292

CydeWeys wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see the e-Golf being a good second car for a couple, and then use the longer range car for longer weekend trips, but as an only car, no. That range is just too limiting, and if I owned a car I would be driving around on an average of at least one drive per month that the e-Golf wouldn't be capable of doing without a recharge but that the Model 3 can. We're talking vacations, going hiking, visiting family who…

The big surprise for me with the non-Tesla electric cars is that they're not even that much cheaper, if at all than a Tesla. The e-golf is apparently around $30k, when for $5k more you could get a TM3 with 100 miles more of range. The Chevy Bolt is closer in both range and price, but you don't get supercharging, and a much crappier interior.

Yea that’s the thing, if you have $40,000 to spend on an electric car it would be insane to not get a Tesla.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#298

Post by DanCarvajal » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:07 AM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #287

DanCarvajal wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of these things are true, they're at best modified off the shelf cells. They don't make cells at Fremont, at best the pack them into packs. There's no regulatory filings for cell production at Fremont. The whole argument is that they could use off the shelf materials at scale to attain profitability, since that hasn't happened the goalposts keep being moved by Musk, rumors, and myths.

https://electrek.co/2020/02/11/tesla-building-pilot-battery-... "Now we’ve learned that Tesla is building a battery cell pilot production line in Fremont" "Tesla currently buy cells from Panasonic made in Japan for Model S and Model X, as well as cells made by Panasonic at Tesla’s Gigafactory 1 in Nevada for Model 3. The automaker used those cells, which they help design , to make their own modules and battery packs,…

No I see where the confusion is, you think Electrek and Fred Lambert is anything other than propaganda unit for Tesla PR. Well at this point I can't help you.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#299

Post by CydeWeys » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:27 AM UTC

notJim wrote: post #292

CydeWeys wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see the e-Golf being a good second car for a couple, and then use the longer range car for longer weekend trips, but as an only car, no. That range is just too limiting, and if I owned a car I would be driving around on an average of at least one drive per month that the e-Golf wouldn't be capable of doing without a recharge but that the Model 3 can. We're talking vacations, going hiking, visiting family who…

The big surprise for me with the non-Tesla electric cars is that they're not even that much cheaper, if at all than a Tesla. The e-golf is apparently around $30k, when for $5k more you could get a TM3 with 100 miles more of range. The Chevy Bolt is closer in both range and price, but you don't get supercharging, and a much crappier interior.

You can get them used much cheaper. A used Leaf, e-Golf, whatever, can be had for as little as $10k. Teslas don't lose value like that. I'd definitely consider a used cheap EV as a second city car.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#300

Post by matthewdgreen » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 2:34 PM UTC

labcomputer wrote: post #280

xoxoy wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

look at the pipeline for EVs coming to market in 2021/2022. there are dozens.

People have been saying this for years. 2017 was supposed to be the year that legacy automakers crushed Tesla to dust. Why should 2021 be different from 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020? If you lurk on the Tesla-killer forums, most buyers are apparently people who either dislike Tesla or only buy European cars. And the used-car market is telling, too: Used 2019 i-Paces and e-Trons with less than 1,000 miles on the odometer…

I too have been surprised at the slow pace (and poor quality) of EV deployment by traditional manufacturers. That's why I bought a Model 3. However. It's pretty much inevitable that the traditional manufacturers will have to make significant inroads into the EV market in the next ten years, if only to deal with increasingly stringent EU regulations (and not to handle the market demand that Tesla has created.)

It may take competitors five or eight years to begin making serious inroads into the EV market, but let's say it does happen on that timescale. What is Tesla's moat that is going to allow it to compete with manufacturers who have almost infinitely more production capacity and a much larger customer base than Tesla? Better battery tech? Superchargers? Rapid year-over-year growth that makes Tesla too big and successful to compete with [note: there is no evidence of that growth in the Tesla earnings report]? I'm pretty skeptical right now.