Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm • Hacker News Board

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#331

Post by ryanwaggoner » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 5:36 PM UTC

DustinBrett wrote: post #327

I don't own a Tesla or stock cause I am poor, but I believe in Tesla and a lot of what Elon Musk has said in the past. I thought the Giga Factory idea was great. The Cyber Truck actually looks cool to me, mostly cause it's futuristic and different. I also don't think Elon cares that much if the stock goes down, as long as he is able to move forward with his vision, which hopefully he is able to do, because if I were…

What would it take to shake your beliefs?

You of course can think whatever you want, but it seems to me that many people, myself included, once felt like you do about Tesla and Musk. But for many of us, his actions over the past several years have caused me to adjust our perspective. I no longer believe he has good intentions, or will deliver on most of what he promises. I wouldn’t buy a Tesla at this point, and I definitely would have a few years ago.

I’m just curious if you’ve thought about what might make you adjust your view of him.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#332

Post by Veserv » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 5:39 PM UTC

phpisthebest wrote: post #145

helen___keller wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was a survey a few years ago of how much more people would be willing to pay for cars that could drive themself, and the median answer was $0. This is because quite a few people gave a negative number, that is, they would pay extra for a car that could not drive itself. I think there's an inherent distrust (which I share) of giving technology the power to end our lives with one bug. Trust in technology, in ge…

>>with safety statistics better than humans The problem is that will not be the expectation. It will need to be perfect or near perfect. full self driving cars can drive a million of miles with no accident, but if on 1,000,001 miles there is a accident with a death it is all over the news, and people proclaiming the technology is terrible, unsafe and not ready. In that same 1,000,001 miles humans have caused far more…

Well obviously. If a self driving car caused a fatal accident after just 1,000,001 miles it would be like 80x more dangerous than the average American human driver.

The reason we see summary dismissals of current autonomous vehicle technology is because even the best systems by Waymo and Cruise are literally orders of magnitude away from human-level. No discussion or societal cost-benefit is necessary when they are years away from reaching the bare minimum level worthy of analysis.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#333

Post by eloisant » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 5:40 PM UTC

aplummer wrote: post #314

darknavi wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The mapping and charge planning on the BMW and particularly the EQE/EQS are arguably slightly superior now to Tesla Really? One of the main selling points for me is that the center screen in Teslas are actually usable, non-laggy POS like most cars these days.

I think everyone else just turns on CarPlay / Android Auto and forgets they have an infotainment system.

Which is great, except on a Tesla where you can't use them

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#334

Post by giobox » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

NickM wrote: post #164

l33tman wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the competitors are STILL building on an ICE chassis and stuff batteries where the center axle would have been etc. When enough of them finally switch to pure EV platforms things will quickly improve I guess. But designing a new chassis that behave as well as their previous premium models, is not something they do in 1 year so it makes sense there is some delay.. The competitors also charge much less quickly,…

Like, on paper they can do 250 kW but you never get more than 100 when actually charging it etc Yeah this is one area where there's a lot of deceptive marketing. For example the Kia EV6 specs list a max fast charging rate of 350 kW but what that actually means is that you need a 350 kW charging station to reach the car's actual max charging speed of 240 kW (or 180 kW, depending on the battery options). Granted, that…

How is this deceptive? Anyone who has ever charged a phone is probably familiar with the concept that a higher wattage charger provides faster charging speeds - electric cars are no different. Higher power chargers charge faster is not some secret.

The car simply states the fastest DC connection it supports - 350kw. It works with any charger up to this wattage, just like my laptop charges from any USB-C source up to 100w - was I missold my laptop too because if I use a 50w charger it only charges at 50w?

EVs must charge from a huge range of different wattage chargers - I regularly switch between 7kw, 11kw, 50kw and 250 depending on the spec of the power source.

The power you get is determined entirely by the DC plug you use (and to some degree state of charge, but lets not complicate this further...) - the car has no bearing on this beyond supporting up to 350kw in this example. The car can't magically make a 50kw charger output 350kw, as nice as this might be.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#335

Post by toss1 » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 5:44 PM UTC

ellieh wrote: post #231

usrusr wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * when in full-auto on a single lane road, when there's an exit on the right the Tesla 3 almost always slightly swerve towards the exit before coming back in its lane. None of the Megane, the EQE or the BMW i4 do that. A minor nuisance. Unless you happen to be at the ready attentively double-checking whatever the assistance is doing - then it must be infuriatingly annoying! Guess what you're supposed to be doing, a…

Any car behaving differently to a human driver is outright dangerous. For example, motorcyclists depend on inferring behaviour more than the average driver. Someone swerving towards an exit is far more reliable an indicator of them taking it than a signal - many drivers don't bother using them. Many bikers I know avoid Teslas like the plague, as they're deeply difficult to read at best, and lethal at worst.

THIS!

It is critical to be aware of the surrounding traffic, and recognizing the driving style — the wheel angle and the current balance/attitude of the cars — is critical to understanding what they'll do next.

Just one example a while ago in traffic on a highway, I slowed a bit and moved to the other side of my lane, barely thinking about it. Seconds later the car on my left suddenly drifted into my lane, right where we would have been and only feet off my front bumper. My wife exclaimed "How did you know that was going to happen?!?", and I said I'd just noticed in the corner of my vision an odd wiggle in their front wheel, like the driver's attention or direction was off.

Sussing out what a driver is doing with any intersection, regardless of their signals, is key. Are they actually setting up to turn or stop, or just going along ignorantly?

So far, I haven't yet noticed anything big from Teslas, but although I've done a lot less driving since COVID, I still have noticed that their road positions and attitudes are, ummm unique. But really good to know about this fake-move towards the exit lane — very helpful — Thanks!

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#336

Post by Kirby64 » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 5:46 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #247

humanistbot wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must have missed part of the huge hype bubble when Musk claimed that Teslas with FSD would be "appreciating assets" because owners would be able to rent them out as robotaxis when not using them. He said they should be worth up to $200k because of that, and also this p2p robotaxi fleet would make Uber and all taxis obsolete. If FSD was actually full self-driving, then the idea makes a lot of sense. Yes, Tesla cus…

> You must have missed part of the huge hype bubble when Musk claimed that Teslas with FSD would be "appreciating assets" because owners would be able to rent them out as robotaxis when not using them. If Musk actually believed this it was irresponsible of him to sell any cars at all since holding onto them would have yielded a better return for investors/stockholders.

That was the rationale for why they planned on not actually allowing leases of the Model 3 to buy out their lease at the end. Since robotaxi was right around the corner...

Not sure what ever happened there, but I think Tesla managed to hold firm on that stance and won by luck since the used market bubble happened...

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#337

Post by danans » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 5:47 PM UTC

From the perspective of addressable market opportunity, personal vehicles are a steady size and satisfied market. There are cars that you can buy from $500 junkers to $500k monstrosities, and there is little opportunity to 10x the addressable market size.

Electrification of cars, while critically important for the climate, does not open an entirely new modality of life in the way that cars initially did. It's not transformative as a business model.

Therefore, unless they cause a major behavioral switch that is monetizable, EVs will just eventually replace the current car market. Tesla's potential growth as an EV maker is directly proportional to traditional automakers' car market loss, to the extent that happens. Does that justify a 10 or 20x valuation? Only if you think they will reach dominant global market share of all cars. To do so they would have to have an non-replicable comparative advantage, which they have failed to demonstrate.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#338

Post by sonotathrowaway » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 5:50 PM UTC

checkyoursudo wrote: post #29

What happened in 2020 that made investors think Tesla was a tech company instead of a car company? Based on the graph in TFA, it seems like investors maybe used to price the valuation right. (Caveat: I have no idea if they did, but the valuation used to be in line with other car companies, I guess?)

They had a lot of money and needed somewhere to put it. Then just back-rationalized the higher multiples from there.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#339

Post by jefftk » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 5:51 PM UTC

giobox wrote: post #334

NickM wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like, on paper they can do 250 kW but you never get more than 100 when actually charging it etc Yeah this is one area where there's a lot of deceptive marketing. For example the Kia EV6 specs list a max fast charging rate of 350 kW but what that actually means is that you need a 350 kW charging station to reach the car's actual max charging speed of 240 kW (or 180 kW, depending on the battery options). Granted, that…

How is this deceptive? Anyone who has ever charged a phone is probably familiar with the concept that a higher wattage charger provides faster charging speeds - electric cars are no different. Higher power chargers charge faster is not some secret. The car simply states the fastest DC connection it supports - 350kw. It works with any charger up to this wattage, just like my laptop charges from any USB-C source up to…

The specs say: [1]

DC Fast Charge Time (10-80% @ 350 kW via Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment) Level 3 Charger: Approx. 18 min.

and

Drive Battery Energy: 77.4 kWh

The battery is 77.4 kWh. This implies the battery is charging at 180kW.

If it were taking in the full 350kW and losing 170kW as heat that would be one (inefficient and dangerous) thing, but it doesn't sound like it actually draws 350kW?

For comparison, they say 73min for charging at 50kW, which implies the battery is charging at 45kW. If we figure that same 10% loss, then to charge at 180kW it's probably drawing 200kW from the charger.

[1] https://www.kia.com/us/en/ev6/specs

[2] 70% * 77.4 kWh * (60min / 1h) / 18 min = 181 kW

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#340

Post by megaman821 » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 5:51 PM UTC

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #301

DennisP wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not gonna say TSLA isn't overpriced but number of cars isn't a great metric. Let's look at some financials: Tesla: mcap $388B, debt $9B, op income $12B, free cash flow $9B GM: mcap $49B, debt $110B, op income $10B, free cash flow $1B Ford: mcap $48B, debt $139B, op income $11B, free cash flow $3B Tesla makes more money than Ford or GM, while having much less debt. The fact that they sell fewer cars means their ma…

Debt in itself doesn't matter when you value a company. What you want to look at is shareholder equity, which is assets net of liabilities. When you look at that indicator, Tesla comes behind GM and Ford. Tesla: $31.0 bn GM: $65.3 bn Ford: $42.1 bn

You can quibble with the real value of GM and Ford's assets. If I built a factory for a billion dollars that makes horse buggies, is it actually worth a billion dollars if I was forced to liquidate it?