Live data from Hacker News

Tesla Q1 2021 Results

tesla-cdn.thron.com

561–570 of 591 posts

Re: Tesla Q1 2021 Results

#561
post #502
post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s exactly what the Model Y and Model X are. Both beat an ID4 in cargo volume without even counting the frunk (which VWs don’t have). Even the smaller Model 3 is plenty for a 4-person family, while it doesn’t beat in liters because of ceiling height the trunk is very spacious.

I guess I should have avoided the term "family car", since there are lots of different types of cars that are suitable as a family car. So I searched Wikipedia and the types of car I was thinking about are apparently called "Compact MPV" [1]. My thinking was that these cars are mostly targeted at families, so I called them "family cars", but apparently people have different ideas what a family car is. My point was th…

We need VW to do this. But Tesla isn’t going to be standing still in the next few years either. Their platform and lead in technology and integration, let alone the lack of legacy costs, provides genuine competitive advantage.

Re: Tesla Q1 2021 Results

#562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but market share should be considered as a percentage of the overall car market, not just electric sales. It's unrealistic to expect that Tesla would continue to dominate the EV market forever. It is realistic to expect that Tesla will become a significant player in car sales globally.

What are you saying? How can Tesla be a significant player in car sales globally, when as a percentage of EV car sales, they are decreasing? Think about it for a second and it will come to you. As more cars turn EV, unless Tesla maintains their marketshare, they will become less and less significant. They've lost marketshare in the first year that the major car companies have introduced reasonable EVs. Their 2nd deri…

> "As more cars turn EV, unless Tesla maintains their marketshare, they will become less and less significant."

No, that's not neccessarily true at all.

Let's imagine that in 2021, EVs are 2% of car sales globally, and Tesla has 50% of the EV market. That means that Tesla has 1% share of the entire car market.

Now imagine that in 2031, EVs are 50% of car sales globally. And Tesla's share of the EV market has "shrunk" to 20%. But that's still 10% of the entire car market. Even assuming no market growth, that's an enormous 10X (1000%!) sales growth for Tesla over 10 years!

Even though its share of the EV market has shrunk, Tesla is selling 10X more cars and is a far more significant company in 2031.

Re: Tesla Q1 2021 Results

#563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty sure this isn’t within the spirit of site rules. Then don't do it. I guess this is the 'attack how you say it stage'. You said "Your claim he's not actively working them into a froth is certainly at best a generous take. " Show me where I said that. You said a tweet saying they would accept bitcoin is 'blatant illegal market manipulation' and a 'pump and dump'. All I did was quote your own source to show tha…

> I guess this is the 'attack how you say it stage'. Like I said, I'm happy to engage with you once you decide to abide by site rules :) I'm not interested in engaging in a conversation with someone accusing me historically (and apparently, presently) of not knowing what I'm talking about and hallucinating. If you wish people to engage with you, do so civilly. Your personal attacks are neither acceptable nor welcome,…

What would you call you saying I said something that I didn't say?

Re: Tesla Q1 2021 Results

#564
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VW has just started selling their first "real" electric cars based on their all new platform. If that platform works out then Tesla is going to compete not against one or two new models, but they'll suddenly compete against two dozen models. Unless VW fucks something up in the next year, I just don't know how Tesla expects to compete with them. Tesla only has a handful of high end cars; they have no family cars, no v…

As a German, I don't see VW getting it together rapidly. Germany doesn't get life in #Neuland. VW and most of the German industry are respective leaders in some niche by being good at through mechanical engineering IP. Electrical cars are simple. Innovation is in software, DRM business models and battery tech which is all completely foreign to the German industry. People here get Teslas for the charging infrastructur…

German here as well. In general, I share your pessimism.

One thing to point out about VW is that their CEO, Herbert Diess, seems to get it. To name two anecdotal pieces of evidence, Elon had asked him to become CEO of Tesla back in 2015 [1] and he had conversations with Chinese battery supplier CATL about car batteries as far back as ten years ago [2].

[1] https://electrek.co/2021/04/13/ceo-elon-musk-reportedly-hire...

[2] https://www.teslarati.com/volkswagen-herbert-diess-ev-cell-p...

Re: Tesla Q1 2021 Results

#565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you stopped to think about the insane infrastructure that goes into supporting car driving? There are millions of gas stations across the planet, that had to be built, then continually supplied. Not to mention the billions (?) of km of asphalt roads. We did all that in the 20th century. What's so impossible about building chargers? I don't get it. As for driving at 200kph, that's just dangerous (unless you're in…

> We did all that in the 20th century. What's so impossible about building chargers? I don't get it. I never said its impossible, I said that right now they are not there. In the 18th century, without proper roads, between the choice of a car with wooden wheels and a horse, I'd have 100% of the time would have bought the horse. --- > As for driving at 200kph, that's just dangerous No, it isn't. Driving 120kph in the…

> In the 18th century, without proper roads, between the choice of a car with wooden wheels and a horse, I'd have 100% of the time would have bought the horse.

There were no automobiles in the 18th century.

> No, it isn't. Driving 120kph in the autobahn is more dangerous than driving 200kph.

Yes, it is. Data shows accidents increase with speed, yes, even in autobahns, let alone in highways with speed limit.

Also, you were talking about motorways/highways in general, the overwhelming of which have speed limits, and not about autobahns in particular.

> 130kph has to overtake you with 10kph difference

I used 120 as it's the highway speed limit in most of the world. Replace 120 with 130, the point is driving at the speed limit. You are talking about going 200kph, so I don't see what you're trying to get at here.

> Just because your time is worth less than most people's time and you prefer driving at 120kph, 10kph below the recommended speed, does not mean that most people agree with you. The traffic guidelines actually disagree with you, which is why they recommend at least 130kph.

Ahahaha, what the hell is your problem. I drive the speed limit instead of driving like a maniac because my time is not so valuable as yours?

> The slowest lane usually goes at 140-150 kph. I don't see the point of making an assumption that's clearly incorrect.

Again, simple data falsifies your assertion. Measurements taken put the percentage of people going over 130kph in German highways at between 35% and 60%. So your "slowest lane goes 150" thing is hilariously off the mark.

> If you think that driving at 200kph is dangerous, I have to assume that you never took highway driving classes as part of your driving license

Again with the German exceptionalism? Yes I did drive on the highway to get my license of course. No, I didn't drive nearly twice the speed limit in those lessons.

> training, I'm such a good driver, stick to taking the bus until you git good

Nothing you can say changes the fact that higher speed means more risk of crashes. This is documented, and you are no exception. Everybody thinks they're great drivers so the rules don't apply to them.

---

Finally: in your previous posts you complained that electric cars can't travel at 200kph when the temperature is -20°C. Well if you're such a good driver you should know that it's reckless (and indeed forbidden) to drive at such speeds in such cold weather.

Re: Tesla Q1 2021 Results

#566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the connection.

> I expected Musk-hype in this thread but nothing quite so ridiculous as these idiotic "analyses" Of course there is a ceiling which any product maker will hit eventually, but the OP made a prediction that Tesla could become the worlds biggest car manufacturer and the response to that was to label this an "idiotic analyses". This reminds me of how Ballmer was laughing at Apple and literally 12 months later Apple was…

It is an idiotic analysis on the basis of a couple cherry-picked data points: the performance of rival companies on this particular quarter, plus the performance of Tesla in the past year, plus the assumption that all future growth will be extrapolated from each single data point.

Re: Tesla Q1 2021 Results

#567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference, as other testers have noted, is that Tesla's notion of "0% battery" is a bit more conservative than other brands. It's important to appreciate that the utility of energy efficiency metrics are different for ICE and EV. In an ICE car, fuel efficiency is pretty much just a stand-in for running costs and tailpipe pollution, so it makes sense for the test cycle to represent a plausible balance of city and…

> The difference, as other testers have noted, is that Tesla's notion of "0% battery" is a bit more conservative than other brands It's not enough of a difference to account for the range deficit. Add on 12.6 miles for the Model Y and 7.3 miles for the Mach E. The Mustang still comes out on top: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1131706_tesla-saves-mor... > But when it comes to vehicle range, you mostly care about…

I don’t disagree with any of that. Sorry if my prior post implied that I thought Tesla vehicles were special or magical, I’m just pointing out that it’s not so straightforward to interpret the metrics.

My point was about efficiency, not range. Range can easily be made higher by putting in a bigger battery, which is precisely what Ford did here. Quoting from your own citation: "Keep in mind that the Tesla Model Y is more efficient than the Mach E but it has a smaller battery. Its battery pack is 75 kWh nominal. The battery pack in the Mach E is quite large, it's basically 99 kWh nominal."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSmSiOo-v8s&t=61s

Note that the above are nominal (i.e. physical) battery capacities. Ford generally promotes the usable capacity of the battery, which is 88 kWh. The equivalent usable capacity of the Tesla battery is unknown, but it's likely to be a similar fraction.

You correctly point out that what matters is how far you can drive for the money you spent. I agree. When you add up the money you spent on electricity to fill up the battery, then the Model Y goes further per dollar spent on electricity.

Re: Tesla Q1 2021 Results

#568
post #496
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Musk is nearly a clone of Jobs in affect and attitude and reality distortion effect. Eh, Musk has more negative tendencies than Jobs, especially related to his public behavior and honesty. Whatever you might think of Jobs, whenever he issued a firm statement it came true. iPhones were always released on schedule. Musk is years late and many miles short on almost every product he announces. Full Self Driving was sup…

I’d you’re going to turn this into a competition you need to mention the child that Jobs abandoned?

Elon Musk is not a stellar husband or father. The stuff described here is as bad as anything Jobs ever did: https://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/a5380/millionaire-start...

Re: Tesla Q1 2021 Results

#569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The difference, as other testers have noted, is that Tesla's notion of "0% battery" is a bit more conservative than other brands It's not enough of a difference to account for the range deficit. Add on 12.6 miles for the Model Y and 7.3 miles for the Mach E. The Mustang still comes out on top: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1131706_tesla-saves-mor... > But when it comes to vehicle range, you mostly care about…

I don’t disagree with any of that. Sorry if my prior post implied that I thought Tesla vehicles were special or magical, I’m just pointing out that it’s not so straightforward to interpret the metrics. My point was about efficiency, not range. Range can easily be made higher by putting in a bigger battery, which is precisely what Ford did here. Quoting from your own citation: "Keep in mind that the Tesla Model Y is m…

> The equivalent usable capacity of the Tesla battery is unknown, but it's likely to be a similar fraction.

It isn't unknown and it's not a similar fraction. It's 73 kWh usable in the Model Y:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYxTJzZ5sJY

A better question is why does Tesla not reveal such a basic detail in its marketing.

> When you add up the money you spent on electricity to fill up the battery, then the Model Y goes further per dollar spent on electricity.

You aren't going to see much benefit from that. The difference is 6%.

The Mustang Mach E is thousands of dollars cheaper than the Model Y with the current incentives that it qualifies for. The California Route 1 trim is cheaper even without incentives and gets even more range because it's rear wheel drive. That's a lot of charging to make up the difference.

Re: Tesla Q1 2021 Results

#570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t disagree with any of that. Sorry if my prior post implied that I thought Tesla vehicles were special or magical, I’m just pointing out that it’s not so straightforward to interpret the metrics. My point was about efficiency, not range. Range can easily be made higher by putting in a bigger battery, which is precisely what Ford did here. Quoting from your own citation: "Keep in mind that the Tesla Model Y is m…

> The equivalent usable capacity of the Tesla battery is unknown, but it's likely to be a similar fraction. It isn't unknown and it's not a similar fraction. It's 73 kWh usable in the Model Y: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYxTJzZ5sJY A better question is why does Tesla not reveal such a basic detail in its marketing. > When you add up the money you spent on electricity to fill up the battery, then the Model Y goes…

That logic does make sense if we assume that the purchase price of a vehicle is entirely for the battery and all other parts of the car are free.

Nonetheless, even if we accept your logic, your point remains a weird one. The vehicle with a 88 kWh "usable" capacity goes a little bit further on the highway compared to the vehicle with a 73 kWh "usable" capacity. Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone?

My point was about efficiency, not range. Range can easily be made higher by putting in a bigger battery, which is precisely what Ford did here. Quoting from your own citation: "Keep in mind that the Tesla Model Y is more efficient than the Mach E but it has a smaller battery." That was my point. You're making another point and I'm not disagreeing with it.

Post reply on HN