Master Plan, Part Deux • Hacker News Board

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#621

Post by mrexroad » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:32 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #583

tikl1 wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are the very definition of imperfection and thinking that you are capable of "correctly using a car" that is, never make the mistake that will cause a terrible accident is a big problem. It's probably why so much people keep resisting evolution like autopilot, they can't admit that even them can someday fail and crash. They believe that if they are good drivers they will avoid it. Sadly very good drivers die e…

"Humans are the very definition of imperfection and thinking that you are capable of "correctly using a car" that is, never make the mistake that will cause a terrible accident is a big problem." A human, with proper training and heuristics, can reasonably be expected to never make a mistake that causes a terrible accident. Unfortunately, a large part of "proper training" involves being driven around as a passenger f…

> A human, with proper training and heuristics, can reasonably be expected to never make a mistake that causes a terrible accident.

fighter pilots make mistakes causing terrible accidents. and they're a group of humans that were pre-screened to ensure physical/mental/emotional fit, and had extensive training.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#622

Post by dragontamer » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:41 PM UTC

chc wrote: post #355

rjdagost wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say what you will about their "antiquated" business practices, but Ford consistently does one thing that Tesla never does: it turns a profit

This seems more like a sneer than a legitimate criticism. AFAIK Tesla's business is fundamentally pretty solid. They make a net profit on their cars, but they are currently investing it all into aggressive expansion. Is it surprising that a young, growing company is spending a lot on growth compared to a century-old company? Do you think it would be better for Tesla if they didn't invest in the future?

> They make a net profit on their cars, but they are currently investing it all into aggressive expansion

Citation needed.

The numbers I'm looking at are the following: http://ir.tesla.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1564590-16-18886&...

As of March 2016:

$ 182,482,000 in Research and Development last Quarter.

$ 282,267,000 net loss in the quarter.

So even if we got rid of Tesla's ENTIRE R&D department, they lost $100 Million last QUARTER. The primary cost of Tesla is "Selling, general and administrative", which was around $300 Million.

The only other cost that's larger than their administrative costs were the $779,316,000 spent on parts.

#1 Cost: The parts (~$780 Million)

#2 Cost: Selling, General, and Administrative. $300 Million

#3 Cost: $182 Million spent on R&D.

These numbers are per quarter.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#623

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:56 PM UTC

asymmetric wrote: post #535

dredmorbius wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost certainly not. Except for, say, powering auxiliary electronics, concentrations of solar power are far too low for on-vehicle collection. Put the panels alongside the road . Not on the vehicles. Not on solar freaking roadways , which are the stupidest idea since stupid. But in medians, on extant construction, and in concentrated high-insolation solar farms (deserts, etc.). We're going to need one hell of a lot…

Why are solar roadways stupid?

https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/26on7y/solar_r...

https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/27uq3a/facing_...

The first rebuts the initial premise soundly and points to multiple other critiques.

TL;DR: an exceptionally poor and expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#624

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:57 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #600

asymmetric wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are solar roadways stupid?

There is tons of space to put solar panels. We don't NEED to come up with a clever solution of where to put the solar panels. Just put them anywhere, it doesn't matter. Space is cheap. Rooftop space is even cheaper.

Rooftop space also ties directly into existing built infrastructure and grid, which is a neat plus.

There's not sufficient rooftop space for present electrical needs, nor future likely needs. But yes, it's a good start.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#625

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 8:00 PM UTC

taf2 wrote: post #447

dredmorbius wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See above. That is a valid claim to subsidy, but it's not the one I'm referring to, which involves, depending on your view / word choices: total factor costs, solar emergy cost, or natural capital costs.

However you like to think about the end result is more dollars in my pocket - yes?

It's a net decrease in total wealth, if you include natural capital in that metric. Various authorities differ on that. As early as the late 19th century, Adam Smith's biographer and scholar Edwin Cannan was noting that Smith's definition of wealth, "the annual labour and produce of the nation", doesn't account for natural capital: farmland, forests, fisheries, game, topsoil, and natural resources.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#626

Post by HeyLaughingBoy » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 8:01 PM UTC

dexterdog wrote: post #496

creshal wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Tesla wants to be better than a Maserati or Jaguar, they need to observe how much nicer the interiors of those cars are. Indeed. I was shocked when I first hitched a ride in a Model S – the interior is more spartan and cramped than that of a 90s Japanese keicar (an impressive feat, in a sense) apart from the entertainment system, which had an uglier, clunkier UI than what any web developer could have drawn you u…

That's his sales market. Tesla wants fanboy buyers who will be upgrading within five years and that's not a bad thing. They are such a small player that they can do this. I used to lease SUVs on 2-year lease. They had massive incentives and very high residuals because the manufacturers realize they can sell you 5 cars every decade if you are loyal. I did it because the savings were awesome, but I eventually stopped b…

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying it cost less to lease 5 cars over a 10-year period than to buy one and hold it?

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#627

Post by Uhhrrr » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 8:04 PM UTC

PinguTS wrote: post #418

rz2k wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the employees at all of the subcontractors each of the incumbent manufacturers uses for completed components? Number of employees per car output is one metric meant to be a proxy for something else. Use it in a TED Talk or a newspaper editorial to make some larger point, since it is a compelling takeaway, but it's actually pretty meaningless on its own. Being boring, and looking at sustainable production co…

At first that seems right. But there is a big BUT. Even Tesla has outsourced a lot of components. A lot of the components except the drivetrain is being outsourced. There are only 2 manufacturers for airbags in the world. There is only 1 good quality manufacturer in the world for the in car rearview mirror. There is only 1 manufacturer for the Homelink system with its best features developed by an Audi engineer I per…

> There is only 1 good quality manufacturer in the world for the in car rearview mirror

Why is that? That seems insane.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#628

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 8:26 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #580

dredmorbius wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the subsidy I'm referring to. How much would it cost you to create a barrel of crude oil? Not "extract from the ground", the usual meaning of "producing oil", which borrows rather more from "produce the evidence" than "manufacture the good". But actually start with high-entropy substrates and some energy source and synthesize oil. Why do markets not account for this cost? (Hotelling's Rule is ignored, and…

That's actually not THAT expensive. We've had biofuel for quite a while now.

Ethanol is highly subsidised and reliant on petroleum and natural-gas fed processes. 40% of US corn goes to provide about 10% of motor fuel as ethanol, with a net EROEI that's very close to break-even -- some studies show a net energy loss, a few a slight gain.

At the turn of the 20th century, when horses were used for local transport, about 25% of US grain production went to transport fuel supply -- as horse feed. In Europe, historically, that value was closer to 33%.

Pricing these in terms of labour equivalents without mechanisation or fossil-fuel derived fertiliser and pesticides probably gives the fairest comparison.

Scaling biofuel production to present levels of petroleum consumption is entirely nontractable.

Biodiesel costs range from $300 to $1000 /bbl. That's 3-10x petroleum at its peak prices, and 10-30x its recent price of ~$30 bbl.

As an opportunistic adjunct to fuels, biomass from waste streams and some dedicated fuels production may make sense. At present scales of fuel use, it cannot and almost certainly never will compete. We'll either have to use far less fuel, or have far fewer people. Which may happen regardless.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2cvap7/the_int...

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#629

Post by rattray » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 8:31 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #64

"A first principles physics analysis of automotive production suggests that somewhere between a 5 to 10 fold improvement is achievable by version 3 on a roughly 2 year iteration cycle. The first Model 3 factory machine should be thought of as version 0.5, with version 1.0 probably in 2018." What that really means: Tesla is going to lose a ton of money per car on the Model 3, or raise the price, until at least 2022. T…

> Ford produced 3.2 million cars in 2015 with 187,000 employees, about 17 cars per employee.

This is an awesome analysis. Do you happen to know the numbers for BMW, the most frequently compared "like" to Tesla that I've seen? (or a similar luxury company)

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#630

Post by RubberSpoon » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 8:40 PM UTC

spenczar5 wrote: post #612

Evgeny wrote: post #609

As of 2016, the number of American car companies that haven't gone bankrupt is a grand total of two: Ford and Tesla. Also, four entities have launched rockets into space: the US, China, the Soviet Union (Russia) and Elon Musk. This guy is thinking and planning on a scale I find it hard to even imagine, to fit in my brain.

What? No. Orbital ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_Corporation ) launched a rocket into space in 1990, entirely privately. France [1], Japan [2], India [3], Israel [4], Iran [5], and even North Korea [6] have developed and launched rockets that successfully put satellites in orbit. I like Elon as much as the next guy, but this mythologizing is just too much. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamant […

It's a misquote from the Elon Musk Wait But Why article: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/05/elon-musk-the-worlds-raddest-m...

"the four entities in history who have managed to launch a spacecraft into orbit and successfully return it to Earth are the US, Russia, China—and SpaceX"