As If The Ugly Tesla Truck Was Not Enough

[RangerMan]

Musk is a leader. The others are following him.

Look at SpaceX. Boosters flying back and landing on barges to be reused! Now that is innovation!

[JeffreyG]

As an engineer in the transportation area Tesla is always such a mixed bag of reactions for me. I give the company enormous credit for advancing battery technology and dragging electric cars from novelties to the heir apparent for all transport. It's really an incredible achievement. That said........

Musk in particular is an ass, and he benefits from an incredible fawning obsequiousness from both his fans and the press. He quite frequently makes very specific statements as the leader of his company that turn out to be wrong. And there is zero blowback. He's especially bad with timing "The Tesla Semi will be in production in 2019" and when this guidance is wrong everyone shrugs. It's wild. Statements from leadership giving investors incorrect information are treated as a huge deal at just about any other company.

Musk also distrusts the knowledge and instincts of most everyone from traditional automakers, and it shows. Sure, the other car companies were wrong about the viability of BEV's. But they also have all those lessons they painfully learned decades ago about how to design and build something as complex as a car at high volume. The Tesla cars are marvels as BEV's, but as straight up cars they have a lot of quality and reliability problems. As these Tesla vehicles move into the realm of very old cars (what is listed on CL as "runs") they will be super hard to maintain. The aftermarket needs parts, tools, support.


What remains to be seen is which is harder.......for traditional OEMs to figure out battery technology, or for Tesla to figure out quality, reliability, and nationwide sales, parts, and support.

[Telescopist]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

I can believe that... investors have made Musk much richer by paying far too much for Tesla shares, so it has accomplished all he wanted.

I'm more than happy to contribute to Musk's wealth. I'm a shareholder. So far my shares of Tesla have grown by @$714%. What's amusing is all the talk from naysayer pundits on Wall Street who will either say Tesla is only worth $65 a share ($83 CAD) - or - will not admit they shorted Tesla and lost millions gambling that the company would crater. Since the beginning of December individuals and stock porfolio managers have gambled and lost over 35 billion dollars re: Tesla.

There is a term for people who became millionaires (I'm not one of them!) investing in Tesla: 'Teslanaires'. Here's an article from BBC

[Telescopist]

Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz

yeah, the minute GM/Ford/Toyota/VW/Mercedes/etc get serious about pure electric cars, Tesla will be a has-been so fast its not funny.

Remember that prediction. Tesla has a head start over other car manufacturers of approximately 10 years. Bearing in mind that in those 10 years they have only made a profit (mostly energy credits) in the last 4 quarters.

That said it will be a long haul catch up game for the competition. Tesla has a competitive advantage in battery technology, their supercharger network, over the air software update technology (one example), Tesla's 'branding', and Tesla's autonomous driving technology. They are near completion of the world's largest battery manufacturing facility in Berlin which will ultimate produce 250GWh annual capacity. To put that in prospective, 160GWh worth of batteries were made worldwide in 2019 according to Benchmark Minerals.

[RangerMan]

Remember when many pundits were saying IBM would eat Microsoft's Lunch when they decided to get into the PC business?

[Mike G]

Say, is a trailblazing vehicle about to be defined by how quickly it can set a trail ablaze?



Battery fires will always be somewhat possible wherever there are batteries. But electronic door latch control that could trap occupants inside is definitely deterring.....

[Greg A]

Use to work for the co-founder of ACT software and he use to tell me to "find a hole, then fill it." A very effective approach, and it's extremely difficult to knock off the companies that filled the hole first.
Sometime market gets eroded as imitators enter, but the Coca Cola's are still the one's to beat years later.

[Telescopist]

Originally Posted by Greg A

Use to work for the co-founder of ACT software and he use to tell me to "find a hole, then fill it." A very effective approach, and it's extremely difficult to knock off the companies that filled the hole first.
Sometime market gets eroded as imitators enter, but the Coca Cola's are still the one's to beat years later.

The forever dilemma: Value vs Growth stocks. Tesla is a software company posing as a car company. Here's an article today which augments that view. It's about Tesla's energy division.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by RangerMan

Look at SpaceX. Boosters flying back and landing on barges to be reused! Now that is innovation!

Not really. The entire Space Shuttle Orbiter flew back (with people and cargo) and was reused, the Shuttle's boosters were reused (after parachute descent instead of powered landing), and the McDonnell Douglas DC-X demonstrated take-off and tail-sitting landing on earth in the 1990's and the Apollo program demonstrated it (in the opposite order) on the moon in the 1960's. SpaceX has done some very good work with initial funding from Musk, much more funding from other investors, and billions of dollars from NASA... all of it building incrementally on decades of technology and centuries of science, like everyone else.

Many people seem far more interested in popular personalities than the technology that the associated companies produce, and that's fine, and the right personality can make an investor a lot of money, but personality won't get your trailer to the campsite.

[RangerMan]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

Not really. The entire Space Shuttle Orbiter flew back (with people and cargo) and was reused, the Shuttle's boosters were reused (after parachute descent instead of powered landing), and the McDonnell Douglas DC-X demonstrated take-off and tail-sitting landing on earth in the 1990's and the Apollo program demonstrated it (in the opposite order) on the moon in the 1960's. SpaceX has done some very good work with initial funding from Musk, much more funding from other investors, and billions of dollars from NASA... all of it building incrementally on decades of technology and centuries of science, like everyone else.

Many people seem far more interested in popular personalities than the technology that the associated companies produce, and that's fine, and the right personality can make an investor a lot of money, but personality won't get your trailer to the campsite.

Yes! It really is.

[sherminator]

I don't have much to say about Tesla except that we have 3 Tesla projects in our shop at this moment, and they're helping to feed, shelter, and clothe me, so I hope they keep on going for at least 5 more years

[Mike Lewis]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

Not really.

Give credit where credit is due. SpaceX is the only company that I know of that has put satellites into orbit using unmanned boosters and then brought the boosters back to earth to be reused again and again, with the intent of driving costs down and making a profit. This is definitely an innovation.

The Space Shuttle cost a half-billion dollars per launch if I recall correctly, and the SRB refurbishment consisted of refilling the hollow rocket sections with more solid fuel, essentially building a new rocket. Despite NASA's 1980s hype about making space profitable with weekly shuttle launches, no one believed it. Its real purpose was to keep astronauts employed to perpetuate the manned space program, and to be able to put large objects into low earth orbit (e.g. Hubble Space Telescope), check them out to make sure they worked, then send them on their way.

[JeffreyG]

Yeah, the shuttle was conceived as a low cost orbital system, but wound up becoming the most expensive way to put anything in low Earth orbit ever implemented. So kind of a failure.

Didn't help that flying a single Shuttle mission was roughly as risky as flying two years of continuous combat operations in Vietnam. And that was based on the planned risk level of 1 failure in 100 missions. The actual risk level was 2 failures in 135 missions.

[Telescopist]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

Many people seem far more interested in popular personalities than the technology that the associated companies produce, and that's fine, and the right personality can make an investor a lot of money, but personality won't get your trailer to the campsite.

Consumers just want things to work. In the main they are not interested in getting under the hood in order to understand the technology with respect to how they work. This is the reason why Apple became a 2 trillion dollar company. It will very likely be the reason why Tesla will become the first 1 trillion dollar *car* company.

As far as getting to the "campsite" goes I don't see how that fits into the discussion. Battery technology, energy tax credits, and the marketplace will determine the future of EV's. This is an overview of the current state of EV industry from the NYT.

I'm not trying to be a shill for Tesla or the EV industry in general. I simply believe that this industry is *wave* of the future and the wave is already happening. As I understand it there are two things that need to be addressed. 1. "Range anxiety" - the fear that the vehicle will run out of juice before you get to your destination. 2. Cost of batteries.

Obviously the internal combustion engine isn't going to disappear overnight. The US of A will probably be one of the last countries to shift from fossil fuel powered vehicles to electric, plug-in hybrid or fuel cell-powered. Political will/policy and the market place will be the independent variables.

[Mike Lewis]

Originally Posted by Telescopist

As I understand it there are two things that need to be addressed. 1. "Range anxiety" - the fear that the vehicle will run out of juice before you get to your destination. 2. Cost of batteries.

I would add a third: time to recharge. If one could recharge an EV in the time it takes to fill a gas tank, the whole scenario would change.

[Telescopist]

Originally Posted by Mike Lewis

I would add a third: time to recharge. If one could recharge an EV in the time it takes to fill a gas tank, the whole scenario would change.

So true. QuantumScape and Tesla are working on a solid state battery which will reach an 80% charge in 15 minutes. That would be the game changer. QuantumScapes largest investors before the company went public (QS) was Bill Gates and VW. VW has no intention of being left behind by Tesla.

You have to have fortitude to buy into a company which won't produce even a modest profit before 2024. That said QS went from a $10 stock when the company went public in early September to over $100 a share today. Crazy evaluation! Investors and day players are swarming to get in on the EV action. These companies understandably are volitile. Not for the faint hearted.

Back on recharging. One of the things owners of electric vehicles like is that they can plug in at home. Big convenience there. Not so if you live in an apartment. The other thing has to do with the average commute distance. Here in the States its 16 miles each way. In Canada its 8.7km.

From Car and Driver: " The Standard Range Plus model is the most affordable, with a claimed range of 263 miles. Upgrading to the Long Range or Performance models increases the Model 3's estimated range to 315 miles for the Performance and an impressive 353 for the Long Range."

[tdf-texas]

Originally Posted by Telescopist

You have to have fortitude to buy into a company which won't produce even a modest profit before 2024. That said QS went from a $10 stock when the company went public in early September to over $100 a share today. Crazy evaluation! Investors and day players are swarming to get in on the EV action. These companies understandably are volatile. Not for the faint hearted.

Is it just me or does the EV industry remind you of the dot.com fiasco where stock values went unrealistic and then crashed.

I'm retired and can't afford to lose my savings - no EV company stock for me.

[Telescopist]

Originally Posted by tdf-texas

Is it just me or does the EV industry remind you of the dot.com fiasco where stock values went unrealistic and then crashed.I'm retired and can't afford to lose my savings - no EV company stock for me.

It's not just you. There are numerous articles about that. Many of these companies such as NIO have never made an annual profit. Yet anyway. Heck, Lordstown Motors and Fisker are still in the pre-production phase. Nikola had a $10 billion in order for Class 8 trucks which would run on hydrogen. The stock went from @$9 a share to @$90 in a matter of weeks after it went public. I jumped in early. But then I got to thinking: Hydrogen? Where are the fuel depots located? There aren't any it turns out. The one truck they had had built turns out was towed up to the top of a hill then coasted down. Gravity is convenient when you haven't actually installed a motor. The company was all smoke and mirrors. I was lucky and sold my shares at around $70. It was one of those deals where I just felt like the company was scamming everyone. They were. All of their contracts blew up and the companies stock collapsed where now it's hovering around $16.

So I agree with you. The evaluations on these companies is not connected to the reality with respect to their financials.

What keeps this crazy stock evaluation floating in surreal territory is the fact that in an otherwise slow-growing global economy, the EV industry is among the few sectors that offer astronomical growth prospects. Is that enough reason for a retired guy like you or me to stick their neck out. Definitely not. So there I am doing it anyway.

[oldwave]

There’s been some reports of toyota entering the ev market with a solid state battery. That may be a game changer given the reputation for quality engineering and longevity. Hydrogen storage issues will be no more complex than underground tanks. The problem is the generation of hydrogen cheaply. However the next 20 years will be interesting, though it’s my kids and grandchildren that will witness the end of fossil fuels. Can’t come quick enough

[JeffreyG]

Originally Posted by Telescopist

It's not just you. There are numerous articles about that. Many of these companies such as NIO have never made an annual profit.

I think this is the same problem that drove the bundled securities market driven 2008 recession. There is simply too much money sitting in limited hands, all chasing elusive returns. There's just not enough stuff to invest in, leading to all kinds of bizarre situations.

Look at the market cap and ongoing investment in companies like Uber. Uber is nothing more than the idea of taxis driven by independent contractors who own their own taxi. It has never been profitable, but investors are content to wait a decade or so for this amazing idea of the "taxi" to pan out.

Real grifters like Nikola have jumped in, and been handsomely rewarded. There are a lot of companies that are being handed money and running a decade from IPO to first possible profits. This acceptance by investors is funding everything from bad ideas to outright grift.