EEVblog Electronics Community Forum

Electronics => Renewable Energy => Topic started by: EEVblog on December 02, 2017, 10:56:18 am

Title: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: EEVblog on December 02, 2017, 10:56:18 am
Interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKfqqGFCCkE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKfqqGFCCkE)
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: dr.diesel on December 02, 2017, 11:14:21 am
Competition is coming, and will be coming very strong.

Musk had better have some whoppers left hiding up his sleeves.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: ataradov on December 02, 2017, 11:22:25 am
Musk had better have some whoppers left hiding up his sleeves.
They are producing patents faster than they are producing cars. In the end, they may not be able to sell actual cars, but I bet they will be able to sell IP for quite some time.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: dr.diesel on December 02, 2017, 11:26:42 am
To add:

No doubt that Musk "reinvented" the electric car, without his genius the electric craze would have taken another 5-10 years perhaps.  But now that the big manufacturers are gearing up, IMHO, hasn't the fun kinda expired?

I'd much rather see Musk concentrate on SpaceX, very cool stuff happening here, with the opportunity to continue doing great things for decades..   :-+
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: floobydust on December 02, 2017, 11:28:47 am
It's easy to bash the company, especially investors who demand profitability while building a company and an industry.

Tesla Motors is pushing an application of existing technology, sure the self-driving is proprietary but the batteries are a staple item, for years. The motor, the VFD, nothing terribly special there. They are left to making cars and have little experience there, let alone competing with sluggish dinosaurs like Ford, GM, VW.

I think Tesla Motors knows things are going to take longer that expected. Firing 700 people (2%) due to slow Model 3 production, obviously a cost-cutting mass layoff because you don't sack "inept" people en masse.

Very fragile, a new battery technology or a competitor getting up to speed- I don't think Tesla Motors would survive.
If they made all their own batteries, had superior battery tech, then they could rule.
But for now, I think his company's (profit) comes down to manufacturing and they ain't doing well there.

Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: ataradov on December 02, 2017, 11:29:12 am
But now that the big manufacturers are gearing up, IMHO, hasn't the fun kinda expired?
They are also producing batteries. And cars may just be a way to consume initial batches to figure out all the quirks.

All those other car makers will have to get batteries somewhere.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: floobydust on December 02, 2017, 11:33:45 am
All those other car makers will have to get batteries somewhere.

So it's come down to battery supply?
Shortages, best price, best tech etc.?
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: phil from seattle on December 02, 2017, 11:46:32 am
Lots of naysayers about Tesla. But the video is simply recapping what they are saying.  It doesn't focus on the advantages Tesla has. 

Probably the biggest is the SuperCharger network. A supercharger is the fastest way to charge an EV. You can drive a Tesla from coast to coast via SCs. For a Bolt or other EV to do this, you need to map out the route very carefully and use slow chargers.  A Tesla will tell you where the SCs are and how to get there.  No other EV maker has this. No other major car maker is even talking about putting a network together. And, tesla is adding SCs at an accelerating rate. While most cars are driven within 25 miles of home, road trips have been a major stumbling point for EVs.  Also, the SC network is being built up in urban areas to serve apartment/condo/co-op dwellers that don't have home charging.

The megafactory. This has the best chance of driving down battery costs faster than any other maker and will be able to supply batteries for the eventual production demands. The majors have all been nibbling around the edges of this but without a captive supply, they aren't really being serious. It's a core to building high volume EVs - not a good idea to outsource it.

The fact that Tesla has missed production goals of the M3 is not surprising. Elon also overstates things.  They are clearly having growing pains to ramp to their production number.  Late yes, but you can be dead certain they are working to get there.

The demand for Teslas is still very much there. In the consumer's minds, they are very desirable vehicles.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: blueskull on December 02, 2017, 12:05:22 pm
Musk had better have some whoppers left hiding up his sleeves.
They are producing patents faster than they are producing cars. In the end, they may not be able to sell actual cars, but I bet they will be able to sell IP for quite some time.

Who cares about patents? Know how is always more important than right to make things.
Patents only work for a specific set of claims and is only honored by certain countries and jurisdictions (i.e. software patent only works in US and a few other countries), and even in appropriate field and in a protected country, practically the law can't cover small players, so patents only work for battle between big players.
I always like the case of SD card patent -- everyone uses SD card in their designs, and so far I've never heard anyone (small player, of course) actually pays a red cent to SD Holdings.

They are also producing batteries. And cars may just be a way to consume initial batches to figure out all the quirks.
All those other car makers will have to get batteries somewhere.

There's no moral in the business world. If GM orders 1M car worth of batteries, Panasonic will sell whatever their Tesla collaboration battery to GM.
Also, expect Chinese/Korean battery makers such as BYD or ATL or SDI to clone Tesla 1270 technology in a few years.
BTW, A123 has the safe, high power LiFePO4 technology matured a few years ago, if there's a need, those A123 cells can also compete 1270 on urban models which doesn't care about range, but values more about lifetime and acceleration power.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: floobydust on December 02, 2017, 12:07:36 pm
Isn't the Tesla Semi (https://www.tesla.com/semi/) just spreading them too thin?
Do you let manufacturing catch up, or keep forging ahead with new applications for EV technology?

The 100-megawatt battery farm, was officially activated in South Australia today.
I hear it uses Panasonic and Samsung batteries. Maybe it's not all about cars as the blogger never mentioned it.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: EEVblog on December 02, 2017, 12:12:47 pm
Isn't the Tesla Semi (https://www.tesla.com/semi/) just spreading them too thin?
Do you let manufacturing catch up, or keep forging ahead with new applications for EV technology?

The market demands publicly listed companies continue to announce new stuff like this, they have no choice.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: IanMacdonald on December 03, 2017, 04:52:45 am
None of the 'Green' ideas are new, they are all revivals of old ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhnjMdzGusc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhnjMdzGusc)

I remember when I was young, visiting museums with trams.

Windmills were used to drive industrial machinery prior to the invention of steam. 

The bicycle originated in Victorian times, mainly for those who couldn't afford a horse. (Horses were and still are quite expensive to maintain)

Even solar PV is a spinoff of 1960's space tech. Not exactly out of date, but not original either. 

The main thing about all of these old ideas is that they were abandoned for a reason, and the people who want to revive them often haven't properly researched the reasons why they were abandoned. The assume that because they have an improved version of the old tech, everything will be fine. However, they may have overlooked a fundamental gotcha which is not overcome by the improved performance of their new version. As happened with Edinburgh's trams. 
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: floobydust on December 03, 2017, 06:22:31 am
One reason why they didn't make it in the early 1900's, the cost of the batteries:
"The Edison battery was not lead-acid. It was a rechargeable nickel-iron battery that was an upgrade, very expensive ($600) considering that a whole car (Model T) could be bought for that price."
Source: http://www.twinkletoesengineering.info/wells_auto_museum/baker_electric_technology.htm#Detroit%20Electric%20cars (http://www.twinkletoesengineering.info/wells_auto_museum/baker_electric_technology.htm#Detroit%20Electric%20cars)

I think the battery pack in the Model 3, standard 50 kWh is 2,976 of 2170 cells and 74 kWh ‘long range’ battery pack is 4,416 cells. I'm not sure how to estimate the pack's cost, but this is a zillion cells?
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: coppice on December 03, 2017, 09:45:04 am
The main thing about all of these old ideas is that they were abandoned for a reason, and the people who want to revive them often haven't properly researched the reasons why they were abandoned.
Often their reason for new people working on these technologies is the complete opposite of what you said. People often research why these things were abandoned, find that other advances have removed the blockage, and find that further progress can be made. For example, batteries may still suck, but they are so much lighter, denser and cheaper than a few decades ago that anything that was blocked by poor batteries is certainly worth revisiting today.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: wraper on December 03, 2017, 10:03:56 am
Even solar PV is a spinoff of 1960's space tech. Not exactly out of date, but not original either. 

The main thing about all of these old ideas is that they were abandoned for a reason, and the people who want to revive them often haven't properly researched the reasons why they were abandoned. The assume that because they have an improved version of the old tech, everything will be fine. However, they may have overlooked a fundamental gotcha which is not overcome by the improved performance of their new version. As happened with Edinburgh's trams.
OK, then you could as well say that it's stupid to use LEDs for lighting because they sucked 50 years ago. And PV shouldn't be used for space tech because it sucked in 19th century.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: EEVblog on December 03, 2017, 09:00:01 pm
Beware annoying endless jump cuts to music and stock footage!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoPOh2WX0i0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoPOh2WX0i0)
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: IanMacdonald on December 04, 2017, 02:21:44 am
Often their reason for new people working on these technologies is the complete opposite of what you said. People often research why these things were abandoned, find that other advances have removed the blockage, and find that further progress can be made. For example, batteries may still suck, but they are so much lighter, denser and cheaper than a few decades ago that anything that was blocked by poor batteries is certainly worth revisiting today.

I'd say that the opposite often arises, that someone finds a way to improve an old idea and automatically assumes this will solve the problems with it.

In the case of trams there were two really serious gotchas - The services in the road had to be relocated, and that the rails are a death trap to bicycles. Possibly not too clever for motorcycles or horses either.

In the case of wind energy, early promoters actually claimed that intermittency wouldn't be a problem if they were deployed continent-wide.  :bullshit: Turns out that's not the case, and if they'd asked any aviator or met man they'd have known that high pressure regions can span vast areas. (I suspect they did know but were careful not to let slip to politicians)

They're now trying to push more wind investment on the strength that backup batteries will solve the intermittency. Thing is, that might be possible, or might not be, but it's jumping the gun because batteries on that scale haven't been developed yet. Let's see proof that it is feasible this time!  :=\

Electric cars, the elephant in the room seems to be that electricity supplies are going to be barely enough for ordinary needs if we have to go 100% renewable, and yet they want to shift the transport energy demand onto that source as well? Let's be sensible now, this is trying to get not one but two quarts out of a pint pot.   :-DMM 
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: T3sl4co1l on December 04, 2017, 03:04:53 am
Electric cars, the elephant in the room seems to be that electricity supplies are going to be barely enough for ordinary needs if we have to go 100% renewable, and yet they want to shift the transport energy demand onto that source as well? Let's be sensible now, this is trying to get not one but two quarts out of a pint pot.   :-DMM

But, it's gotta be done some day -- maybe not today, but within decades -- because we'll very, very quickly be asking to turn that pint of oil into a quart, then a gallon, then a barrel...

Regarding oil use: keep in mind, about 20%* of what we burn in transportation goes into feedstocks: plastics, fine chemicals, all the stuff that makes our world soft, comfortable and, above all, affordable.

*I don't remember exactly, somewhere in this ballpark.  Look it up!

If that goes away, and we don't have biological or artificial-carbon-fixing substitutes lined up, we're really boned.

Tim
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Marco on December 04, 2017, 03:35:48 am
It's easy to bash the company, especially investors who demand profitability while building a company and an industry.

You underestimate investors, they mostly just "demand" revenue to start growing fast enough to justify the valuation. Which was based on near future explosive growth. That was their gamble, they now want to win.

That "demand" is only as unreasonable as Tesla's valuation.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: coppice on December 04, 2017, 03:51:50 am
Often their reason for new people working on these technologies is the complete opposite of what you said. People often research why these things were abandoned, find that other advances have removed the blockage, and find that further progress can be made. For example, batteries may still suck, but they are so much lighter, denser and cheaper than a few decades ago that anything that was blocked by poor batteries is certainly worth revisiting today.

I'd say that the opposite often arises, that someone finds a way to improve an old idea and automatically assumes this will solve the problems with it.

In the case of trams there were two really serious gotchas - The services in the road had to be relocated, and that the rails are a death trap to bicycles. Possibly not too clever for motorcycles or horses either.

In the case of wind energy, early promoters actually claimed that intermittency wouldn't be a problem if they were deployed continent-wide.  :bullshit: Turns out that's not the case, and if they'd asked any aviator or met man they'd have known that high pressure regions can span vast areas. (I suspect they did know but were careful not to let slip to politicians)

They're now trying to push more wind investment on the strength that backup batteries will solve the intermittency. Thing is, that might be possible, or might not be, but it's jumping the gun because batteries on that scale haven't been developed yet. Let's see proof that it is feasible this time!  :=\

Electric cars, the elephant in the room seems to be that electricity supplies are going to be barely enough for ordinary needs if we have to go 100% renewable, and yet they want to shift the transport energy demand onto that source as well? Let's be sensible now, this is trying to get not one but two quarts out of a pint pot.   :-DMM
I think you are confusing engineering, where there is typically good reason to re-evaluate old problems when new solutions become available, and marketing, whose job is to push anything on any sucker who will buy.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Kjelt on April 05, 2018, 02:24:14 am
Saw a financial statement today in the newspaper,
Rating of Tesla dropped to b3 , what equates to that the banks ask 8% interest on a loan for the company.
Some 5% bonds are now being sold below 90% of their initial price.
Debt is 7,5 billion$
They are producing 2000 cars when they should be producing 5000 cars and that is due to too far robotised production process. The end assembly of the interior in Japan is still done by hand to insure the quality, at Tesla they robotised it and suffer the consequences.

Sounds like it is starting to fall apart and at that moment Musk asks for a 2,5 billion$ bonus  :-DD which strange enough he is not getting.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: bd139 on April 05, 2018, 03:00:44 am
It doesn't matter if Tesla wins or loses. They scared the shit out of an entire industry which is pretty much the only motivation for technological innovation these days.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: coppice on April 05, 2018, 03:12:05 am
Saw a financial statement today in the newspaper,
Rating of Tesla dropped to b3 , what equates to that the banks ask 8% interest on a loan for the company.
Some 5% bonds are now being sold below 90% of their initial price.
Debt is 7,5 billion$
They are producing 2000 cars when they should be producing 5000 cars and that is due to too far robotised production process. The end assembly of the interior in Japan is still done by hand to insure the quality, at Tesla they robotised it and suffer the consequences.

Sounds like it is starting to fall apart and at that moment Musk asks for a 2,5 billion$ bonus  :-DD which strange enough he is not getting.
To be fair, 5000 was an old prediction for their output at this time. Their specific failure is to have made around 2000 model 3 cars against a recent prediction of 2500. Various recent news items suggest they only got to 2000 by diverting resources from model S and X production, which has consequently suffered.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Mr. Scram on April 05, 2018, 03:16:29 am
It seems fashionable to jump on either the Tesla or Musk hating or loving bandwagon nowadays. The fact remains that for worthwhile changes you need to assume risk and this leads to being branded a genius when it works out and an unrealistic idiot when it doesn't.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Kjelt on April 05, 2018, 03:36:23 am
A couple of years ago he was far ahead of the conventional carindustry.
IMO If he had then focussed/concentrated on this one enterprise and expanded then it could have been a huge succes.
The problem with him IMO is that he is a person that can create things and get them started very well but then switches to the next thing he finds interesting in a week (hyperloop, battery factory, spaceX, electric plane, electric truck, etc).
The only way that can work, IMO is to step back in time and leave the next important step; to keep the business going and growing, to other persons that can fully concentrate on that business and have experience in that business. Some costly mistakes would not have been made.
He could even have choosen the Apple WOW let some manufacturer that has the knowledge and factories built the cars or parts of the cars instead of trying to do everything yourself. There is not one succesfull carmanufacturer that not has many many suppliers delivering halfproducts.

So it is not a question of loving or hating, he sure has his merits  it is a question of finishing the job you started by stepping out in time instead of trying to keep 10 balls in the air all by yourself.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Mr. Scram on April 05, 2018, 04:19:39 am
A couple of years ago he was far ahead of the conventional carindustry.
IMO If he had then focussed/concentrated on this one enterprise and expanded then it could have been a huge succes.
The problem with him IMO is that he is a person that can create things and get them started very well but then switches to the next thing he finds interesting in a week (hyperloop, battery factory, spaceX, electric plane, electric truck, etc).
The only way that can work, IMO is to step back in time and leave the next important step; to keep the business going and growing, to other persons that can fully concentrate on that business and have experience in that business. Some costly mistakes would not have been made.
He could even have choosen the Apple WOW let some manufacturer that has the knowledge and factories built the cars or parts of the cars instead of trying to do everything yourself. There is not one succesfull carmanufacturer that not has many many suppliers delivering halfproducts.

So it is not a question of loving or hating, he sure has his merits  it is a question of finishing the job you started by stepping out in time instead of trying to keep 10 balls in the air all by yourself.
It depends on whether you assume that he wants to start a string of successful businesses or not. I always thought it's more about furthering technology and mankind and less about making money. He has or had plenty of money to begin with. Of course, doing something new has a lot of potential to make lots of money, so it's not necessarily at odds with each other.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Kjelt on April 05, 2018, 04:27:20 am
It depends on whether you assume that he wants to start a string of successful businesses or not. I always thought it's more about furthering technology and mankind and less about making money. He has or had plenty of money to begin with. Of course, doing something new has a lot of potential to make lots of money, so it's not necessarily at odds with each other.
Then why did he raise billions of $ from investors?  :-//
Makes no sense if it only was to start new technology he could leave it alone, not go raise more funds and start massproduction.
I think he really underestimated what it takes to massproduce cars.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Mr. Scram on April 05, 2018, 04:49:55 am
Then why did he raise billions of $ from investors?  :-//
Makes no sense if it only was to start new technology he could leave it alone, not go raise more funds and start massproduction.
I think he really underestimated what it takes to massproduce cars.
Because history is full of unused technology that is actually better than the real world standard. Musk's plan was to make electric cars sexy for the sake of changing the car market forever. That worked, as countless traditional manufacturers are now cranking out electric cars. You can't just develop technology and sit on it. You need to inject it into the market somehow. That's what he needed the billions for.

All of Musks enterprises seem to be about changing something, rather than just making money. I really don't think anyone realistically thought mass producing cars with unconventional technology would be easy, but investors tend to flock towards optimism. They'll hear the story they want to hear, for various reasons.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Kjelt on April 05, 2018, 05:05:48 am
He has already billions of $, why did he ask for the 2,5b$ bonus ?
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: coppice on April 05, 2018, 05:26:16 am
He has already billions of $, why did he ask for the 2,5b$ bonus ?
Does he? I thought he had been forced to put most of his wealth into Telsa, as a condition of other investors putting their money in. So, he kind of has lots of money, but it would evaporate if Tesla went under. I assume he wants to separate a large chunk of his wealth from Tesla, in case bad things happen.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Kjelt on April 05, 2018, 06:02:09 am
Well in his defence he gets no or very low salary as CEO so the bonus would compensate this, although there is some gap between millions other CEOs gets and billions  ;)
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Mr. Scram on April 05, 2018, 06:10:20 am
He has already billions of $, why did he ask for the 2,5b$ bonus ?
I think the bonus is tied to the company performing and having a certain profitability. It's also worth noting that the bonus is stock, not cash. Lining up such a bonus could be construed as projecting confidence in the company. "I think this company will be profitable in one year. I think this company will be profitable in 10 years." Investors are a flaky bunch and will look at anything and everything for clues. The idiots will even dump stock when Musk is joking around.   :palm:

But I'm just speculating. You'll have to ask the man himself to be sure and I'm not entirely convinced he would show his hand if you do.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Fungus on April 08, 2018, 07:38:40 pm
It depends on whether you assume that he wants to start a string of successful businesses or not. I always thought it's more about furthering technology and mankind and less about making money. He has or had plenty of money to begin with. Of course, doing something new has a lot of potential to make lots of money, so it's not necessarily at odds with each other.
Then why did he raise billions of $ from investors?  :-//

Because he can. Because there's no point at all in using his own money (what would that achieve?)

Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Fungus on April 08, 2018, 07:46:05 pm
To be fair, 5000 was an old prediction for their output at this time. Their specific failure is to have made around 2000 model 3 cars against a recent prediction of 2500. Various recent news items suggest they only got to 2000 by diverting resources from model S and X production, which has consequently suffered.

To be even more fair, we could also point out that gasoline motor industry doesn't have a stellar record of not needing government bailouts.

It's been less that ten years since Crysler and General motors were both in bankruptcy proceedings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_2008%E2%80%9310
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Kjelt on April 08, 2018, 10:12:45 pm
It depends on whether you assume that he wants to start a string of successful businesses or not. I always thought it's more about furthering technology and mankind and less about making money. He has or had plenty of money to begin with. Of course, doing something new has a lot of potential to make lots of money, so it's not necessarily at odds with each other.
Then why did he raise billions of $ from investors?  :-//

Because he can. Because there's no point at all in using his own money (what would that achieve?)
Read the original question, it was is Musk after the money or to get tech started.
If he was not interested in money why ask ludicrous billions of $ bonus.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Fungus on April 09, 2018, 12:33:16 am
If he was not interested in money why ask ludicrous billions of $ bonus.

To start another corporation for some new project?
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Mr. Scram on April 09, 2018, 04:23:29 am
Read the original question, it was is Musk after the money or to get tech started.
If he was not interested in money why ask ludicrous billions of $ bonus.
Read my previous comments. Fungus makes a good point too.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: wraper on April 09, 2018, 05:37:37 am
Well in his defence he gets no or very low salary as CEO so the bonus would compensate this, although there is some gap between millions other CEOs gets and billions  ;)
He will receive bonus only based on achieved targets which are huge, to put it mildly.

Quote
In order to trigger the maximum payout Musk, 46, would have to build Tesla into a $650bn company over the next 10 years
Quote
In order to receive the highest award, Tesla would have to be worth more than 12 times as much as General Motors, the US’s largest car manufacturer

And payout decreases exponentially if less than max target is achieved.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: wraper on April 09, 2018, 05:48:33 am
It depends on whether you assume that he wants to start a string of successful businesses or not. I always thought it's more about furthering technology and mankind and less about making money. He has or had plenty of money to begin with. Of course, doing something new has a lot of potential to make lots of money, so it's not necessarily at odds with each other.
Then why did he raise billions of $ from investors?  :-//

Because he can. Because there's no point at all in using his own money (what would that achieve?)
Read the original question, it was is Musk after the money or to get tech started.
You need to rise a lot of investor money to expand business rapidly. Which tesla exactly does by building huge factories.
Quote
If he was not interested in money why ask ludicrous billions of $ bonus.
You need a lot of money to put people on Mars.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Mr. Scram on April 09, 2018, 06:16:01 am
He will receive bonus only based on achieved targets which are huge, to put it mildly.

Quote
In order to trigger the maximum payout Musk, 46, would have to build Tesla into a $650bn company over the next 10 years
Quote
In order to receive the highest award, Tesla would have to be worth more than 12 times as much as General Motors, the US’s largest car manufacturer

And payout decreases exponentially if less than max target is achieved.
Those very optimistic numbers add to the suspicion that the bonus is intended to suggest optimism and confidence in Tesla. After all, the last year has been rocky in that area. By asking for a large bonus now and in 10 years he's basically saying "I'm going to be rich after making my shareholders very rich, and in 10 years we'll be even richer". Tell me, is that not what you want to hear when you invest in Tesla when the future of the company has been disputed a few times in recent history?
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: wraper on April 09, 2018, 07:31:11 am
Those very optimistic numbers add to the suspicion that the bonus is intended to suggest optimism and confidence in Tesla. After all, the last year has been rocky in that area. By asking for a large bonus now and in 10 years he's basically saying "I'm going to be rich after making my shareholders very rich, and in 10 years we'll be even richer". Tell me, is that not what you want to hear when you invest in Tesla when the future of the company has been disputed a few times in recent history?
Very likely. If in 10 years Tesla will be worth "just" twice as much as it's worth now, Musk won't get any bonus at all.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Galenbo on April 09, 2018, 07:32:05 am
If he was not interested in money why ask ludicrous billions of $ bonus.

To start another corporation for some new project?

To get in the media without really paying, another time, keeping the dilettantes hot ?
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: james_s on April 09, 2018, 07:38:09 am
None of the 'Green' ideas are new, they are all revivals of old ideas.


Very few ideas of any sort are truly new, I mean when was the last time you saw something that was not a revival or refinement of some previous idea? Anything is fair game here, doesn't have to be "green" in any way.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: wraper on April 09, 2018, 07:46:15 am
None of the 'Green' ideas are new, they are all revivals of old ideas.


Very few ideas of any sort are truly new, I mean when was the last time you saw something that was not a revival or refinement of some previous idea? Anything is fair game here, doesn't have to be "green" in any way.
Ideas are worth nothing, actual implementation is what's important. Old electric cars did not cut it, Musk is who made electric car a competitive product.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Galenbo on April 09, 2018, 08:50:00 am
... Musk is who made electric car a competitive product.
don't know how this goes in your area, but in mine the "succes" is highly dependent of the taxpayer's money you get with that car.

120% introduction instead of 75% is a net present.
Nearly no yearly tax is a "present" or taxcut of +-2000 euro for a car with that performance.
No new-car tax of 5K to 10K
Charging on household electricity price, while forbidding driving on household heating diesel is another one.

a somewhat related article:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/teslas-hong-kong-sales-gutted-by-tax-change-1499598003 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/teslas-hong-kong-sales-gutted-by-tax-change-1499598003)
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Mr. Scram on April 09, 2018, 08:56:33 am
don't know how this goes in your area, but in mine the "succes" is highly dependent of the taxpayer's money you get with that car.
To be fair, traditional car manufacturers are also subsidized by and rescued with tax payer money. The traditional car manufacturing world was in a whole lot of trouble not too long ago.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Galenbo on April 09, 2018, 09:00:12 am
To be fair, traditional car manufacturers are also subsidized by and rescued with tax payer money. The traditional car manufacturing world was in a whole lot of trouble not too long ago.
Where is the ignore button on this forum ? Mr Pathetic shows up again.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: wraper on April 09, 2018, 09:18:27 am
a somewhat related article:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/teslas-hong-kong-sales-gutted-by-tax-change-1499598003 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/teslas-hong-kong-sales-gutted-by-tax-change-1499598003)
:palm: Except it's not. Adding a huge import tax on top is not the same as dropping a subsidy. Guess why? Because China now has BYD which is not taxed.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: wraper on April 09, 2018, 09:26:32 am
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/trump_s-trade-war-with-china/msg1473998/#msg1473998 (http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/trump_s-trade-war-with-china/msg1473998/#msg1473998)

To be fair, traditional car manufacturers are also subsidized by and rescued with tax payer money. The traditional car manufacturing world was in a whole lot of trouble not too long ago.
Where is the ignore button on this forum ? Mr Pathetic shows up again.
(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/the-case-against-tesla/?action=dlattach;attach=410588;image)
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 10, 2018, 11:19:53 pm
I’m not a fan of Musk, but the guy has balls.  The Commonewealth Club in San Francisco had author Ashlee Vance who wrote Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future, give a talk about Elon.  At around 17 years he had no money or place to live in Canada.  In 20 or so years he became a billionaire with PayPal.
 
Tesla was going bankrupt, his rockets wer blowing up, no one was giving him anymore investment money.  He was risking everything he had on rockets, cars, batteries and solar panels and pulled it off.  He’s not bankrupt yet.  It will only be. Matter of time before the laws of physics catch up with him.

The book and the interview (podcast) with the author is well worth listening to. 

Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 13, 2018, 12:33:40 pm
Tesla failures.  There solar shingles appear to be all hype and no power also.
https://youtu.be/k6GeHnMwl1c

https://youtu.be/18cXL6Rzf14

Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: EEVblog on April 13, 2018, 01:37:03 pm
Tesla failures.  There solar shingles appear to be all hype and no power also.
https://youtu.be/k6GeHnMwl1c

Geeze, he's good.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 13, 2018, 01:42:00 pm
Tesla failures.  There solar shingles appear to be all hype and no power also.
https://youtu.be/k6GeHnMwl1c (https://youtu.be/k6GeHnMwl1c)

Geeze, he's good.

He sure is.  He has many other vidoes wich are just as good.
In this one he talks about our audiction to hydrocarbons, C8 H18.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jntsT0BdxDw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jntsT0BdxDw)
 

Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Fungus on April 13, 2018, 11:54:10 pm
Geeze, he's good.

Seems to me like a lot of cherry picking and over-emphasis on today's infrastucture, etc.

Widespread use of EVs will obviously require an overhaul of the entire power system, hopefully a better/greener system will be built.

Things won't look good short-term, no, so naysayers like him will have easy targets.

Long-term without them is much worse (IMHO).
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Kjelt on April 14, 2018, 02:08:31 am
True but his point is valid, batteries (kW/kg) and charging from dirty generated energy at this moment makes no sense. Generating clean energy has been a problem for the last decades just as the battery efficiency increase has not been what was promised/expected.
This really should be done before everybody is allowed (yes the correct word) to buy an EV or the western countries energy system would be worse than in Afrika.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 14, 2018, 02:22:49 am
True but his point is valid, batteries (kW/kg) and charging from dirty generated energy at this moment makes no sense. Generating clean energy has been a problem for the last decades just as the battery efficiency increase has not been what was promised/expected.
This really should be done before everybody is allowed (yes the correct word) to buy an EV or the western countries energy system would be worse than in Afrika.

The other thing no one seems to talk about are the resources and money needed for wide spread solar and wind.  And we already know we can't depend on solar and wind.  Only "real" energy storage medium we have is water.

Here are some back of the envelope figures about solar and wind.  If solar and wind were to provide 33% of the worlds electrical needs it would take all the Aluminum ever mined, half of the iron ever mined and all the concreate poured in the last thousand years.
Here’s something else to think about.  Let’s say we could make solar panels which would convert nearly all the suns energy to electricity.  If we did that there would be no energy for plants to grow and we would be in the dark even at noon.  Think about it.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: james_s on April 14, 2018, 03:10:25 am
I don't think it matters. No need to prevent everyone from buying EVs because already not everyone is going to buy them, 10 years from now I expect the ICE to still be dominant while EVs will be a great fit for a portion of the population. If it gets to where the utilities are having trouble supplying the demand, the incentives will vanish and that will help to limit EV adoption. In areas where I live that have a lot of hydroelectric power with surplus capacity at night a certain number of EVs are ideal for leveling the demand since most people, at least the EV owners I know plug them in to charge each night when they get home.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 14, 2018, 03:28:35 am
Elon Musk reminds me a lot of Nikola Tesla.  Early in both of their lives they made a lot of money.  Both were showmen and liked to make huge enormous claims. Both have had huge failures and huge successes.   Neither took a physics class or understood the laws of thermodynamics.
Not sure about Elon, but I know Tesla liked throwing huge opulent parties and had lots of women around.  (Is Elon single?  Tesla was.)
Nikola and Tesla (company) have laboratories where they are conducting research and announce they have made some incredible and unbelievable discoveries.  But they will only talk about it and won't show are reveal much about the discovery.

Both Nikola and Elon sure love taking people’s money with the promise of incredible improvements in technology.  Now, like with Tesla 100 years ago people are willing to Elon a lot of money with his flimsy claims.
Elon hasn’t said he’s discovered “Free Energy” but if I’m not mistaken Nikola did saying the universe had a frequency and if we taped into it we would have all of the energy we would ever need.  (I think Dark Matter and Dark Energy theories were news headlines at the time.)


Now here’s where it really gets interesting.  Both had a fascination with Mars.  Nikola late in life began telling people his ideas were coming from Martians.  He told investors Martians were communicating directly with him on one of the devices he created.  He said they were far more advances then we are, and they are willing to share their technology though Nikola with everyone on planet Earth.  If only he had more money he would share the Martian technology with the world.
I’m sill waiting to see if in a decade or so from now if Elon is going to tell us he’s been talking to Martians too.
Now as we know with Tesla when he died he owned a lot of people money.  And for all of you conspiracy theorists yes the FBI was ordered to seize all of Tesla’s inventions and papers by a civil court judge.  Tesla’s creditors were hoping there was something of value in all of his papers.  After many years of legal battles and credible scientist reviewing his papers they found Nikola was failing.  He kept running into the laws of thermodynamic and physics.  He kept believing he could find a way to break them.
The trial ended and the lawyer representing his estate kept the papers a storage in the basement of his New York apartment.  The layer died and the people cleaning out his apartment left all of his case files including Nikola’s notes on the street for garbage pick-up. 

Someone looking through the trash realized this were Tesla’s notes and took them home.  At the time no one was interested in Nikola’s documents expect the really crazy conspiracy theorists.  The guy could make any money so back into storage the documents went.  Until he died.   The people going through his positions realized there were Nikola’s documents and I think gave them to some who is trying to fund the Nikola Tesla Museum in (I think) New York.
I have been to the Nikola Tesla museum in Belgrade.  (Quite interesting.) 

It will be interesting to see how Elon’s life plays out?  Will he be a success or be the lore of conspiracy theorists?

Here’s the thing the population of the world has more than doubled in our life time and for maybe a few of us has tripled or quadrupled.  Our use of electricity continues to grow exponentially with only something like 10% using 80% of the electricity.
We don’t have a perfect solution.  Coal/hydrocarbons my have once been the “best” solution but not anymore.  Wind/solar, tidal hydro all of limitations.   This just leave nuclear.

We have enough nuclear fuel to supply power to the world for 500 years.  But we don’t like the long lived radioactive waste.  (Not sure what we are going to do with that.)

But NextGen Nuclear appear to be the answer.  ITER, NIF, Bill Gates and Paul Allen are all working on NextGen Nuclear.  A bit surprised Elon isn’t.  Maybe because he’s in it for the money.  There’s a lot of money to be made selling residential solar. 

I receive a quote for $40,000 to install solar on my house.   Out of the $40,000 best I can figure, $9,000 is for the panels and hardware.  $4,000 for the design and installation.  Permits are $200.  That leaves how much for profit?  That leaves over $26,000 in profit for Elon and friends.   
Don’t you wish you could make $26,000 off of each sale?
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: wraper on April 14, 2018, 03:52:04 am
Elon Musk reminds me a lot of Nikola Tesla.  Early in both of their lives they made a lot of money.  Both were showmen and liked to make huge enormous claims. Both have had huge failures and huge successes.   Neither took a physics class or understood the laws of thermodynamics.
Elon has a bachelors degree in physics.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 14, 2018, 03:58:46 am
This guy does an amazing job of putting things into perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sqnptxlCcw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sqnptxlCcw)
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: bd139 on April 14, 2018, 03:59:13 am
And an economics degree...
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 14, 2018, 04:52:56 am
Elon Musk reminds me a lot of Nikola Tesla.  Early in both of their lives they made a lot of money.  Both were showmen and liked to make huge enormous claims. Both have had huge failures and huge successes.   Neither took a physics class or understood the laws of thermodynamics.
Elon has a bachelors degree in physics.


Really?  I will stand corrected.  In a book written about him it says he left Australia for Canada when he was 17-18 only to find the relatives he was supposed to be staying with left for Australia on an extended vacation.  He had something like $500 to his name.  Guess I missed the part about him attending college.

I will assume he attended an accredited college and didn't just purchase his degree or receive and honorary degree.

Thanks for correcting me.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: wraper on April 14, 2018, 05:06:33 am
Really?  I will stand corrected.  In a book written about him it says he left Australia for Canada when he was 17-18 only to find the relatives he was supposed to be staying with left for Australia on an extended vacation.  He had something like $500 to his name.  Guess I missed the part about him attending college.

I will assume he attended an accredited college and didn't just purchase his degree or receive and honorary degree.

Thanks for correcting me.
He left South Africa  :palm:.

Quote
After two years at Queen's University, Musk transferred to the University of Pennsylvania. He took on two majors, but his time there wasn’t all work and no play. With a fellow student, he bought a 10-bedroom fraternity house, which they used as an ad hoc nightclub.

Musk graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Physics, as well as a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from the Wharton School. The two majors speak to the direction Musk’s career would take later, but it was physics that made the deepest impression on his thinking.

“(Physics is) a good framework for thinking,” he’d later say. “Boil things down to their fundamental truths and reason up from there.”

Musk was 24 years old when he moved to California to pursue a PhD in applied physics at Stanford University. With the internet exploding and Silicon Valley booming, Musk had entrepreneurial visions dancing in his head. He left the PhD program after just two days. (Related: Dropping out of School to Start a Business)



Read more: Elon Musk: Early Life and Education | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/university/elon-musk-biography/elon-musk-early-life-and-education.asp#ixzz5Ca5x0KFg (https://www.investopedia.com/university/elon-musk-biography/elon-musk-early-life-and-education.asp#ixzz5Ca5x0KFg)
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Marco on April 14, 2018, 06:04:49 am
If solar ... were to provide 33% of the worlds electrical needs it would take all the Aluminum ever mined
Only if you built them as they are build now, pic related can be mounted with far less material.
Quote
Let’s say we could make solar panels which would convert nearly all the suns energy to electricity.  If we did that there would be no energy for plants to grow and we would be in the dark even at noon.  Think about it.
If we did that for the entire world we'd have enough energy to shift earth orbit and fix global warming.

Having done some really rough math for the amount of steel cable you need to store a TWh or so of energy with ocean gravity storage, it seems doable to me. Uses less steel than changing the US electricity generation to nuclear.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 14, 2018, 07:58:18 am
If solar ... were to provide 33% of the worlds electrical needs it would take all the Aluminum ever mined
Only if you built them as they are build now, pic related can be mounted with far less material.
Quote
Let’s say we could make solar panels which would convert nearly all the suns energy to electricity.  If we did that there would be no energy for plants to grow and we would be in the dark even at noon.  Think about it.
If we did that for the entire world we'd have enough energy to shift earth orbit and fix global warming.

Having done some really rough math for the amount of steel cable you need to store a TWh or so of energy with ocean gravity storage, it seems doable to me. Uses less steel than changing the US electricity generation to nuclear.

So wher’s the development?  And where are the products?

Let me in part answer that.  I worked at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory where they developed a new type of solar panel which would capture additional wave lengths of light and thus produce more electricity for a much lower cost.

That was about 10 years ago.  Where these inexpensive 500 watt $200 panels?  Well we could have them.    But’s it’s the Osborne Efect.  Company’s have sent millions to create factories to produce the current 300 watt solar panels.  Can’t exactly have new solar panel company go into business and produce pannels at lower price before the existing factories are paid off.



Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 14, 2018, 08:01:25 am
If solar ... were to provide 33% of the worlds electrical needs it would take all the Aluminum ever mined
Only if you built them as they are build now, pic related can be mounted with far less material.
Quote
Let’s say we could make solar panels which would convert nearly all the suns energy to electricity.  If we did that there would be no energy for plants to grow and we would be in the dark even at noon.  Think about it.
If we did that for the entire world we'd have enough energy to shift earth orbit and fix global warming.

Having done some really rough math for the amount of steel cable you need to store a TWh or so of energy with ocean gravity storage, it seems doable to me. Uses less steel than changing the US electricity generation to nuclear.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: coppice on April 14, 2018, 08:05:02 am
Let me in part answer that.  I worked at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory where they developed a new type of solar panel which would capture additional wave lengths of light and thus produce more electricity for a much lower cost.

That was about 10 years ago.  Where these inexpensive 500 watt $200 panels?  Well we could have them.    But’s it’s the Osborne Efect.  Company’s have sent millions to create factories to produce the current 300 watt solar panels.  Can’t exactly have new solar panel company go into business and produce pannels at lower price before the existing factories are paid off.
Several groups have developed multi-wavelength solar panels, but the issue has so far been than the cost is actually too high to make them attractive, even though they might halve the required area. How do you arrive at the idea the cost would be lower? They are, after all, considerably more complex to make.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: wraper on April 14, 2018, 08:09:18 am
Let’s say we could make solar panels which would convert nearly all the suns energy to electricity.  If we did that there would be no energy for plants to grow and we would be in the dark even at noon.  Think about it.
I don't get the idea behind this. You are not supposed to cover all of the earth with solar panels and it's not like current panels are transparent to allow non converted light coming through them. Even with current efficiency of solar panels, you need to cover only relatively small area to provide electricity for a whole mankind.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Marco on April 14, 2018, 08:24:10 am
So wher’s the development?  And where are the products?

Same place commercially viable breeder reactors are.

Quote
That was about 10 years ago.  Where these inexpensive 500 watt $200 panels?  Well we could have them.    But’s it’s the Osborne Efect.  Company’s have sent millions to create factories to produce the current 300 watt solar panels.  Can’t exactly have new solar panel company go into business and produce pannels at lower price before the existing factories are paid off.

Patents run out and people leak trade secrets like a sieve ... after 20 years someone will build it.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: mtdoc on April 14, 2018, 09:07:46 am
That was about 10 years ago.  Where these inexpensive 500 watt $200 panels?  Well we could have them.    But’s it’s the Osborne Efect.  Company’s have sent millions to create factories to produce the current 300 watt solar panels.  Can’t exactly have new solar panel company go into business and produce pannels at lower price before the existing factories are paid off.

Solar panels are cheap and have been for several years now. They are a commodity product now with several (mostly Chinese) manufacturers all producing high quality product with approximately the same efficiency and similar 25 year warranties.  300 (+/- 20) watt panels are popular because they are not too large for one person to handle.

Last year I purchased a pallet of 27,  285 watt Grade A panels for 24 cents/ watt (i.e $68.40 per panel).  Prices go up and down but you can currently get panels for about 40 cents/watt.  See HERE (http://sunelec.com/home/)
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: NiHaoMike on April 14, 2018, 02:05:21 pm
I don't think it matters. No need to prevent everyone from buying EVs because already not everyone is going to buy them, 10 years from now I expect the ICE to still be dominant while EVs will be a great fit for a portion of the population. If it gets to where the utilities are having trouble supplying the demand, the incentives will vanish and that will help to limit EV adoption. In areas where I live that have a lot of hydroelectric power with surplus capacity at night a certain number of EVs are ideal for leveling the demand since most people, at least the EV owners I know plug them in to charge each night when they get home.
I would expect (plug in) hybrids to become dominant and stay that way for a long time.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 16, 2018, 10:05:16 am

Last year I purchased a pallet of 27,  285 watt Grade A panels for 24 cents/ watt (i.e $68.40 per panel).  Prices go up and down but you can currently get panels for about 40 cents/watt.  See HERE (http://sunelec.com/home/)

Okay I don't get it. The 250 - 325 panels I've been seeing run about $300 - $350.  Or about 4 times what you purchased yours for.  How is it this company is selling panels so inexpensively?
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: mtdoc on April 16, 2018, 01:18:59 pm

Last year I purchased a pallet of 27,  285 watt Grade A panels for 24 cents/ watt (i.e $68.40 per panel).  Prices go up and down but you can currently get panels for about 40 cents/watt.  See HERE (http://sunelec.com/home/)

Okay I don't get it. The 250 - 325 panels I've been seeing run about $300 - $350.  Or about 4 times what you purchased yours for.  How is it this company is selling panels so inexpensively?

Like most things, you need to know were professionals shop to avoid over paying. It’s like the differnce between buying electronic components at RadioShack (RIP) versus Digikey.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: CatalinaWOW on April 16, 2018, 02:01:45 pm
This thread has several times shown disdain for solar/electric/renewable technology with comments that none of these things are new, and that they were dropped before for good reason.  And therefore should remain off the table.

The ideas are not new, but new developments definitely change the equation.  A simple example shows how.  Battery powered lights for closets and other areas which are not mains wired have been around for my entire life, and probably much longer.  I would guess they were first introduced in the 1920s or 1930s.  And have never made a market splash because the low light output and high battery consumption made them uninteresting to all but the most motivated purchasers.  But with the advent of high efficiency LEDs and with a modest contribution from improved battery technology (not Lithium, just long life alkali cells) these things have actually become useful.  They still won't eliminate mains wiring, but they make real sense in low usage situations like closets and remote corners of storage areas and shops.  The batteries have changed with higher capacity and much lower self discharge rates, and the LEDs cut power consumption by at least an order of magnitude. 

The biggest problems these things have now is the marketing hangover from the horrible performance of older versions of the product.  Which is true about at least some of the technologies discussed in this thread.


Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 16, 2018, 02:35:40 pm
This thread has several times shown disdain for solar/electric/renewable technology with comments that none of these things are new, and that they were dropped before for good reason.  And therefore should remain off the table.

The ideas are not new, but new developments definitely change the equation.  A simple example shows how.  Battery powered lights for closets and other areas which are not mains wired have been around for my entire life, and probably much longer.  I would guess they were first introduced in the 1920s or 1930s.  And have never made a market splash because the low light output and high battery consumption made them uninteresting to all but the most motivated purchasers.  But with the advent of high efficiency LEDs and with a modest contribution from improved battery technology (not Lithium, just long life alkali cells) these things have actually become useful.  They still won't eliminate mains wiring, but they make real sense in low usage situations like closets and remote corners of storage areas and shops.  The batteries have changed with higher capacity and much lower self discharge rates, and the LEDs cut power consumption by at least an order of magnitude. 

The biggest problems these things have now is the marketing hangover from the horrible performance of older versions of the product.  Which is true about at least some of the technologies discussed in this thread.

How true.  But new technology sometimes fails too.  I still have an Apple Newton someplace.  And aren’t we about now getting th features Apple was offering us with the Newton?

It’s hard to say what’s going to be a filuare and what’s going to be successful with consumers.  I know one product that lot’s of people have been trying to sell people on for decades has been “free energy “ machines.  One would think by now consumers would know these are scams, but people insist like Elon Musk they can break the laws of physics and get away with it and make a lot of money as they do so.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: HackedFridgeMagnet on April 16, 2018, 09:40:53 pm
Tesla failures.  There solar shingles appear to be all hype and no power also.
https://youtu.be/k6GeHnMwl1c

Geeze, he's good.
Only 2 minutes in and it seems to me to be a subjective bit of click-bait dressed up as logic. (cant comment on next 18 mins)
He tries to prove his point about Tesla being a cult using this line of nonsense reasoning.  ( correct me if I misquoted something.

his definitions.

Quote
Cult: a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
( no source given)
Quote
Religion:  a system of faith or worship so it's broader than that.
  (broader than a cult) (not sure where this came from)

Quote
Faith: pretending to know something you don't know.
  (by an expert on faith minus the mumbo jumbo, minus the weasel words.)


Then he leaps into
Quote
Incorporating these two definitions a cult becomes, a group of people whose enthusiastic devotion to something is built on a foundation on them pretending to know something that they don't know.


I really cant see how he makes that leap? I don't see that as a logical deduction.


Maybe the old compare and contrast would be a better way of looking at it.

Tesla is a car/battery company, cults are systems of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object
Tesla makes things, Cults worship things.
Tesla uses cutting edge science to make products and money, cults do not
Tesla gets money from the government, cults do not.

Tesla and cults both have charismatic leaders.
Tesla and cults both have at least some irrational adherents.


feel free to add to the differences and similarities.




Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: wraper on April 16, 2018, 09:47:18 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQMHEXquK9A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQMHEXquK9A)
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Yansi on April 16, 2018, 09:50:41 pm
Wearing safety goggles seems to be also a cult these days.  |O
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: wraper on April 16, 2018, 10:19:22 pm
Wearing safety goggles seems to be also a cult these days.  |O
They are at the factory, it's legally required  :palm:. If you are ready to loose your eyes, don't blame employer then. There is another video where they go nearby working machines/tools.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gka9_r-c_rw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gka9_r-c_rw)
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: T3sl4co1l on April 17, 2018, 05:35:33 am
Tesla is a car/battery company, cults are systems of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object
Tesla makes things, Cults worship things.
Tesla uses cutting edge science to make products and money, cults do not
Tesla gets money from the government, cults do not.

FYI, most cults get government money, if indirectly in the form of tax breaks.  At least such is the case in the US.  Some may obtain grants for various reasons.  (No, I don't have any specific examples, but I think I heard there's an Israel lobby group that might be considered a religious terrorist cell by certain parties.  Well, given e.g. Iran's opinion of anything Jewish, but I mean more than just them.  Well.  Them and their friends probably. Maybe I'm not helping here..)

Oh actually, UK's Anglicans count; they're part of the state, in some manner or another.

Tim
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: mtdoc on April 17, 2018, 06:27:27 am
I find this fascination and obsession some have with Tesla and Elon Musk very interesting.  It manifests here with the various Anti Musk/Anti-Tesla/Anti-Hyperloop/Anti-Solar City posts and threads, but the same phenomenon can be seen all over the internet - like the video in the OP.

It's the mirror image of the "cult of personality" worshiping that some show for certain politicians or celebrities. Instead of worship,  some people seem to have an obsession with trying to continually tear down Musk's achievements.  It really is a social phenomenon.  Sometimes it is clearly politically motivated but not always. What motivates some to spend so much time and energy on this?

Musk is an interesting character to be sure. But there is no denying he has achieved much. The harping on government subsidies I find just silly.  Not only because the industries and corporations he competes with have long histories of equal or larger government subsidies but also because people seem to ignore the fact that he has a fiduciary responsibility to his shareholders to exploit any subsidies available to him.  It's just being a good businessman. As far as operating at a loss, and high stock multiples, that phenomenon is not unique to Tesla.  It's the common tech business model since the dot.com bubble. Amazon is the poster child for that approach. At least Musk, unlike Bezos, has some vision for betterment of mankind, even if you disagree with that vision (and I personally do not agree with some of it)

As for Tesla, I've said before, its survival will be dependent on whether it can deliver the Model 3 in large quantities, at a profit. But even if they prove unable to do that and ultimately go belly up, it is hard to argue that that Tesla has not achieved remarkable things given the overwhelming forces of the entrenched ICE focused automobile makers and oil companies who have had decades of dominance that has enabled them to squash other domestic upstart competitors over and over again.  I find the fact that Tesla has gotten this far to be amazing.  :clap:


Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: james_s on April 17, 2018, 06:36:57 am
Yeah the way the automotive industry and regulations are set up makes it virtually impossible for anyone to break into the market, the costs and efforts required are simply huge. It's one of the reasons the auto industry is so boring these days, most cars all look the same, Tesla is about the first really innovative mass produced car out there since the classic Saab in the 80s. In the period from the 50s through the late 70s there was all sorts of unique stuff on the market before most of it got regulated out of existence.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 17, 2018, 06:42:33 am
The guy in the video is correct Tesla and Elon Musk have a cult following.

Any idea how much money people have given Tesla/Musk on faith?  Tesla has half a billion dolloar of tax free/interest free money in the form of deposits on a car that Tesla is claiming that will be built.

How may people would give Ford, GM, VW or Toyota a cash deposit for a car they hope will be built in a few years?  It takes a master marketer our a curator leader to pull that one off.


One of the reason we are in the transportation mess we are in is because of what GM and others did the the electric trolley business.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#/media/File%3APacific-Electric-Red-Cars-Awaiting-Destruction.jpg
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: james_s on April 17, 2018, 07:01:41 am
While I don't disagree that Tesla has a cult following, how many cars have Ford, GM, etc that are unique enough that one would want to make a cash deposit on it? I bet if Ford decided (and were allowed) to reproduce exactly something like the classic GT-40 or 1967 Mustang people would be lined up around the block to make a deposit on one. Right now Tesla makes some very unique cars, they are on top of the game for pure EVs, other manufactures are catching up fast though.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 17, 2018, 07:24:54 am
While I don't disagree that Tesla has a cult following, how many cars have Ford, GM, etc that are unique enough that one would want to make a cash deposit on it? I bet if Ford decided (and were allowed) to reproduce exactly something like the classic GT-40 or 1967 Mustang people would be lined up around the block to make a deposit on one. Right now Tesla makes some very unique cars, they are on top of the game for pure EVs, other manufactures are catching up fast though.


I agree.  But here's the thing Tesla is making a new car which is easier to meet federal and state standards for safety and emissions.  Reproducing an existing car invovles a lot of retrofitting.  Just look at what VW did the beatle.  You know what would be really intersting woudl be if Ford were to remake the GT-40 or '67 Mustang but make it a plug-in hyprid electric.

 





Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: james_s on April 17, 2018, 09:11:28 am
I've often thought there should be an exemption class, I mean if I want to buy a brand new 1975 car that meets 1975 safety regulations why can't I? I can buy a brand new motorcycle that is no safer than a 1975 motorcycle. As long as I know I'm buying a car that doesn't include modern safety features and amenities I ought to be able to. Thankfully I can still drive an old car without being forced to upgrade it.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: bd139 on April 17, 2018, 04:59:06 pm
A lot of the modern safety features are to protect other people when you run them over during a DUI...
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Kjelt on April 18, 2018, 07:21:22 am
And again production has stopped for the model3 in the assembly and in the battery factory.
Employees sent home without pay.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: bd139 on April 18, 2018, 07:39:17 am
Production stop is fine. That does happen. If you find a problem with the process they have to stop and fix. I’ve seen that in every production line I’ve seen.

Sending employees home without pay is not ok though. If I turned up at work and no one opened the doors I’d expect to be paid.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: wraper on April 18, 2018, 09:35:05 am
And again production has stopped for the model3 in the assembly and in the battery factory.
Employees sent home without pay.
Second part obviously is a product of your imagination.
Title: Re: The Case Against Jealous Whiners
Post by: ez24 on April 18, 2018, 12:12:02 pm
Employees sent home without pay.

From

https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/tesla-model-3-production-shutdown-delay-elon-musk?utm_term=.pgdzOYap2#.duyMDEvga (https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/tesla-model-3-production-shutdown-delay-elon-musk?utm_term=.pgdzOYap2#.duyMDEvga)

comes this
Quote
During the pause, workers are expected to use vacation days or stay home without pay; a small number of workers may be offered paid work elsewhere in the factory.

So if there is no work and you have no vacation - then yes

Is there any time on this shutdown? 
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: usagi on April 18, 2018, 01:28:24 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/moodys-downgrades-tesla-credit-rating-on-model-3-production-delays.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/moodys-downgrades-tesla-credit-rating-on-model-3-production-delays.html)

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/goldman-sachs-cuts-tesla-price-target-predicts-model-3-disappointments-and-capital-raise.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/goldman-sachs-cuts-tesla-price-target-predicts-model-3-disappointments-and-capital-raise.html)

http://newburghgazette.com/2018/04/13/tesla-motors-inc-nasdaq-tsla-stock-in-trouble/ (http://newburghgazette.com/2018/04/13/tesla-motors-inc-nasdaq-tsla-stock-in-trouble/)
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 18, 2018, 02:18:51 pm
I've often thought there should be an exemption class, I mean if I want to buy a brand new 1975 car that meets 1975 safety regulations why can't I? I can buy a brand new motorcycle that is no safer than a 1975 motorcycle. As long as I know I'm buying a car that doesn't include modern safety features and amenities I ought to be able to. Thankfully I can still drive an old car without being forced to upgrade it.

Same reason VW had to stop producing the VW Beatle.....  Did not and could not meet polution standards.
As much as I loved the VW bug, I have to admit our politions/goverment did the right thing by imposting strict polutions standards.

I can remember as a kid having smog days in the summer months.  The sky was greenish/yellow brown and there were days when visibility was only a few miles becase the smog was so thick.  We were told to stay inside.  If we went outside the smog would burn your throat.

All of these clean air standards cleared our skies.  I can't remember the last time we had a smog day.  Must be 30 or more years.
You might be against big governement, but I hope you join me in thanking our electied officials in forcing the car companies to making cars whihc produce less polution. 







Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: mtdoc on April 18, 2018, 02:23:14 pm
Musk’s email to Tesla employees today (https://electrek.co/2018/04/17/tesla-model-3-production-goal-6000-units-per-week/amp/?__twitter_impression=true).

Elon is a smart cookie. He may yet fail, but I wouldn’t bet against him.

My favorite part of the email:

“Walk out of a meeting or drop off a call as soon as it is obvious you aren’t adding value. It is not rude to leave, it is rude to make someone stay and waste their time.”

F@$# yeah!
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 18, 2018, 02:37:10 pm
The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco had, Ashlee Vance, author of Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future give a talk about Elon.  Apparently he's a real ass to his employees like Steve Jobs.  (Not sure if people heard the story of Jobs firing employees just for being in the elevator he was getting into at Apple.)  Apparently Musk is almost as bad.

If you know very little about Musk's life this podcast is well worth listening it.
The Commonwealth club has had three talks/podcasts about Musk.

https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/tesla-impossible-until-its-not (https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/tesla-impossible-until-its-not)
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: james_s on April 18, 2018, 03:54:21 pm
Most of the guys at the top of companies like that are real asses. It just seems to come with the territory, you don't get into a position like that by being a nice guy.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 18, 2018, 08:13:48 pm
Most of the guys at the top of companies like that are real asses. It just seems to come with the territory, you don't get into a position like that by being a nice guy.

I agree.  I think I remember hearing Ford nd Edison were that way too.
Did you read the book or listen to the podcast?  Really interesting.  Mush started literally nothing wouldd up creating PayPal.  Which he then sold for $700 million.  He then started Tesla, SpaceX.  Out of 3 rockets, he lost 2.  Could not get any investors for SpaceX or Tesla and needed money.

He parked his jet and started flying Southwest Airlines buying the cheapest tickets to talk to investors. 

He also shut down the production line at Tesla and had every employees on the phone calling potential customers to get them to place.a cash deposit on a car.  They pre-sold enough cars to “save” Tesla from bankruptcy. 

SpaceX lost two rockets and he used the money from Tesla to fund the launching of the third rocket.  Had he lost this one Tesla, SpaceX and I think Solar City would all be bankrupt today and Musk would be penniless once again.

The guy in pretty amazing that he’s willing to risk everything he owns on a car company, rocket company and a solar panel installation company all at the same time.  To succeed in anyone of these three businesses is so highly unlikely.  But you have to hand it to this guy as he’s doing it.

He’s the Otto von Bismarck of the day.  Otto fought three wars simultaneously against Denmark, Austria, and France and won all three.  Elon is essentially doing the same.


Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Marco on April 18, 2018, 08:20:22 pm
Or he could be a later German ruler, fighting on multiple fronts and losing it all. Time will tell.

IMO if a fireman had been walking behind that firetruck it would have been all over for Tesla ... they are playing a dangerous game with autopilot. The excuse that it's driver responsibility will only fly as long as only drivers get killed.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: wraper on April 18, 2018, 08:27:33 pm
SpaceX lost two rockets and he used the money from Tesla to fund the launching of the third rocket.
You are inventing the facts. First of all, first 3 rockets were lost, not 2. Secondly, there was no money flow between SpaceX and Tesla. And there was no money to take out from tesla, to begin with.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: bd139 on April 18, 2018, 09:35:14 pm
Bears shit in the woods. The Pope is Catholic and rockets blow up.

Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 19, 2018, 02:25:03 am
Or he could be a later German ruler, fighting on multiple fronts and losing it all. Time will tell.

IMO if a fireman had been walking behind that firetruck it would have been all over for Tesla ... they are playing a dangerous game with autopilot. The excuse that it's driver responsibility will only fly as long as only drivers get killed.


That German ruler came about 50 years later.

Hasn’t autopilot cars and trucks been about a year away for the past 30 years.  I worked in a building which had two autonomous mail carts.  They followed a wire beneath the carpet.  But they were only traveling 2 mph.

Hasn’t auto pilot for take offs and landing been around for 40 years or more?  We stilll don’t trust is and pilots still are in control for landings and takeoffs.  And just like cars it’s been proven they both are hackable.   

Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: Mr. Scram on April 19, 2018, 02:38:37 am
That German ruler came about 50 years later.

Hasn’t autopilot cars and trucks been about a year away for the past 30 years.  I worked in a building which had two autonomous mail carts.  They followed a wire beneath the carpet.  But they were only traveling 2 mph.

Hasn’t auto pilot for take offs and landing been around for 40 years or more?  We stilll don’t trust is and pilots still are in control for landings and takeoffs.  And just like cars it’s been proven they both are hackable.
The latter simply isn't true. Complex or challenging landings have to be done by the autopilot. It can land an aircraft in conditions that render a human pilot helpless.

https://www.quora.com/How-often-are-airliners-landed-using-autopilot-Is-it-common-practice-to-land-using-autoland-even-in-good-weather-or-is-it-only-done-in-situations-with-limited-visibility-Is-the-use-of-autoland-more-common-in-some-parts-of-the-world-than-others (https://www.quora.com/How-often-are-airliners-landed-using-autopilot-Is-it-common-practice-to-land-using-autoland-even-in-good-weather-or-is-it-only-done-in-situations-with-limited-visibility-Is-the-use-of-autoland-more-common-in-some-parts-of-the-world-than-others)
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: DougSpindler on April 19, 2018, 03:27:24 am
That German ruler came about 50 years later.

Hasn’t autopilot cars and trucks been about a year away for the past 30 years.  I worked in a building which had two autonomous mail carts.  They followed a wire beneath the carpet.  But they were only traveling 2 mph.

Hasn’t auto pilot for take offs and landing been around for 40 years or more?  We stilll don’t trust is and pilots still are in control for landings and takeoffs.  And just like cars it’s been proven they both are hackable.
The latter simply isn't true. Complex or challenging landings have to be done by the autopilot. It can land an aircraft in conditions that render a human pilot helpless.

https://www.quora.com/How-often-are-airliners-landed-using-autopilot-Is-it-common-practice-to-land-using-autoland-even-in-good-weather-or-is-it-only-done-in-situations-with-limited-visibility-Is-the-use-of-autoland-more-common-in-some-parts-of-the-world-than-others (https://www.quora.com/How-often-are-airliners-landed-using-autopilot-Is-it-common-practice-to-land-using-autoland-even-in-good-weather-or-is-it-only-done-in-situations-with-limited-visibility-Is-the-use-of-autoland-more-common-in-some-parts-of-the-world-than-others)

Looks like I stand corrected - Thank you.
Title: Re: The Case Against TESLA
Post by: usagi on April 22, 2018, 08:33:59 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tesla-electric-vehicles-ev-environment-cars-emissions-1.4624510 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tesla-electric-vehicles-ev-environment-cars-emissions-1.4624510)