Tesla glory/failure

[gerontocrat]

This one is not so much Tesla glory/failure, as Elon Musk glory/failure.

The Ghost of the SolarCity purchase is coming back to haunt him - not a big surprise, really

One can't just dismiss a report like this from Bloomberg News, which has been a supporter of EVs for some considerable time.

The shareholder lawsuit is set for trial before Delaware Court of Chancery Vice Chancellor Joseph Slights III in March 2020, according to Tesla’s securities filings.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-13/elon-musk-s-solar-deal-has-become-top-threat-to-tesla-s-future?srnd=premium-europe
Elon Musk’s Solar Deal Has Become the Top Threat to Tesla’s Future
Thousands of pages of internal documents and testimony show that the CEO’s promises about SolarCity were misleading or false.

During a heated deposition this past June, Elon Musk finally seemed to admit that his harshest critics were right. Since forcing through the controversial 2016 purchase of SolarCity Corp., the struggling solar sales-and-installation business he co-founded with his cousins, Tesla Inc.’s chief executive officer has faced almost-constant criticism: The move was called a catastrophe for Tesla, a $2 billion-plus bailout of a debt-saddled company of which Musk himself was chairman and the largest shareholder. Despite plummeting sales and substantial layoffs in the solar division under Tesla after the merger, Musk has fervently defended the SolarCity acquisition, once calling it “blindingly obvious” and a “no-brainer.”......

........But in a stunningly rare moment of contrition, Musk expressed regret over the decision at his deposition, part of a class-action shareholder suit that’s gained momentum in recent months. “At the time I thought it made strategic sense for Tesla and SolarCity to combine. Hindsight is 20-20,” Musk said. “If I could wind back the clock, you know, I would say I probably would have let SolarCity execute by itself.”.......

The 85% of shareholders who approved the acquisition had only their devout faith in Musk to go on when they voted three years ago this month. The CEO said a combined Tesla-SolarCity was always part of his master plan and would create the world’s first vertically integrated clean energy company. The hope was customers would drive a Tesla electric car, harvest energy from Tesla solar panels to charge it, and tie the ecosystem together with Tesla’s Powerwall home battery.

In a trove of court filings unsealed this fall, thousands of pages of internal emails, board minutes and presentations, and executive testimony reveal how truly dire the situation was behind the scenes leading up to the acquisition, with almost every significant promise Musk pitched publicly either misleading or false. The documents in the lawsuit offer an unprecedented look at what happens when Musk’s reality-distortion field comes up against the reality of testifying under oath. Tesla didn’t respond to a request for comment on the suit.

From the outset, Musk’s quest to buy SolarCity was riddled with question marks. He’d already bet Tesla on the Model 3, heralded as a $35,000 electric sedan for the masses; was it really the right time to engage in a distracting M&A gambit? Musk has said SolarCity was on solid financial footing, but internally he wrote that the company needed to solve its “liquidity crisis.” SolarCity, it turned out, was hemorrhaging cash and in danger of defaulting on its debt.

Tesla’s board initially balked at the proposal. So did Evercore Inc., one of the banks it brought in to evaluate the deal. (Not that they felt their guidance would be heeded: “It’s Elon’s world. We just live in it,” an Evercore banker joked in an email.) Even Tesla’s then-Chief Financial Officer Jason Wheeler raised concerns. “We have Model 3 happening. We have a lot of things going on. We ourselves have a large debt load,” Wheeler said in his June 2019 deposition. “Why do we need to do this now, Elon?”

Then there were the jarring conflicts of interest. Besides his cousins Lyndon and Peter Rive running SolarCity, its board and Tesla’s had complicated overlaps. Six of Tesla’s seven directors were Musk associates (including his brother, Kimbal) with SolarCity ties. Antonio Gracias was on the board of both companies. What’s more, Musk had used his other entities to raise capital for SolarCity: SpaceX, for example, had purchased $255 million of SolarCity bonds. Musk bought $65 million worth. Tesla’s directors had to grapple with this apparent self-dealing as Musk pushed them to reconsider the acquisition in May 2016. Musk said he recused himself from these deliberations, but court filings indicate he remained actively involved, even advocating for the move directly with bankers and investors.

The shareholder lawsuit is set for trial before Delaware Court of Chancery Vice Chancellor Joseph Slights III in March 2020, according to Tesla’s securities filings.

[/size]

[philopek]

Tesla receives 300 Million Euros for building it's GF near Berlin.

I already hinted at that probability but didn't know the numbers then. Here they are, the concept becomes even more obvious while it has been obvious before.

Politicians compete to get the GF in their city and/or province and are willing to pay a lot of the money that they coerced/stole from taxpayers before.

Only because this time it's for EV's that doesn't that legalized form of corruption any better.

And of course the value of that GF will be a fraction once the project has died which it will.

[Archimid]

It would be poetic justice for mankind if this frivolous lawsuit by impostor shareholders is the one thing that brings Tesla down, and with it, the transition to an electric world dies, and us with it.

The case has no merits and the plaintiff is downright criminal, but this would be a very fitting end to our response to climate change. We destroy ourselves by polluting the air and we destroy ourselves by destroying the solutions to air pollution. It makes perfect sense.

[blumenkraft]

Your arguments are valid IFF it fails. I don't see why it should though.

There is a growing demand for BEVs. And there is a 100yo history of carmaker making cars in Germany. Could you elaborate on the reasons you think this one will fail, Philopek?

[Sigmetnow]

Q4 sales

Tilman Winkler (@TilmanWinkler) 11/16/19, 10:17 AM
$TSLA has sold more cars in Norway, Spain and the Netherlands to this day than in the entire Q1/2019, will surpass Q2 sales on Tuesday, possibly Monday. They’re failing! [ ]   eu-evs.com

https://twitter.com/tilmanwinkler/status/1195722651592998913

—-
Electric vehicle sales are up sharply in California, mostly due to Tesla

Plug-in hybrids, which can run on battery power for a few dozen miles before having to switch to internal combustion, plummeted 28.5%, to 35,500 vehicles — in part, analysts have said, because consumers recoiled from the latest design of the plug-in hybrid leader, the Toyota Prius Prime.

Without Tesla, pure EV sales would be limp. About 33,000 Model 3s were sold in California in the first half. The next-highest seller was Chevrolet’s Bolt EV, at 4,482 cars, followed by the Tesla Model X (3,690) and the Tesla Model S (3,390.) The Nissan Leaf sold 2,034 units.

Electric car buyers “don’t seem to be EV fans, they seem to be Tesla fans,” Caldwell said. “It’s been really hard for any other company to crack the code of what people want in an EV.”

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-10/ev-electric-car-sales-california-tesla

Critter (@Critttr) 11/16/19, 2:24 PM
I’ve been watching inventory closely. Went from 300+ to now 4 (US) in the past month.

ValueAnalyst (@ValueAnalyst1) 11/16/19, 2:33 PM
Tesla will soon have produced 500,000 Model 3 cars, and the number of used Model 3 "deals" one can find is fewer than 10.
https://twitter.com/valueanalyst1/status/1195787003629129728

—- neural network:  not just for FSD anymore

ValueAnalyst (@ValueAnalyst1) 11/16/19, 1:44 PM
"If automatic wipers is [sic] not performing to your preference, any manual adjustment to wiper speed will be captured to further train and improve the network in future software updates."

https://twitter.com/valueanalyst1/status/1195774678238937088
Image of new OTA update text is in the subtweet.

—- Not every useful invention today is high tech

Casey Neistat (@Casey) 11/15/19, 12:46 PM
having @Tesla Energy survey my house. asked the guy if he need a ladder to see the roof, he whipped out the most boss selfie stick I’ve ever seen.
https://twitter.com/casey/status/1195397575089647616
Photo at the link.

Elon Musk (@elonmusk) 11/15/19, 2:02 PM
Innovation comes in many ways
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1195416750961106944

—-  FSD fun:
These days, TV shows see Full Self Driving as No Big Deal — even a good thing — but best when called upon for a punch line....
See:  https://twitter.com/mfrunker/status/1195764904910831619
~60 second video at the link.

When fish drive!
See:  https://twitter.com/28delayslater/status/1195558118517878789
30 sec video.  Fish instructs the tank which way to move.

[gerontocrat]

It would be poetic justice for mankind if this frivolous lawsuit by impostor shareholders is the one thing that brings Tesla down, and with it, the transition to an electric world dies, and us with it.

The case has no merits and the plaintiff is downright criminal, but this would be a very fitting end to our response to climate change. We destroy ourselves by polluting the air and we destroy ourselves by destroying the solutions to air pollution. It makes perfect sense.

"frivolous lawsuit by impostor shareholders
The case has no merits and the plaintiff is downright criminal,"

Statements without data have no value.
The statements on the real financial state of SolarCity at the time of acquisition by Tesla seem to based on real data. Tesla's bankers said - don't do it. It seems to me there is a case to answer, even if it is not strong enough to result in substantial compensation.

I believe it is a class lawsuit - i.e a number of aggrieved shareholders have combined themselves into a single claimant.
It is getting into court in March 2020 (unless an out-of-court settlement is made before that).

Even if Musk/Tesla lose, I see no reason to believe that it will kill the company, especially if China / model Y / Giga4 news is good.

[Archimid]

Sorry G-man, as a Tesla shareholder I can tell you that those filing this lawsuit in my name and against my will are working against the best interest of Tesla and their shareholders, except those shareholders that buy token shares so they can sue.

I know, I know, this is the law and I should play stupid pretending that 1 share makes a shareholder a shareholder, but I've always had trouble with cognitive dissonance based law.

The statements on the real financial state of SolarCity at the time of acquisition by Tesla seem to based on real data. Tesla's bankers said - don't do it. It seems to me there is a case to answer, even if it is not strong enough to result in substantial compensation.

Nah. We voted on it and we knew the risks. Tesla needed a source of energy for their Master plan, Solar City was it. It made perfect sense then, it makes perfect sense now. Once solar roof gets cranking, it will be perfectly clear this was the correct move.

I believe it is a class lawsuit - i.e a number of aggrieved shareholders have combined themselves into a single claimant.
It is getting into court in March 2020 (unless an out-of-court settlement is made before that).

yes and the class is Tesla shareholders, of which I'm one.  I haven't seen the lawsuit but I bet ya they don't disclose the potential harm to the majority of the class if the pretend shareholders win.

[philopek]

It would be poetic justice for mankind if this frivolous lawsuit by impostor shareholders is the one thing that brings Tesla down, and with it, the transition to an electric world dies, and us with it.

The very idea that once Tesla is gone there won't be any ongoing electrification and the idea behind it that electrification, even though certainly better than ICEs, will save the world, is wrong, arrogant, biased and responsible for most of the blindness towards his/their business practices and financial conditions.

Tesla with their roadstar and later with the model S had a significant and very much relevant impact on development and awareness as well as acceptance of EVs.

That truth said, they are already losing ground, are financially looking into a deep abyss and Elon's business practices and attitude will be responsible for an eventual downfall of this promising former startup and now multi billion dollar business.

You stating to be a shareholder explains your bias while you don't do yourself and your fellow shareholders a favor by sticking the head under the sofa and believing not to be seen, the way how my cats are doing it LOL.

If you want to get the most out of your investment and the highest chance for Tesla and it's products to prevail and stand up against the mighty and growing competition, you will have to:

- see

- admit

- act upon (as a shareholder)

FACTS

Almost everything pro Tesla in this thread is irrelevant from a business survival standpoint.
One cannot play with money infinitely, mathematics will prevail always as do the laws of nature and physics.

Every creature that acts against those and other non-debatable laws will ultimately fail and so do their achievements, technology, culture and all.

I won't debate the obvious, just come here from time to time to make a point and see what some of you shall name for an excuse once Tesla went for good.

It will be excuses along the line you just did, shareholder who claim their legal and absolute rights are responsible for the fail, not the man who made the decisions and/or influence the decisions makers under false pretenses.

BTW, ALL THE FALSE PRETENSES are the fraudulent part and what makes this a huge loss for shareholders, workers, societies who invested tax-funds and more while those of them who did
invest for greed i'm not feeling sorry for.

In short, EVs will prevail a s a major form of technology among Fuel Cells and Hydrogen with and without Tesla, so stop defending your investment with the fearmongering attitude that anyone who says something bad (but true) about Tesla is responsible for our all demise, what an arrogance and short-sightedness.

[TerryM]

Archimid
So, as a substantial stockholder do you feel that it's proper to pump your portfolio on a scientifically oriented forum?


If I had been heavily invested in Enron's stock would you think it proper of me to be spinning flattering tales about the genius of Kenny-Boy Lay? (The smartest man in the room, if you believed his fanboys.)
Terry

[Archimid]

In short, EVs will prevail a s a major form of technology among Fuel Cells and Hydrogen with and without Tesla,

It is not about prevailing, it is about accelerating the transition to renewable energy, not just EVs, at the maximum rate possible. Without Tesla, momentum is lost. The transition will happen but decades from now (we don't have decades), like fossil fuel interest and legacy automotive with stranded assets want.

Right now, things are looking better than they ever had at Tesla, I don't think the outcome of this lawsuit will change that, but the injustice of it all really irks me.

[Archimid]

Archimid
So, as a substantial stockholder do you feel that it's proper to pump your portfolio on a scientifically oriented forum?

LOL I'm not a substantial stockholder. I wish I was. But my insignificant amount of Tesla shares is very significant to my small net worth. I'm also long Tesla and very open about my position. I see absolutely nothing wrong with my writing here. Honest writing is moral.

These "shareholders" I call impostors are the exact opposite. They may or may not own a "significant" amount of Tesla shares, but in all likelihood, the amount they own is insignificant to their net worth. They may hold short TSLA positions, have no plans of making money with TSLA growth or in the long term. The opposite is true. They hide their true intentions. They are suing TSLA to harm TSLA, and they do it in the name of the shareholders.

Furthermore, pumping stock you own is perfectly legal. Pumping a fraudulent stock and then dumping is a crime. Notice the order? Pump and then dump is illegal. There is another crime called Short and distort. People that short sell a stock and then distort the perception of the stock are criminals. Notice the order of events? Once a person short sells a stock they must be very careful with what they say. If they lie about the stock they "shorted" they are criminals, even if the SEC can't prosecute them all. Do you short Tesla?

[TerryM]

I still have no financial interest in Tesla.


I hadn't questioned the legality of pumping a stock in either direction, rather I question the inherent bias of someone who will profit if enough people take up his position. It just reminds me of people who loudly shout praises of Amway or Shaklee products in a crowded room.


BTW do you have a link to the purported illegality of short and distort? I'd never come across the term until very recently, and then only by way of Tesla fans. I can't see how steering friends away from lousy investments could violate any laws, but then I always believed insider trading was illegal even if you weren't named Martha Stewart.


Terry

[Archimid]

I hadn't questioned the legality of pumping a stock in either direction, rather I question the inherent bias of someone who will profit if enough people take up his position.

Being aware of someone's biases is the right thing to do. That's why disclosure is important. Disclosure allows you to understand that my position is biased and it allows me to speak freely without fear of deceiving you. 

I'm quite aware of my bias. I have to defeat my own bias every time I link to new EVs from other manufacturers or good news in the EV front other than Tesla. I know that it is in my best interest to be very logic with Tesla and not get carried away by all the advancements. I try hard to maintain my skepticism.

I see Tesla as more than a company or money. To me Tesla is hope. Tesla is a group of extremely talented people that are well aware of the climate change problem and are in a mission to solve it. At least that's what I tell myself, and I believe others do too. Everything I've seen from them confirms that mission, including the Solar city deal. The mission is extremely hard, but they do it anyway. They give me hope that climate change can be solved.

If Tesla does not solve climate change*, Tesla provides one of the best personal safety measures against climate change, energy independence.

If Tesla does solve climate change* at a global level then they will likely be a company about the size of the energy industry and the auto industry combined. This is an unlikely but possible best-case scenario.

* the transportation and electricity portions of climate change

[KiwiGriff]

That truth said, they are already losing ground,

If this is losing ground I would  hate to see winning ......


Your idea of truth is only your delusions showing.

[Sigmetnow]

RandySustainableMeat (@RandyVegetables) 11/10/19, 8:31 AM
When 1,000 Tesla owners say their cars have been flawless, $TSLAQ will claim either they are lieing [sic], or are statistical anomalies.
But if 1 Tesla owner complains of a problem, no matter how small, $TSLAQ accept this to be a universal problem applicable to all cars.
...
https://twitter.com/randyvegetables/status/1193521671308627968

$TSLAQ is a crowdsourced short and distort (@ElectroCar) 11/10/19, 8:36 AM
It's called a short and distort for a reason Randy

[oren]

Nah. We voted on it and we knew the risks. Tesla needed a source of energy for their Master plan, Solar City was it. It made perfect sense then, it makes perfect sense now. Once solar roof gets cranking, it will be perfectly clear this was the correct move.

Maybe it made perfect sense strategy-wise, but it made zero sense price-wise. Paying too much for a non-profitable business with a failing business model was not a smart move, and paying too much for a connected family business was a dumb move.
They could have got another solar company. They could have waited for solar prices to drop further before making their move. They could have waited for Model 3 to become a huge success, and using the saved funds could have lowered the terrible financial risk they took during the Model 3 ramp. Or they could have a partnered with solar vendors - I personally think this would have been the best strategy.

[Rob Dekker]

It would be poetic justice for mankind if this frivolous lawsuit by impostor shareholders is the one thing that brings Tesla down, and with it, the transition to an electric world dies, and us with it.

The case has no merits and the plaintiff is downright criminal, but this would be a very fitting end to our response to climate change. We destroy ourselves by polluting the air and we destroy ourselves by destroying the solutions to air pollution. It makes perfect sense.

"frivolous lawsuit by impostor shareholders
The case has no merits and the plaintiff is downright criminal,"

Statements without data have no value.
The statements on the real financial state of SolarCityat the time of acquisition by Tesla seem to based on real data. Tesla's bankers said - don't do it....

With all due respect, gerontocrat, but I think Archimid here has the better data here :

In August 2016, when Tesla acquired SolarCity, Tesla's stock price was $220 or so.
Share price is now $350, so shareholders have nothing to complain about.

[Archimid]

Maybe it made perfect sense strategy-wise, but it made zero sense price-wise.

Correct. Elon had to choose either sticking to the master plan or having an extra cushion of cash. He chose the master plan.

[Archimid]

Oren, apologies for the two-part response, inspiration came late.

Paying too much for a non-profitable business with a failing business model was not a smart move, and paying too much for a connected family business was a dumb move.

But is he not a major tesla shareholder and the destiny of Tesla is the destiny of his money? Did he sell his Tesla stock after the deal? No. He has just acquired more stock, the stock is worth more than ever and there is a path well underway for massive energy deployments.

They could have got another solar company.

Then they would have left the solar part of their plan in the hands of destiny.

They could have waited for solar prices to drop further before making their move.

The mission is to accelerate the transition. Waiting for solar prices to go down defeats the purpose.

They could have waited for Model 3 to become a huge success, and using the saved funds could have lowered the terrible financial risk they took during the Model 3 ramp.

That's three to four years worth of R&D and business model refinement. We don't have time for that.

Or they could have a partnered with solar vendors - I personally think this would have been the best strategy.

Then the pace of innovation is that of your vendors.

[Neven]

Not simply “an electric pickup truck.”

Vincent (@vincent13031925) 11/14/19, 4:16 PM
Tesla Registers Cybertruck And CYBRTRK before the unveiling event next week.

https://twitter.com/vincent13031925/status/1195088061211660288

Tesla has already purchased the domain cybrtrk.com, which currently redirects to tesla.com.

So, when can we expect to see that 'affordable car' for the masses?

[Sigmetnow]

Not simply “an electric pickup truck.”

Vincent (@vincent13031925) 11/14/19, 4:16 PM
Tesla Registers Cybertruck And CYBRTRK before the unveiling event next week.

https://twitter.com/vincent13031925/status/1195088061211660288

Tesla has already purchased the domain cybrtrk.com, which currently redirects to tesla.com.

So, when can we expect to see that 'affordable car' for the masses?

Patience, Neven, patience.  Cheaper EVs are out there.  They just happen to suck, and Tesla refuses to make EVs that suck.

In the U.S., the Model 3 can be purchased for about the same as the median car price.  That arguably makes it “affordable for the masses.” 

Also in the U.S., pickup trucks are top-sellers, so an electric pickup like Tesla’s, starting below $50k, means more people can afford to not buy a gas pickup.  The Tesla cybertruck is “a new kind of pickup truck” — expect it to be polarizing.  Many will love it, many will hate it.  What else is new?    But an e-truck regarded by hard-core truckers as “manly,” whatever that means, that helps dispel the “EVs are for sissies and anyway they don’t work” attitude, and turns people away from gas guzzlers, would be awesome.

As the Master Plan states, profits from more expensive cars will be used to develop less expensive ones.  We are seeing Tesla learnings lead to cheaper batteries and more efficient production.  Model Y, the Tesla Semi and Roadster 2.0 will continue to prove electrification can displace more and more market segments, while providing for Tesla’s growth into a carmaker of a size that can afford to make smaller — but not sucky! — cars at a profit.

To more directly answer your question:  from what last I heard, three or four years.

[gerontocrat]

It would be poetic justice for mankind if this frivolous lawsuit by impostor shareholders is the one thing that brings Tesla down, and with it, the transition to an electric world dies, and us with it.

The case has no merits and the plaintiff is downright criminal, but this would be a very fitting end to our response to climate change. We destroy ourselves by polluting the air and we destroy ourselves by destroying the solutions to air pollution. It makes perfect sense.

"frivolous lawsuit by impostor shareholders
The case has no merits and the plaintiff is downright criminal,"

Statements without data have no value.
The statements on the real financial state of SolarCityat the time of acquisition by Tesla seem to based on real data. Tesla's bankers said - don't do it....

With all due respect, gerontocrat, but I think Archimid here has the better data here :

In August 2016, when Tesla acquired SolarCity, Tesla's stock price was $220 or so.
Share price is now $350, so shareholders have nothing to complain about.

If the claimants made no loss on their investment then I guess there is no case to answer.
I don't think the court will take much notice of a claim based on getting a lower profit than expected.

Perhaps they got scared and sold out in December 2016 when the share price had dipped. (see attached).

But if the court makes a fuss about due diligence and lousy data used to back up the financial case for the acquisition, the SEC** might open a file.

** The SEC would look at the data, not Musk's vision for the future.

[NeilT]

Patience, Neven, patience.  Cheaper EVs are out there.  They just happen to suck, and Tesla refuses to make EVs that suck.

I'm not so sure Sig.  Did you read the FCA view on their 500e?

They recon that their style and brand will get people to pay €32,000 for the 500e.  That is the Basic model.

For what?  A roller skate with a motor and a lot of lipstick?

It is not only Tesla that is unable to give true value for money on an EV.

Ask me what I am more likely to buy, a 500e for €32,000 or  Model 3 for somewhere around €40,000?  Funds permitting (which they are not so I won't be buying either).

[NeilT]

The court may make a fuss, but it is not going to court until March 2020, I suspect that Tesla will have a solid case to defer until Q1 results are released.

If, as we suspect, Solar Roof V3 takes off, the Shanghai factory is driving profits and shares are over 400, then Tesla will have an extremely strong position.

If they can also prove that not fixing the M3 ramp up would have driven them into chapter 11, killing the value of the stock, then they are also in a strong position.

There is no law that says that investors who bail on a viable stock, because they listened to short propaganda, have to be compensated.

If Tesla is selling good volume Solar Roofs and making good profits, this court case is going nowhere.

[TerryM]

Neil
I don't believe that this action, or the suit by the hero/pedo will have a measurable effect on Tesla's or Musk's finances. Hopefully Unsworth's slice will be enough to set him up for life.


Musk & friends & family being deposed and possibly questioned on the stand could have a negative effect on how Musk is viewed by the public. Just the deposition transcripts that have been released to date have taken their toll.
Future suits that Musk & Tesla face will use and build on these and forthcoming sworn statements to build their cases. Death by 1,000 suits is a possibility.


See the early history of Bell Telephone.
Terry

[KiwiGriff]

Soon Neven .
Economy of scale the Battery price is falling as volume increases .
The technology is also getting more efficient by about 5% a year.
By 2025 or so EV's should reach purchase price parity with ICE  for even a sub compact car with reasonable range.

[TerryM]

^^
Just wait until that cheap Bolivian Lithium gets to the market. How did our lithium get into their jungles anyway?


Terry

[Stephen]

^^
Just wait until that cheap Bolivian Lithium gets to the market. How did our lithium get into their jungles anyway?


Terry

I know that you're joking but I think that the Lithium comes out of the great salt lakes on the altiplano.  Not a lot of jungle up there.

[Archimid]

So, when can we expect to see that 'affordable car' for the masses?

I would argue it is already here. The Model 3 will be the VW Beetle and Ford Model T of our lives.

As component cost and manufacturing costs go down and production goes up, Model 3 will go down in price, continually adding potential costumers for the price point.

What can be removed from the Model 3? It's probably as close to a box in 4 wheels that we can get. The magic comes through software. The cost of Model 3 will significantly go down as battery costs go down. It is one of the most efficient vehicles on the road.

I think the Model 3 is it, but time is required to make costs go down.

[NeilT]

The problem is not Lithium, it is Cobalt.  65% of which comes from the DRC.

I have just finished reading the relevant section of an EU document which says that demand for Cobalt, in the EU, will rise from a 2017 level of 6,600 tonnes to a 2030 level of 300,000 - 400,000 tonnes.

[TerryM]

Stephen
Your correct of course, but "how did our lithium get into their great salt flats of the altiplano" somehow loses it's rhythm.
I'm actually quite disturbed that the US struck out against a government that had done so much for the poorest segment of its citizens. It's interesting that the Mexican Government felt that they were strong enough to grant Morales sanctuary.


Bolivia is in for a very rough period. Many indigenous people will pay a terrible price for electing one of their own, and then insisting that they be paid as if they were of European stock.


Disgusting racism coupled with venial arvice
Terry

[Sigmetnow]

The problem is not Lithium, it is Cobalt.  65% of which comes from the DRC.

I have just finished reading the relevant section of an EU document which says that demand for Cobalt, in the EU, will rise from a 2017 level of 6,600 tonnes to a 2030 level of 300,000 - 400,000 tonnes.

So it’s a good thing battery manufacturers are removing cobalt from their battery formulations. 
Also: battery recycling.  Why mine new cobalt when it’s available already processed and above ground in used packs?

Batteries for the Tesla Model 3 are less than 3 percent cobalt, and the next generation battery “will use none.”
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/21/17488626/elon-musk-cobalt-electric-vehicle-battery-science

Samsung SDI to reduce cobalt in its batteries to zero
https://www.electrive.com/2018/02/12/samsung-sdi-reduce-cobalt-batteries-zero/

[Sigmetnow]

Quiet enough for you?
Tesla quietly updates its 3rd-slowest sedan to be quicker than the Ferrari Testarossa
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-mid-range-update-beats-ferrari-ota-update/

——
Tesla’s word of mouth strategy in focus: Why Elon Musk’s owner-based initiative works

“Tesla’s word-of-mouth strategy helps spread information, but if this product didn’t have a fundamental effect in consumers, it wouldn’t really matter. I’m confident that if banks or media had someone looking at this problem from the consumer side, we would never see a note about alleged ‘demand problems’ again. Tesla has never had a demand problem and data shows that they won’t face one. But they might face an information gap, particularly with how media misinforms consumers,” the economist said.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-tsla-elon-musk-word-of-mouth-strategy-explained/

[NeilT]

The question is Sig, just how long will it take before we get to the next gen cell?

I guess with so many people now looking the answer will be sooner. But that does not answer the question and time is of the essence.

[oren]

The problem is not Lithium, it is Cobalt.  65% of which comes from the DRC.

I have just finished reading the relevant section of an EU document which says that demand for Cobalt, in the EU, will rise from a 2017 level of 6,600 tonnes to a 2030 level of 300,000 - 400,000 tonnes.

Are you certain about this NeilT? This report here says the EU demand will be 108,000 tonnes by 2030, and I get the feeling current EU demand is higher than 6,600 tonnes, though I haven't found a number yet.

[NeilT]

I read the document on my pc but replied on the phone, hence no link.  I'll go find it.

[edit]

Look further down the document.  This part is talking Only about cars and the number required to meet EU regulations and also the replacement need at 8 years.

Assuming that an increasing average amount of between 5.5Kg and 11Kg of cobalt is used per vehicle from today until 2030, on account of projected growths in the storage capacity of EV batteries and the continued increase of BEV systems, the cumulative usage of cobalt in the automotive sector at the end of 2030 would be in the range of 1.6 to 2.1 million tonnes in high-case scenarios (IEA 2DS and IEA B2DS)11. In both scenarios the annual cobalt demand would increase from 6 650 tonnes in 2017 to 300 000 - 400 000 tonnes in 2030.  Box 3. Cobalt consumption per EV – assumptions underlying global demand

I'm trying to work out, from the wording, whether they have switched from EU to Global or not.

Either way, the demand is Huge.

[Sigmetnow]

The question is Sig, just how long will it take before we get to the next gen cell?

I guess with so many people now looking the answer will be sooner. But that does not answer the question and time is of the essence.

What you want (what we all want) is the “Battery and Powertrain Investor Day” Elon has mentioned. 
Tesla has things currently in the works!

Tesla all but confirms it's going to make own battery cells with new Maxwell tech
https://electrek.co/2019/06/12/tesla-battery-cell-production-maxwell-tech/

[Sigmetnow]

The flop-sweat is strong with this one.

Groggy T. Bear (@GroggyTBear) 11/18/19, 9:11 PM
$TSLAQ Must See TV
@timseymour is clearly told by CNBC that he needs to explain his $TSLA short position.
5 minutes of sweating while he admits he shorted the bottom, yet still holds now at $350 ... and can't get through 2 sentences without swallowing.
[video link:] https://t.co/ddU77a6uOm
   
https://twitter.com/groggytbear/status/1196612010638741505

Groggy T. Bear (@GroggyTBear) 11/18/19, 10:13 PM
p.s. Guess who this $TSLAQ @CNBC victim follows:
@eddiemac3356
@tslaqpodcast
@Tweetermeyer
@CGrantWSJ
@elonpromised
@ElonBachman
@markbspiegel
@skabooshka
@WallStCynic

< Tim sounds completely panicked. I don't believe for a second he's only 15% down on his short.
<< “CyberTruck, can’t wait to see that.“ Said with all the enthusiasm as scheduling a root canal.

[NeilT]

Very interesting youtube on Tesla production and deliveries based on Oct numbers.

[Sigmetnow]

Tesla’s strategy is incredibly complex — but it still makes lots of sense

Part of the challenge in understanding Tesla’s strategy are the commentators. These range from short selling to star worship. Many ask the wrong questions, such as why Tesla TSLA, +2.72% isn’t making any money — a question appropriate for a mature business, but not a growth one. While all businesses must be sustainable in the long run, Tesla is like most rapid growth companies that eat up more cash flow than they produce while in the early growth phase.
…
At the level of the product, although a Tesla looks the same as other vehicles, underneath the hood the vehicle has a fundamentally different architecture, both in terms of hardware and software. This matters because a long research tradition underscores that when incumbents face a new technology architecture, they struggle to understand and adapt.

Even though they can see what the technology is, they struggle to adapt both because they are reluctant to give up the existing capabilities they have perfected over decades and to fully integrate the new ones. Although incumbents may imitate the new architecture, they have a hard time overcoming the way they have done things in the past and to match the superior performance of the new, purpose-built architecture.

You can see evidence of this playing out in the auto industry. Early electric vehicles produced by incumbents on internal combustion engine architectures paled in comparison to the Tesla, and even newer “blank slate” efforts sometimes don’t quite measure up. It’s always the little things that get in the way — such as the fact that most vehicles built by other manufacturers have up to five separate software systems rather than a single integrated system like a Tesla, which gives a performance advantage.
…
Lastly, if we raise our level of analysis above components and products, to the level of systems, we see Tesla in yet another light. The truth is that consumers don’t want products; they want solutions. Most car makers deliver products. But Tesla tries to deliver a complete experience: car, upgrades, charging, insurance — the whole bundle. And as a result, the majority of Tesla owners talk in glowing terms about their Tesla, both because it is a great car, but also a great solution. In what other vehicle do you wake up in the morning to find new self-driving features? …

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/teslas-strategy-is-incredibly-complex-but-it-still-makes-lots-of-sense-2019-11-19

————
TSLA traded most of the afternoon around $359.  Got up to $359.99 
Closed at $359.52, up $9.53.   (52-week high = $379.49)
This as the DOW, Exxon, and several automakers closed down.

[RikW]

I think the greatest short-term threat to electrification of our car fleet is Tesla going bankrupt, but if Tesla doesn't go bankrupt in a year or so, that threat is gone, because other car-makers are far enough ramping up there line-up/models.

If BMW (i4) and VW (ID.3/ID.4) can fullfill their promisses, I see more danger for Tesla, but less for electrification. ID.3 can be a real threat, same range, lower price than model 3.

[TerryM]

The regulations in place throughout Europe pretty well assure that the rush to the electrification of transportation won't be stopped regardless of who goes bottoms up.


Tesla's year end reports require Musk's signature. I think we'll have a much clearer picture of the financial situation is when they're released. The present stock bubble raises concerns as does the very real possibility that Trump's opposition wins the next election. A Democratic regime will demand action from federal agencies.
The Republicans are happy with ridiculously weak regulatory enforcement. The Democrats may well wish to demonstrate that they are different.


Musk's companies could suffer, but EVs are here to stay, dammit.
Terry

[KiwiGriff]

ID.3 can be a real threat, same range, lower price than model 3.

Nope less range less efficient and slower .
 
Tesla Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor
Battery Electric Vehicle - 75 kWh*
0 - 100 4.6 sec
Top Speed233 km/h
Range475 km
Efficiency15.6 kWh
Fastcharge990 km/h

Volkswagen ID.3 Long Range (from 2020)
Battery Electric Vehicle - 82 kWh*
0 - 100*5.5 sec
Top Speed*180 km/h
Range*450 km
Efficiency*17.1 kWh
Fastcharge*550 km/h

https://ev-database.org/

Note the * next to VW is because that is their claim not a tested result .
VW you know those guys who faked their emissions testing .
I don't trust them... you might

Tesla killers is a silly concept.
All competitive electric cars are ICE killers, There is plenty of room for Tesla and others in the market place.

[Sigmetnow]

But, but TSLAQ told us time and again that big automakers were so much better at manufacturing and would never have production delays like Tesla!

It Turns Out Porsche Taycan Deliveries Are Delayed

A recent post on the Facebook Porsche Taycan Group reveals that the Taycan is now running on an 8- to 10-week delivery delay. A Norwegian reservation holder received an email from the German automaker explaining the situation.

Tesla has been victim to heavy scrutiny over the years, as it struggles to launch vehicles on time. Once it has proceeded with a launch, there have typically been production and delivery delays. However, we're beginning to see more and more that it's not the only company experiencing such issues.

We've seen multiple EV launches that have proven similar issues. The Audi e-tron has fallen behind numerous times and continues to experience its share of delays. Jaguar has had comparable issues with the I-Pace.

Still, naysayers continue to assert that once legacy OEMs — with their huge budgets and years of manufacturing know-how — bring electric vehicles to market, they'll prove that Tesla is essentially an inexperienced failure.
...
Check out the email from Porsche below (translated from Norwegian):
"Taycan is our first fully electric sports car. The car is developed from scratch and manufactured in a brand new factory. All Porsche employees have worked with full pressure to start delivering Taycan as scheduled in January. Still, as a result of the enormous complexity surrounding the production of Taycan, we must report that unfortunately the delivery dates are somewhat delayed.

We currently expect delays of around eight to ten weeks, and a new production time for your car will be communicated through your seller as soon as this is ready. We strongly apologize and guarantee that we will do everything we can to deliver your Porsche Taycan as soon as possible."

https://insideevs.com/news/383171/porsche-taycan-delivery-delay/

—-
Why Tesla might be the next Apple and Elon Musk the heir to Steve Jobs

... Tesla’s first-principles approach will allow it to be consistently years ahead of the competition. Despite its zero advertising budget — its advertising department is an army of one, Elon Musk, with 27 million Twitter followers — Tesla has one of the most iconic global brands. It is run by a relentless founder who is willing to put in hundred-hour weeks and sleep in the factory when needed. Tesla is years ahead of the competition on battery development (I am not 100% certain about its exclusivity, though) and software. Then there is the self-driving vehicle (with 1 billion miles of data), which may provide Tesla a lead that will be difficult for internal-combustion engine car makers and even Alphabet’s Google to catch.

Tesla’s competitors, despite their strengths, also have the weaknesses of being profitable, dividend-paying companies with a decidedly lower tolerance for sustained losses. ...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-tesla-might-be-the-next-apple-and-elon-musk-the-heir-to-steve-jobs-2019-11-20

[Sigmetnow]

“Hyperchange” Galileo Russell has dug up a multitude of fascinating connections between Maxwell, Tesla, and the stars of Dry Battery Electrode (DBE), etc., development. 

NeilT, check it out.

“my latest speculation about $TSLA's potential 'battery breakthrough' to be anounced next year”
Battery and Powertrain Investor Day 2020

Shirley Meng, Maxwell’s DBE, Jeff Dahn & Goodenough’s Glass Electrolyte: My Tesla Battery Conspiracy

[NeilT]

I found a Maxwell presentation which claims their dry roll technology is Cobalt free and 300wh/kg with a path to 500wh/kg.

If this pans out, then Cobalt is off the table. At least for Tesla. It also means range is going to increase.

[RikW]

ID.3 can be a real threat, same range, lower price than model 3.

Nope less range less efficient and slower .
 
Tesla Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor
Battery Electric Vehicle - 75 kWh*
0 - 100 4.6 sec
Top Speed233 km/h
Range475 km
Efficiency15.6 kWh
Fastcharge990 km/h

Volkswagen ID.3 Long Range (from 2020)
Battery Electric Vehicle - 82 kWh*
0 - 100*5.5 sec
Top Speed*180 km/h
Range*450 km
Efficiency*17.1 kWh
Fastcharge*550 km/h

https://ev-database.org/

Note the * next to VW is because that is their claim not a tested result .
VW you know those guys who faked their emissions testing .
I don't trust them... you might

Tesla killers is a silly concept.
All competitive electric cars are ICE killers, There is plenty of room for Tesla and others in the market place.

I don't see them as Tesla killer, but I see them as a potential risk for Tesla. They have factories available to scale up production and they have knowledge how to build a car.
Currently, Tesla is far beyond the competition on important factors. I think Price, Range and charging speed are most important factors, with the latter getting less important if range increases. And I think traditional auto makers can scale up their production faster than Tesla can.

A standard Tesla 3 costs around 49k in the Netherlands, a long range 59k, without any options.
And ID.3 is said to cost 30k for the standard version and 40k for the longer range version. That is a huge difference.

Yeah, on top speed and acceleration, Tesla is much better. But how often do you really need that? Only in Germany, which is kind of funny, you have advantage of a higher top speed

[blumenkraft]

And I think traditional auto makers can scale up their production faster than Tesla can.

Where do they get the batteries?

[philopek]

The regulations in place throughout Europe pretty well assure that the rush to the electrification of transportation won't be stopped regardless of who goes bottoms up.

Musk's companies could suffer, but EVs are here to stay, dammit.
Terry

Exactly my point and then perhaps it's worth to mention that many countries cities and provinces have already made their minds up and prohibit ICE cars relatively soon, some in increments, starting with diesels, other starting in cities and so on. But if you read the places where ICEs will be kept from being immatriculated and when, we can certainly tell that the age of ICEs is definitely over.

Parts you shall have to translate and parts are in english. I won't translate anything any longer because flawed translations distracted too much from the content in the past and i'm not willing to discuss translations when the topic is so much more important

https://www.zukunft-mobilitaet.net/168604/analyse/uebersicht-zulassungsende-zulassungsstopp-verbrennungsmotor-pkw-laender/

[Sigmetnow]

And I think traditional auto makers can scale up their production faster than Tesla can.

Might want to ask Porsche about that.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2406.msg237582.html#msg237582