whose decision was it not to make the cars promised over a year ago? We’re 5 months into 2018 after multiple statements were made that the factory would be producing large volumes of cars in 2017.
It couldn’t get more real. Musk is responsible to his shareholders. He has repeatedly misrepresented the state of production capacity for both batteries and cars. Now he’s getting sued by shareholders over it.](https://www.thestreet.com/technology/tesla-gets-hit-with-a-new-lawsuit-saying-elon-musk-lied-14555829) What I suggested was a sound business decision that would generate more money. Musk already implemented it by running the production line with higher optioned cars. I extended that plan to include the second motor. If he can’t produce 5,000 cars a week than make more money on the cars he CAN produce. Stop lying to consumers and shareholders.
Let’s look at the lawsuit:
“In May 2017, when Defendants stated that the Company was on track to meet its mass production goal, as production on a fully automated production line was supposed to be ready to begin, and in August 2017, when production on a fully automated production line was supposed to have already been in place and Model 3s were supposed to be coming off the line, according to a number of former employees, the Company had not yet finished building its automated production lines in wither Fremont or Nevada. Tesla was neither ramping up mass production, nor on track to mass produce Model 3s at any time on or around the end of 2017.”
That doesn’t mean that cutting Model 3 production in favor of Powerwalls is a good idea. It’s terrible.
And it is also a fact that corporations are under no obligation to seek short-term profits on sideshows at the expense of the overall direction of the company. This is really just a right-wing meme with no foundation in law or reality.
The chargers are a plus for Teslas until fast charge batteries enter the market. Then they have to shift production to whatever battery supersedes the LI battery. If they can do that cheaply their battery factory is a plus and the chargers become the basis for the nation’s first electric gas stations for other cars and Tesla will be in the fuel business ahead of everybody else on a profit basis instead of a car option. For all we know this was his original intent. It would be modeled after Apple. The phone isn’t what they’re selling, it’s the income from the apps that generates profit after the competition catches up with the phones.
And I think this very likely happen very soon. One example of alternate battery technology is Fisker’s graphene battery. They’re claming 125 mile charge in 9 minutes.
They’re claiming a patent on a solid state battery that will go 500 miles on a 1 minute charge. I’ll believe that when I see it but I have seen capacitor batteries actually do that on a small scale. They didn’t have the power density of a lithium battery but that demonstration was 10 years ago. This battery would be available “as early as” 2023. Again, I’ll believe it when I see it made as a car battery ready for mass production.
It’s interesting what Fisker said about introducing a lower cost massed produced car: "Unlike the Tesla Model 3, Fisker will have an established car maker construct the vehicle. According to Mr. Fisker, “because the established car brands have really mastered high-volume, high-quality car production.”
IMO a lot of changes are about to appear VERY quickly.
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. He already cut production of the car with his lies. he CAN’T make them fast enough. Make the best of the numbers he CAN produce. Contrary to what’s been said he wasn’t limited by the batteries. The entire operation was a lie.
He built a battery factory to serve the car AND the wall charger. He can make the wall charger and has the orders for them. He has a car he can’t produce in volume but CAN make with more options. He’s doing that NOW. If he’s doing that now why is it wrong to use the same strategy to make more money?
It’s a fact that corporations can’t lie to investors and it’s a fact that they have to operate in the best interest of the investor and that means stemming losses when possible.
Musk is a lying incompetent sack of CEO whose ego has cost the company millions if not billions.
Tesla didn’t cut production. They were unable to produce, due to a bunch of factors, including battery production being too slow to meet production goals.
All of this has been covered extensively in the press. And this very thread.
Yes the premise is next year when they start to come out, just as Tesla likely finally gets up to real volume production.
What I’ve heard is that the Volvo’s 310 is estimated real world not NEDC … but we’ll see. In term of autopilot, Volvo has been working on autonomous technology longer than Tesla has. They go very methodically though. These cars will initially come out with some elements of a semi-autonomous driving package (adaptive cruise control, automatic braking, lane assist, etc.) and fuller “Pilot Assist” (L4) is expected within a few years. (Volvo fairly famously eschews L3 autonomous as unsafe.)
The others are also in the base Tesla 3 Bolt range for range. The Hyundai Kona and its sister Kia about 250 and the luxury Audi Quattro e-tron 275 miles. Jaguar I-Pace ev 240.
Indeed the DC charge standard is not wide spread on the highways. But then I do not think many are really planning road trips with these cars.
I think you are completely correct on the form factor. The tricky bit being that Tesla creates a sedan with some of the utility of an SUV for cargo carrying.
Another item is that Tesla’s qualification for the Fed tax credit is going away by the time these come out and these will have that competitive advantage in net cost.
I don’t think he’s lying at all. I just think he doesn’t (or didn’t) understand that you can’t approach mass production of a complex consumer good like a car as you would a software project. “Shoot from the hip,” deploy-without-testing works OK when you have the luxury of just saying “oops, here’s an update.” It doesn’t work when an “oops” means weeks of downtime and hundreds of thousands of dollars in tooling modifications.
“crunch time” (arguably) works when you’re trying to ship an AAA game. It doesn’t work for mass producing durable goods.
As has been said before, investors are not buying Tesla stock because they want a $.15/share dividend, and they would be very upset if the company was run in such a way that happened. They are buying stock when Tesla sells 100,000 cars per year, in the hope that in a few years Tesla is selling 6 million cars per year. Every cent Tesla brings in needs to be spent for the company to grow. There is no profit, and there should be no profit. Of course, it is very easy to get the balance wrong, and spend faster than sustainable. That is why investments in companies in this situation are risky. If they were not risky, but offered amazing returns, then that’s where everybody would put there money.
Of course, none of that excuses deliberately misleading investors, which is different than optimistic expectations or failing to meet goals. Failure is not an indicator of malfeasance (and success does not mean everything that was done was acceptable).
To me, Musk does not sound any different than the CEOs from the original dot com boom. Some of those CEOs went on to be Jeff Bezos, and others wasted billions in other people’s money.
It would be nice to believe that but he has a history of this. If the article I linked above is true then he has a problem:
“As early as mid-2016, Tesla executives responsible for planning and building the Model 3 production line plainly told Defendant Musk and the other Defendants in person, providing specific support for their statements that the Company could never mass produce the Model 3 by the end of 2017. These Tesla executives told Musk and the other Defendants that it was an impossible goal.”
“In May 2017, when Defendants stated that the Company was on track to meet its mass production goal, as production on a fully automated production line was supposed to be ready to begin, and in August 2017, when production on a fully automated production line was supposed to have already been in place and Model 3s were supposed to be coming off the line, according to a number of former employees, the Company had not yet finished building its automated production lines in wither Fremont or Nevada. Tesla was neither ramping up mass production, nor on track to mass produce Model 3s at any time on or around the end of 2017.”
All good points. I don’t really have a problem with the tax credit thing. The Model 3 is still a good value without it, and the rebate is giving a boost to new players while not sticking around forever. It seems to be finally doing its job.
Ultimately, I don’t think they are direct competition for Tesla because I think the EV market is going to expand faster than the supply can keep up. At least for those EVs that prove to be decent (some will be duds, undoubtedly). They may even help Tesla by expanding the general mindshare of EVs.
A little annoying that the Hyundai is California-only at first and CARB-only afterward. Faint whiff of compliance car here, although there are other factors at work.
At any rate, I’m looking forward to the new cars. I haven’t seen anything that would make me regret my purchase, but there’s plenty of stuff that can fill a “I can’t get a Tesla because…” gap for others, so the more the merrier.
This is not Fisker’s ballyhooed graphene battery - this is just a 140kW-hr li-ion battery, sourced from LG-chem. Note that 125 miles/9 minutes is not particularly impressive for a car that isn’t out until 2020 and costs $130k. For reference, the model 3 can charge at 125 miles/15 minutes.
It’s particularly unimpressive for a 140 kWh battery. A 140 kWh Model 3 would charge 125 mi in 8 minutes (with a somewhat beefier Supercharger).
Considering that Fisker folded while Tesla took off, I’m not super-inclined to put much faith in him.
Fisker also outsourced production of the Karma (to Magna). That didn’t stop the cars from being basically junk (with several catching on fire after a flooding). Nor did it make Fisker profitable.
The graphene battery wasn’t their main objective. The really fast charge battery they’re working on is the solid state battery and they’re talking about introducing it this year in consumer products. Using Tesla’s scale of time that would put the battery on the market in a couple of years. If it works in consumer phones it will scale up to car level through sheer market force.
Apparently insurance has decided that my 2013 C-Max Energi that Kelly Blue Books at $8 to 9K is worth putting $6.5 to 7K into to repair.
So not making the plunge this year after all.
Not sure how many years I’ll hold out though. A few. Original plan had been waiting for a pure BEV that was true level 4 autonomous and expecting that to be '23ish. But the level 2 features of the Volvo may be enough before then or maybe even a Tesla (appeals less to me but won’t rule out).
Seems like good news, overall. If you can hold out another few years, you’ll have a lot more to choose between. Including, probably, a Model Y.
The Model 3 appealed to me personally because it was a nearly drop-in EV replacement for my 3-series (and is a genuinely great car in that respect), but it’s certainly not ideal for everyone. Tesla can’t fill every niche simultaneously.
This is the same conclusion I came to every time my reservation has been delayed.
The other cars competing with the Model 3, notably the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt, are really not in the same class. To me, it’s the difference between a BMW 3 series and a Nissan Versa or Chevy Cruze. I’m not saying there’s something wrong with a Cruze (or Bolt), just that if you set out to buy a 330i, and come home with a Versa, you’re probably going to be disappointed.
Price wise, the Jaguar i-Pace is competing with the Model S, not the Model 3. If I was going to spend $70k+ on a car, I’d already have an S.