I await actual data on what happened. Could be a supplier problem, a design defect, or a fully expected outcome given the events. I do not trust the wording of the articles–in particular, the word “spontaneous”. Other articles said there was an explosion, which is obviously false.
There are, on average, 31 vehicle fires per hour in the US alone, but somehow we don’t hear much about them.
The overall rate is 90 fires per billion miles, and the Tesla fleet is well over 2 billion miles. But somehow there have been only a small handful of fires instead of the “expected” 180.
…which is not to say that Tesla shouldn’t take this event seriously. They should (and will). But by any objective standard, it’s a non-event. Despite the extreme volatility of the stock market, it’s hardly had any effect on TSLA, so it seems that even hyperreactive investors don’t care.
It’s not obviously false there was an explosion. When even a small battery catches fire it’s quite spectacular.
How many spontaneous fires per vehicle? It’s important that they don’t catch on fire in garages when people are sleeping.
We don’t drive diesels in the US because of one engine in the 1980’s, the Olds diesel V8. It wasn’t a safety issue. It greatly affected US consumer purchases of diesel cars for decades. There was no logical reason for such a public reaction.
Tesla is highly regarded in this field and perception is everything in a new product line. It’s not just important for Tesla but for every EV hitting the market.
What’s going to make or break Tesla IMO, is future gas prices rising fast enough and high enough to make their cars economical, or their prices dropping low enough for them to compete with regular gas cars on total cost of ownership. Even diesels these days suffer that problem when compared to gasoline cars, because the manufacturers often mark up the diesel cars to the point where it takes something like 5 years of significant fuel savings to offset that markup and break even vs. a gas car, and that’s assuming that there’s a price difference between diesel and gas as well.
And Dr. Strangelove… you need to look up how stock prices and ownership work; your explanations upthread aren’t quite right.
Hey, we don’t need to overthink this fire any more than necessary. Obviously this French couple and their Tesla rep were test driving the car, the ash from their unfiltered Gauloise cigarettes, and zut alors! Someone call les pompiers!
I suspect its recharging profile was a bit different than a normal one in which you use a Supercharge station a few times a year, otherwise let it sit in the garage with a 220 (440 in France?) cord doing a trickle charge.
How about this - the battery was designed to use US voltages; the French grid works just differently enough for a “dozens of top-off’s” profile to be a gotcha?
How a Tesla held up after running up 100,000 miles in 2 years as a taxi.
“Christian has only spent about $3,700 over 2.5 years in electricity” Seems a bit low, but that would be 3.7 cents per mile, as opposed to 6.25 cents for a car that got 40mpg at $2.50 per gallon of gas. And well, you’re not going to get 40mpg doing city driving in anything but a hybrid.
What are you referring to specifically? My explanations are simplified, certainly, but correct AFAIK. Of course it can be difficult to tease apart the theoretical behavior from the noise of the market. For instance, what I said about dividends is absolutely correct, but it’s rare that you’ll actually unambiguously see the price drop on the ex-dividend date, because dividends are usually fairly small compared to the overall noise of the market. You would only see the effect by averaging together lots of events.
There’s no difference. The dividends comes from the company’s cash. Cash is an asset that is built into the stock price. Paying that cash out to stockholders decreases the value of the company.
This case is more complicated since the act of selling shares has the potential to depress the stock price, but I doubt that’s where you’re going here. Since you’re demonstrably wrong about how dividends work, I have little faith that you understand how this case works, either.
As for cites: Investopedia: On the ex-dividend date, the exchange reduces the stock price by the amount of the dividend to account for the fact that new investors are not eligible to receive dividends and are therefore unwilling to pay a premium. However, if the market is particularly optimistic about the stock leading up to the ex-dividend date, the price increase this creates may be larger than the actual dividend amount, resulting in a net increase despite the automatic reduction. If the dividend is small, the reduction may even go unnoticed due to the back and forth of normal trading.
Wikipedia:
After a stock goes ex-dividend (i.e. when a dividend has just been paid, so there is no anticipation of another imminent dividend payment), the stock price should drop.
To calculate the amount of the drop, the traditional method is to view the financial effects of the dividend from the perspective of the company. Since the company has paid say £x in dividends per share out of its cash account on the left hand side of the balance sheet, the equity account on the right side should decrease an equivalent amount.** This means that a £x dividend should result in a £x drop in the share price.**
Oh, and to cite my other claim: Investorplace:
In theory, a secondary offering shouldn’t impact the price of company’s stock — any dilution is offset by an increase in a company’s cash balance, and eventually offset by the addition of a revenue-bearing asset.
Make no mistake, though — sooner or later, any company is going to do something with its idle money. The value of a secondary offering ultimately depends on what it’s going to do with that loot, and how much fruit that venture might bear.
Make no mistake, I agree with Dr. Strangelove about the statistics of car fires. I’m talking about perception of what is considered a new technology. I’m on pins and needles over some manufacturer hosing it up for the rest of the crowd and that’s usually a GM function.
I don’t totally disagree that there’s some risk to public perception, but so far it just hasn’t happened. Tesla is–for better or worse–already a media darling. Which means they get both breathless fawning over every new thing they put out, and a disproportionate reaction to any negative event.
The fires, the autopilot accidents, and so on are certainly not a good thing, but I think if they were really going to make an impact, they would have done so already. Tesla has instead maintained their positive reputation.
They of course still have to execute on the Model 3, so there’s plenty to muck up. But I think we’re past a certain threshold when it comes to acceptance of EVs–not just by enthusiasts but the general public.
Update: the Chevy Bolt is heading for production soon, and it’s EPA estimates range has just been released. It will get 234 miles on a charge. Detailed pricing is still forthcoming, but the number seems to be $37.5k before a $7.5k Federal rebate. Rumor is that there are not a lot of options, so it seems unlikely that most Bolts will sell for much more than that price. It seems like a lock that sales will begin before the end of the year.
Interestingly, Chevy seems to expect selling no more than about 50,000 Bolts per year. Contrast that to the Model 3: Tesla expects to sell ten times more sedans per year, starting at $35k (but with the Federal rebate rapidly phasing out), with most cars probably offered with pricey options, and a rumored range of 215 miles. Sales starting no sooner than one year from now, and let’s be honest - probably longer.
Let me just say that if anyone actually pays $35,000 for a Mode 3, and gets the full $7,500 Federal rebate, I will eat my hat.
I’m pretty sure there will be at least a few of them. As best I can tell, there are a lot of people out there, especially millenial types, that are really on-board with the Tesla story but can’t come close to affording a Model S, and can barely afford a Model 3. But at least a few will stretch their finances to get the cheapest possible one. These are also the people most likely to have lined up on launch day and hence will probably get the rebate.
Unless the Model 3 is delayed by a lot, I’ll probably come in just under the wire for getting the rebate, though I won’t be getting the base model.
As of this moment, it looks like the goal is for the 3 to start being sold at pretty much the same time Tesla sells its 200,000th vehicle in the US. That triggers the phaseout of the tax credit, which means that after the following quarter (i.e., 3-6 months later) the credit is halved.
So the question is, how many 3s can be produced in the first ~6 months of production of the car? People may think, Telsa wants to build 500,000 cars a year, so they will build half of that in the first six months of production.
Wrong. It will take time to build to 500k cars/year. There will be supplier problems that need to be worked out. There will be quality issues, slowing things down. I’ll bet anything that Tesla has to delay production by some amount of time - a month, five months, maybe more, who knows?
Ther bottom line, IMHO, is that Tesla would do fantastic to make 50,000 Model 3s by mid-2018. Seriously, that would be a huge accomplishment.
Tesla would be out of their minds to prioritize the base $35,000 model with no options during that run. They have customers lined up to pay $40, $45, maybe more for the car. Why would they prioritize production of the cheapest option car?
It’s possible that a very small number of customers might pay $28k for a new Tesla when all is said and done. But that requires Tesla maintaining schedule, and choosing to prioritize production of less-profitable versions of a less-profitable car. I just can’t see that happening, so I’m saying it ain’t happening.
You have a pretty strong argument, but I do think it’s a simplified picture. Options packages aren’t the only priority they have. For one, they’ve explicitly said that they’ll prioritize based on geography. People close to their main facility will get the earliest units–frankly, because they’re beta testers and they want them close when things inevitably go wrong. They will also prioritize (to some degree) based on reservation order.
I posit that someone in Fremont who camped overnight to get an early reservation will get their car before anyone in New York gets their ludicrous edition. I could be wrong–I don’t know their exact plans–but it seems plausible to me.
A lot of it does depend on exactly how many units are sold where, and how much they can game the reservation system.