Post by: RE on November 25, 2015, 06:08:13 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/electric-cars-and-the-coal-that-runs-them/2015/11/23/74869240-734b-11e5-ba14-318f8e87a2fc_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/electric-cars-and-the-coal-that-runs-them/2015/11/23/74869240-734b-11e5-ba14-318f8e87a2fc_story.html)
Electric cars and the coal that runs them
By Michael Birnbaum November 23
POWER PLAY | Cheap electricity, a changing climate This is part of a series exploring how the world’s hunger for cheap electricity is complicating efforts to combat climate change.
ROTTERDAM — In this traffic-packed Dutch city, electric cars jostle for space at charging stations. The oldest exhaust-spewing vehicles will soon be banned from the city center. Thanks to generous tax incentives, the share of electric vehicles has grown faster in the Netherlands than in nearly any other country in the world.
But behind the green growth is a filthy secret: In a nation famous for its windmills, electricity is coming from a far dirtier source. Three new coal-fired power plants, including two here on the Rotterdam harbor, are supplying much of the power to fuel the Netherlands’ electric-car boom.
As the world tries to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and combat climate change, policymakers have pinned hopes on electric cars, whose range and convenience are quickly improving. Alongside the boom has come a surging demand for power to charge the vehicles, which can consume as much electricity in a single charge as the average refrigerator does in a month and a half.
The global shift to electric cars has a clear climate benefit in regions that get most of their power from clean sources, such as California or Norway. But in areas supplied by dirtier power, like China, India and even the Netherlands, which is on track to miss ambitious emissions targets set for 2020, the electric-car jump has slimmer payoffs. In some cases, it could even worsen the overall climate impact of driving, experts say.
As the appetite for electricity soars, the world keeps turning to coal
The dilemma highlights the crucial importance of clean electricity in global goals to slash greenhouse-gas emissions, the focus of a December summit in Paris. Cutting transportation-
related emissions can help — but not if pollution is simply shifted from the tailpipes of cars to the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants, which generate 40 percent of the world’s electricity.
Amid revelations that Volkswagen faked the emissions of its supposedly clean diesel cars, even more hopes have been pinned on electric vehicles. Global sales are expected to more than double over the next decade.
“The overall emissions of electricity generation in Europe still haven’t gone down,” said Luc Werring, the former principal adviser to the European Commission on energy issues. “If you drive your car on mixed electricity, then you’re not reducing carbon as much as you’d expect.”
CONTENT FROM Esquire Network A short history of fictional organized crime
Adventures of the American mob, from Mafiosi to small-time grifters, have gripped film-goers and TV watchers for half a century. By Esquire Network
Driving electric cars, he said, “is not as positive as some would like.”
Embrace of electric
In Rotterdam, city leaders have been searching for ways to cut the smog that has long plagued the gridlocked center, where skyscrapers jostle with low, postwar office blocks. Generous Dutch tax incentives have cut the cost of electric vehicles, and the high cost of gasoline — nearly $7 a gallon — has also spurred more people to buy the cars, making the country second only to Norway in terms of percentage of electric vehicles on the road. Four percent of all cars sold in the Netherlands last year were electric.
And starting next year, Rotterdam will ban from its city center all gasoline cars built before mid-1992 and diesels built before 2001.
Drivers say they appreciate knowing that they’re doing something positive for the environment, even as they contend with having to adopt a new driving style.
Play Video1:46
Why the world still uses coal
Coal is one of the world’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions and a major climate change contributor. So why are we still using it? For the same reasons we always have: it’s cheap, plentiful, easy to transport and easy to get. (Jorge Ribas and Julio Negron/The Washington Post)
“You get more relaxed. You don’t want to push down too hard because that will really drain your battery,” said Paul van den Hurk, an electric-vehicle consultant who drives a Nissan Leaf, an electric car with a range of about 85 miles. “You can listen to the music on your stereo because you don’t hear the roar of your engine.”
In many ways, the Netherlands could be an ideal home for electric cars: The country is densely populated and smaller than West Virginia. The best vehicles can now cross the nation on a single charge. Tesla, the California-based manufacturer of high-end electric cars, has made the Netherlands its European beachhead, opening a new factory in the central city of Tilburg in September, where vehicles are assembled for the company’s growing European market.
For now, the plant is putting out 90 vehicles a day, whose prices can run well over $100,000, but it could triple that production rate. In a high-profile endorsement, 200 of the taxis that serve Amsterdam’s airport are now Teslas, and the city wants to convert its entire taxi fleet to electric within the next decade.
But for all the efforts both locally and nationally, the Netherlands will blow past its 2020 emissions targets, the result of the new coal-fired power plants and delays in expanding wind power. Two of the new coal-fired plants are in Rotterdam’s port, where their tall smokestacks belch exhaust across the city.
“People say we are Joe Windmill, but we missed the boat in developing wind energy,” said Jacques de Jong, a former Dutch energy regulator who is now a senior fellow at the Hague-based Clingendael International Energy Program. Dutch authorities are scrambling to catch up, but they face stiff resistance from local residents who dismiss the windmills as unsightly.
Rotterdam’s grid operator says that it faces a challenge with the increase in electric cars, even as it encourages their use. Household electricity demand will rise as the vehicles spread. The amount of electricity the vehicles will need will increase by 50 percent by 2023, according to government projections, although it is still just a fraction of the overall consumption of the country.
Electricity generated from renewable sources is increasing in the Netherlands, but with overall demand for electricity rising, the percentage of coal-generated electricity is staying stubbornly high. Coal provided 29 percent of the country’s electricity last year, and it spiked even higher this year. Dutch government forecasts expect coal to provide about the same amount of electricity in 2030 as it did in 2014.
Amid a surge in U.S. coal exports, the dirtiest fuel is so cheap that it is upending European attempts to switch to cleaner sources of electricity.
“There was a discussion going on to shut down the coal generators, and that’s over. The coal price is too low,” said Marko Kruithof, the manager of sustainability and innovation at Stedin, the grid operator for Rotterdam and much of the region surrounding it.
In Rotterdam, Stedin has helped build thousands of charging points for electric cars. A charge-up for a Tesla costs about $20, and that gives it a 250-mile range. It’s much cheaper than driving a gasoline-powered car.
Proponents believe electric cars are on the verge of a breakthrough that would significantly reduce their cost while extending their range. Chevrolet, Nissan and other manufacturers say they will soon roll out cars that could travel up to 200 miles on a single charge, the distance that many analysts believe is necessary to broaden their appeal beyond a niche market. Tesla, whose cars already exceed that range, plans in 2017 to start producing a model aimed at the mass market that would cost $35,000.
Benefits vary widely
Advocates think that because the vehicles store energy in their batteries, they could one day play a useful role in smoothing out the surges in the grid caused by the increased use of wind and solar energy, which provide electricity only when the sun shines or the wind blows. But those clean-
electricity sources will need to grow simultaneously for the climate impact to be positive.
“In electric vehicles, you cannot decouple the car from the electricity generation,” said Paul Nieuwenhuis, co-director of the Electric Vehicle Center of Excellence at Cardiff University. “If we don’t manage the demand, we would need to build more power stations to deal with it.”
In the United States, where a natural gas boom has helped push down emissions from the power sector, the potential climate benefits of electric cars vary widely depending on the cleanliness of the electricity mix.
In coal-fired Colorado, a gasoline car with fuel economy better than 35 miles per gallon will be better for emissions than the average electric car, according to calculations from the Union of Concerned Scientists. In hydropowered Upstate New York, in contrast, the same gas car would need to achieve 135 miles per gallon. In the Washington region, the figure stands between 63 and 68 miles per gallon.
On average in the United States, at least in major markets, electric cars would offer an improvement on carbon emissions, said Nic Lutsey, program director at the International Council on Clean Transportation. “It seems that on the whole, the carbon footprint will only get better,” he said, because efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas production in electric power plants are moving forward more rapidly than electric-car production.
But environmentalists look at other regions with mixed feelings. The biggest market in the world is China. Sales of electric cars nearly tripled there between January and August compared with a year earlier, according to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers.
Chinese leaders have embraced electric cars as a way of cleaning up cities that have some of the worst air quality in the world. But the Chinese electricity market is heavily dependent on coal; the pollution is simply being taken from the centers of cities and moved to their outskirts.
Amid the mixed picture for electric cars, some environmentalists say that money spent on them might be better directed elsewhere.
“The economics do not make sense to push more electric vehicles onto the market” to improve the climate, said John DeCicco, a professor at the University of Michigan Energy Institute. He said that attention might be better focused on making conventional combustion engines more efficient.
“There’s a movement toward cleaner energy, but it’s not there yet,” said Hugo de Bruijn, a sustainable mobility adviser in Rotterdam. “From an energy perspective, it’s not ideal.”
This article has been updated to reflect newer figures comparing the emissions of gasoline-powered cars and electric cars in various parts of the United States, as compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Read more from this series:
China confronts the pain of kicking its coal addiction
U.S. exports its greenhouse-gas emissions — as coal. Profitable coal.
India’s huge need for electricity is a problem for the planet
1.3 billion people are living in the dark
Michael Birnbaum is The Post’s Moscow bureau chief. He previously served as the Berlin correspondent and an education reporter.
Post by: MKing on November 25, 2015, 10:18:27 AM
I wonder who has the agenda against electric cars, that they need to contrive a bad guy scenario for them?
Post by: RE on December 05, 2015, 07:49:28 AM
310 Miles on a charge, and it will charge in 15 minutes! Wirelessly! LOL.
Some Battery development is needed.
RE
http://cnnphilippines.com/lifestyle/2015/12/05/Porsche-electric-sports-car.html (http://cnnphilippines.com/lifestyle/2015/12/05/Porsche-electric-sports-car.html)
Porsche will sell electric sports car
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNN Money
Updated 16:40 PM PHT Sat, December 5, 2015
65
The four-door car, which looks like a futuristic version of today's Porsche Panamera, will be able to go 310 miles on a single charge, Porsche has boasted.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Porsche plans to offer an all-electric performance car by the end of the decade. The four-door car, which looks like a futuristic version of today's Porsche Panamera, will be able to go 310 miles on a single charge, Porsche has boasted.
The Mission E was originally unveiled at the Frankfurt Motor Show as a concept car, but the board of Volkswagen Group, Porsche's parent company, has now approved development of the car for factory production. When the car was unveiled in September, a Porsche spokesperson only said that "production of the car would be feasible within the near future."
The car is part of a bigger push by Volkswagen Group into electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. In all, the group plans to introduce 20 such vehicles by 2020, company executives have said.
It's not clear what the Volkswagen Group diesel scandal will do to those overall plans, however. Volkswagen's sales have plummeted in the U.S. and globally as a result. The company has had to set aside millions of dollars to deal with potential fines and the costs of refitting as many as 11 million diesel cars to meet emissions standards. It will need to recall 500,000 cars in the U.S. alone.
Porsche has said that the Mission E will be able to go from zero to 60 miles an hour in under 3.5 seconds. That figure has already been beaten by some versions of the Telsa Model S, though, which can leap from zero to 60 in under three seconds. The Porsche will also be able to charge wirelessly by parking over a coil embedded in a garage floor.
The car will charge quickly, too, according to Porsche, reaching 80% of a full charge in only 15 minutes, enough to drive 250 miles. Porsche executives have said that more battery development is needed, however. Porsche has not announced anything about the price of the Mission E.
CNNMoney's Alanna Petroff contributed to this report.
Post by: RE on January 01, 2016, 10:53:09 AM
RE
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-01/norwegian-car-b-q-tesla-model-s-bursts-flames-burns-crisp-while-charging (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-01/norwegian-car-b-q-tesla-model-s-bursts-flames-burns-crisp-while-charging)
Norwegian Car-B-Q: Tesla Model S Bursts Into Flames, Burns To A Crisp While Charging
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/01/2016 12:55 -0500
The Norwegian owner of a Tesla Model S found an unexpected f(i)ringe benefit during a cold Friday afternoon when shortly after he had parked his luxury electric car at a supercharging station in Gjerstad, and left, he realized the car could serve as a very quick and efficient, if quite toxic, source of heating for the cold Scandinavian country, after the Model S spontaneously burst into flames.
Nobody was injured in the incident in which the Tesla unexpectedly started burning, at which point emergency services were alerted.
By the time firefighters arrived, the car was completely ablaze.
As Norway's FVN reports, the fire department could not use water to extinguish the electric car fire, so it just let Tesla burn out completely while dousing it with foam and watching the luxury paperweight burn to a crisp.
FVN adds that the only way to extinguish electric car fire is by using water with a copper material. However, it is too costly for the Norwegian fire departments. There were more f(i)ringe benefits: according to firefighter, Steinar Olsen, it is dangerous to breathe the smoke from the fire because it has fluorine gas in it, and when an electric car burns down the toxic gases emitted are far more dangerous than those from a normal car.
As Jalopnik adds, the Model S has been involved in a handful of documented fires in the past few years, as a result of both crashes and charging, although Tesla has disagreed on the latter cause.
Photos from the scene of the incident courtesy of FVN:
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/12/tesla%20flames%200_0.jpg)
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/12/Tesla%20bursts%20into%20flames%202.jpg)
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/12/Tesla%20bursts%20into%20flames%203.jpeg)
On various previous occasions when a Model S burned down under similar circumstances, the stock price of TSLA reacted accordingly, although it always rebounded after Elon Musk soothed the market's nerves about the "one-time" nature of the Car-B-Q.
However, now that even Consumer Reports yanked its glowing endorsement of the car, the rebound may be delayed especially if the NHTSA finally wakes up and forces Musk to do another recall for a car which unexpectedly combusted just because it was being charged. One thing is certain: a recall "fixing" the battery pack would have a massive price tag attached to it, and it is possible that after years of ignoring the company's cash burn and liquidity, those two "fundamental" drivers of value will finally come back to haunt the market with a vengeance.
In other news, Chinese corporate fraudsters just came up with a new and improved excuse for misplacing their financial records: "we left it in the Tesla as it was charging and everything burned down."
Post by: RE on January 05, 2016, 01:36:27 AM
This is a sure winner. Sign me up for some stock in this company. ::)
RE
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-faraday-future-ces-20160104-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-faraday-future-ces-20160104-story.html)
Faraday Future unveils Batmobile-like electric concept car at CES
Faraday's FFZERO1 concept car was unveiled at CES in Las Vegas. (Faraday)
The wait is over.
Faraday Future, the secretive Chinese-backed Gardena automaker, finally unveiled its first concept car at CES: a sleek, silver-and-black Batmobile-esque electric vehicle called the FFZERO1.
The 1,000-horsepower car was revealed Monday night during a launch event attended by hundreds of media. It can accelerate from zero to 60 in fewer than three seconds, with a top speed of more than 200 miles-per-hour.
Richard Kim, Faraday's head of global design, called the vehicle a "high-performance electric dream car" designed to "fight ugliness."
With its single-seat configuration and, if it ever goes into limited production, almost certain sky-high price tag (executives didn't comment on financials), the FFZERO1 concept car won't become ubiquitous anytime soon.
Nick Sampson, Faraday's senior vice president of research and development and product development, noted that when Faraday does release its first production car to market in a couple of years, it will be something more approachable. The car might be a sedan or maybe an SUV, although he noted that it will start out as a premium product, with a premium price.
Over time, Faraday would like to produce a car that is more affordable, he said.
Although a production vehicle is still a ways out, Faraday has generated significant buzz since its inception 18 months ago. In that time, it has grown to 750 employees worldwide and recently announced that it would build its first manufacturing facility in North Las Vegas.
Faraday will break ground on that site in the next few weeks; when it is completed, it will be 3 million square feet and house 4,500 workers.
Faraday's mission, Sampson said, is "a complete rethink of what mobility means." It wants to bring a speedier, technology-driven focus to car-making modeled after the innovations coming out of Silicon Valley.
"We must anticipate the future and act upon it with speed, decisiveness and a willingness to be more like a technology company rather than an automotive company," Sampson said. "We have a very transformative vision."
The hype surrounding the company has also led to speculation that it could become a real rival to Tesla. Faraday execs appeared to welcome those comparisons, and took a few gentle jabs at the fellow SoCal automaker.
"Tesla and Elon Musk have created something incredible and we should applaud them for it," Sampson, who formerly worked at Tesla, said. But he noted it took Tesla nine years to develop its first mass-market production vehicle, while Faraday is moving at a much faster rate, from rapidly scaling up its workforce to attempting to roll out a car in a couple of years.
And he was quick to point out that Faraday has hired several employees who used to work at Tesla, Apple, Google and BMW.
Post by: agelbert on January 05, 2016, 01:10:53 PM
Chinese-backed and their first plant will be in...get this... LAS VEGAS! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This is a sure winner. Sign me up for some stock in this company. ::)
RE
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-faraday-future-ces-20160104-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-faraday-future-ces-20160104-story.html)
Faraday Future unveils Batmobile-like electric concept car at CES(http://www.trbimg.com/img-568b6cb6/turbine/la-fi-tn-faraday-future-ces-20160104-001/750/750x422)Andrea ChangAndrea ChangContact Reporter
Faraday's FFZERO1 concept car was unveiled at CES in Las Vegas. (Faraday)
The wait is over.
Faraday Future, the secretive Chinese-backed Gardena automaker, finally unveiled its first concept car at CES: a sleek, silver-and-black Batmobile-esque electric vehicle called the FFZERO1.
The 1,000-horsepower car was revealed Monday night during a launch event attended by hundreds of media. It can accelerate from zero to 60 in fewer than three seconds, with a top speed of more than 200 miles-per-hour.
Richard Kim, Faraday's head of global design, called the vehicle a "high-performance electric dream car" designed to "fight ugliness."
With its single-seat configuration and, if it ever goes into limited production, almost certain sky-high price tag (executives didn't comment on financials), the FFZERO1 concept car won't become ubiquitous anytime soon.
Nick Sampson, Faraday's senior vice president of research and development and product development, noted that when Faraday does release its first production car to market in a couple of years, it will be something more approachable. The car might be a sedan or maybe an SUV, although he noted that it will start out as a premium product, with a premium price.
Over time, Faraday would like to produce a car that is more affordable, he said.
Although a production vehicle is still a ways out, Faraday has generated significant buzz since its inception 18 months ago. In that time, it has grown to 750 employees worldwide and recently announced that it would build its first manufacturing facility in North Las Vegas.
Faraday will break ground on that site in the next few weeks; when it is completed, it will be 3 million square feet and house 4,500 workers.
Faraday's mission, Sampson said, is "a complete rethink of what mobility means." It wants to bring a speedier, technology-driven focus to car-making modeled after the innovations coming out of Silicon Valley.
"We must anticipate the future and act upon it with speed, decisiveness and a willingness to be more like a technology company rather than an automotive company," Sampson said. "We have a very transformative vision."
The hype surrounding the company has also led to speculation that it could become a real rival to Tesla. Faraday execs appeared to welcome those comparisons, and took a few gentle jabs at the fellow SoCal automaker.
"Tesla and Elon Musk have created something incredible and we should applaud them for it," Sampson, who formerly worked at Tesla, said. But he noted it took Tesla nine years to develop its first mass-market production vehicle, while Faraday is moving at a much faster rate, from rapidly scaling up its workforce to attempting to roll out a car in a couple of years.
And he was quick to point out that Faraday has hired several employees who used to work at Tesla, Apple, Google and BMW.
Post by: azozeo on January 05, 2016, 01:54:53 PM
Post by: RE on January 19, 2016, 05:21:04 PM
RE
https://www.atlantic.net/blog/how-elon-musk-ceo-of-telsa-motors-stole-my-car/ (https://www.atlantic.net/blog/how-elon-musk-ceo-of-telsa-motors-stole-my-car/)
How Elon Musk Stole My Car
Marty
January 14, 2016 by Marty (1 posts) under Uncategorized
34 Comments
3015
This was my personal experience with Tesla Motors. I’m a fan of what Tesla Motors is trying to accomplish, and hope they get their issues worked out.
With a new baby on the way, I was in the market for a new vehicle. I scheduled a test-drive with Tesla Motors (Tesla) in mid-November, and was on the fence about purchasing a Tesla. I had some questions which I emailed my test-drive consultant, but didn’t receive any response and I wasn’t particularly in love with the car, so I let it go.
A few weeks later, I was talking to a friend of mine who had just leased a Tesla. I explained my experience, and how I felt the price of the car was too high for what it is. While Tesla doesn’t offer discount cars, he explained there is a way to pay less. Tesla has what are referred to as “inventory cars”. These are cars used for test drives, showrooms, as well as loaners. They do have mileage, you have to take them “as is”, and there is no custom configuration. But, if you can find one to your liking you can get a pretty big discount. He recommended I speak with his Owner Advisor, Kevin, and he connected me with him.
Tesla doesn’t have a traditional dealership network; it is pioneering the luxury electric vehicle (EV) segment, and pioneering selling cars without traditional dealerships. That means it operates its service centers, and showrooms itself. By unifying this process it should give a better experience to it customers. Kevin, the Owner Advisor (salesperson) I was referred to, is based out of Tesla HQ in Palo Alto, California.
After working with Kevin for a few weeks, I was able to find a car that met my needs in Pasadena, California. On December 24, I placed my order with Kevin by paying $4,000 as a deposit. Kevin assured me that this secured the vehicle for me, and that it was marked as sold and unavailable for anyone else to sell. I followed up with him the next week, and he said they were just trying to find a carrier to ship the car to Florida, and I should begin working with my Delivery Specialists.
(Above, the confirmation screen with VIN of the Tesla Model S Elon Musk is driving)
Tesla has Delivery Orientation Specialists and Delivery Experience Specialists who work to help you through the process of getting the car. In my case, it was Caroline and Chelsea. Caroline explained to me that typically it takes a week to get the car, but because it was late in the year it might take up to two weeks, with the latest delivery date being Jan 8. She also explained that there was no way to get the car by the end of 2015. This made sense, because as a public company, Tesla was striving to meet its delivery commitments to its shareholders. By prioritizing deliveries of cars that could actually be delivered before the end of 2015, they could meet their quotas, and then deliver cars (like mine) early in 2016. Because I wanted to support Tesla, I didn’t think much of anything when I didn’t hear from anyone from that point on.
The week of what I thought would be my expected delivery, my electrician was calling to schedule the installation of my additional power receptacle in my garage. We had agreed to do it once I got the car. I began calling my local Tesla location and choosing the “New Vehicle Delivery” option, but it would only ring and go to a voicemail that hadn’t been set up. I called repeatedly and no one would answer. Frustrated, I called and chose the “sales” option and spoke with an representative there that took my message and assured me someone would call me back. Still, I got no calls back. Since the car was coming by January 8, I was starting to get concerned. I had to coordinate the car, the power installation, disposing of my old car in a sequence of events that I couldn’t start until I knew when I would get the car.
By Wednesday, I was emailing my delivery specialist and calling. I didn’t know what was going on. By Thursday I was showing people at work how they don’t answer the phone or respond to my email. I was very concerned that I was paying over $100k for a car, and if this was the new sales process how terrible would the service be? Should I just cancel? How could I cancel if no one would even talk or communicate with me? Was there a problem in transit? Basically, I was stuck and frustrated, plus I had already paid for a deposit which covered the non-refundable transportation cost.
Exasperated, I called the local Tesla dealer again. This time, no one answered and my call was transferred to Tesla HQ. The representative asked for the 6-six digits of my vehicle VIN. Tesla offers a “my Tesla” portion of their site that new buyers login in to, to sign electronic paperwork, upload copies of driver’s licenses as well as proof of insurance. In addition, it shows a model of the car and some advice on how to power it. Most importantly, after you make your initial payment, the reservation number for your car is replaced with a VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) which signifies the specific car which is allocated to you. This is done shortly after you send in your initial payment. Therefore, I was able to provide my VIN information to the Tesla representative, who promised me Kevin my original Owner Advisor would call me back.
On the evening of January 7, the day before I was to receive my car, Kevin called me to explain he had a call in with the Office of the CEO at Tesla and was working with his team in Tesla to resolve a problem that had come up — their CEO, Elon Musk, had taken my car and was using it as his personal vehicle to test a new version of autopilot. Even worse, he said he could see all the calls I had made into the Orlando delivery center this past week, and no one was taking my calls because no one knew what to do.
Tesla logs every in-bound call to their centers, and stores all of this in a national database. This is most likely tied into a CRM (Customer Relationship Management) system, to provide better service. So, for example, Kevin in California saw detailed records of all my attempts to connect with someone in Orlando. Since no one knew what to do, they were deliberately avoiding taking my calls or communicating with me.
I was floored. Not only because my car had been taken by their CEO, not only that no one bothered to reach out or communicate with me, but they were actively trying to avoid me. I called and reached Kevin again on the evening of Jan 8. He explained my original car was so aftermarket at this point there was no way I would get it. Kevin began suggesting a different car that didn’t match what I was looking for, then suggested another car for $20k more.
Frustrated, I called Tesla HQ to complain, and requested to speak to someone in the Office of CEO. The person answering wanted to know why, so I explained the situation and was transferred to a Ms. Kloskey (sp?). As was typical with Tesla, not only did she not answer, her voicemail was full so I couldn’t leave a message. I hung up and called back, and reached a representative who I explained my situation to, and requested escalation to someone who could make things right. The representative took my message, and said he would forward it to the appropriate person.
I received a call back from Kevin, who explained he had gotten the memo that I called. Once again, I couldn’t penetrate Tesla’s screening system to find someone who cared, empathized, or treated me like a human. I could only speak with Kevin who was unhappy that they didn’t give me the right experience.
Tesla has a strange way of communicating with customers I think is best described as customer service vaporware. That is, they spend more time trying to create the illusion of customer service, rather than actually providing it. There is no mechanism for them to get feedback, as I tried to provide, so its difficult to see how they can improve if they don’t know where they are going wrong.
Tesla is pioneering two things at once, (a) a luxury full-EV segment for passenger vehicles, and (b) bypassing the traditional dealer network and selling directly to consumers. Since I never got my car, I can’t speak to (a). But, because (b) is so horribly broken, I don’t think (a) can succeed. My concern is if Tesla fails the experiment of directly selling cars to consumers may be considered a failure, when in reality it was tremendous missteps on Teslas part that caused it to not work. Right now, Tesla ships low volumes of cars to early adopters and ardent enthusiasts who will overlook the organizations short-comings. But I think launching a higher volume (Model 3) sedan later this year with their current organization will be watching a slow-motion train wreck.
Thought questions for Tesla:
Why was Elon Musk (CEO of the company) allowed to take a car that was marked in their system as sold?
When Tesla employees became aware of what happened, why didn’t they reach out to me? How did no one involved think of the customer?
Even worse, why did Tesla employees actively work to avoid my calls and email?
If Tesla is logging interactions with their customers (like phone-calls) to a national database, why didn’t they notice that someone was calling in and only getting voicemail. Shouldn’t this be a red-flag, or shouldn’t someone at Telsa HQ be reaching out to find out why/whats going on/why someone keeps calling so often?
The only person who communicated with me (in the end) was Kevin. At no point did he ever apologize or ask how to make things right. He only communicated he was disappointed and not the experience Tesla wanted to provide. (He did apologize for “handing this incorrectly”, but I think this was in regards to my requesting my money back). What is the escalation policy here?
I tried three times to communicate with Tesla HQ, the first on their post test-drive e-mail form which they automatically send. I wrote constructive criticism and didn’t get any follow up. As detailed in my experience here, I called the Tesla HQ twice and was unable to reach anyone that cared or could help me.
In the end, I cancelled my order and Tesla agreed to refund my money. If a tech-savvy $100k car buyer can have this experience, what hope is there for this organization to go mainstream? Tesla is a publicly traded company that loses money. So, strictly speaking, it doesn’t need customers as long as it can fund its losses via Wall Street. In my experience, its a hobby masquerading as a company, and it can probably run as a hobbyist organization for some time. But, at some point, customers will matter, they always do. Hopefully, if this posts reaches the right people in Tesla it will serve as a wake-up call to right their ways before its too late.
In 21 years as a founder/CEO of my own company, dealing with Tesla has been the most bizarre and strange experience I’ve had interacting with another organization.
Note: There were many other errors, selling me a Ludicrous upgrade which didn’t apply to my car, Tesla endorsed electricians not familiar with Tesla, dual charger availability issues, etc. My experience regarding these issues may have been affected by their employees trying to avoid me.
Post by: MKing on January 19, 2016, 06:49:38 PM
(http://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2014/07/22/11/46/2015_ford_fusion_energi-pic-9183533524634360164-640x480.jpeg)
Post by: RE on January 28, 2016, 12:28:29 AM
RE
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2016/01/28/Delorean-car-going-back-into-production/1251453957820/ (http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2016/01/28/Delorean-car-going-back-into-production/1251453957820/)
Delorean car going back into production
By Shawn Price | Jan. 28, 2016 at 1:28 AM
The famed Delorean car will be coming back into production for the first time since 1982 and will be made in the U.S., the company's CEO said. The first cars are expected to roll off the production line in 2017. Photo by Irina Afonskaya/Shutterstock.
HOUSTON, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- The famous Delorean car will soon be back in production and made on U.S. soil, the company CEO said.
The car's revival was bought to life by the "low volume manufacturing bill" just passed in congress for the now-Texas-based company. It will be the first time the car -- often viewed as the time machine in the Back to the Future movies -- will be produced since 1982.
Delorean Motor Company CEO Stephen Wynne told Houston TV station KPRC "It's fantastic! It is a game changer for us. We've been wanting this to happen. It means we're back as a car company again."
Wynne is a mechanic who specializes in Deloreans, and since buying the rights to the defunct company in 1995, has sold parts and refurbished models from his Humble, Texas shop.
The original car was made in Northern Ireland from 1976 to 1982, but these "new" Deloreans will be the first manufactured in the United States. And Wynne intends to keep the iconic look, gull-wing doors included.
"There's no reason to change the appearance of the car," he told KPRC. "As we go into the program, we'll decide what areas need to be freshened up."
His refurbished models cost between $45,000-$55,000. But the "new" models will probably sell for just under $100,000 depending on the engine used.
Wynne plans to produce about 300 cars, rolling out one car a week beginning in early 2017.
Post by: RE on January 28, 2016, 12:48:46 AM
RE ::)
http://www.slashgear.com/watch-2-4-million-aston-martin-vulcans-fiery-wrath-27424553/ (http://www.slashgear.com/watch-2-4-million-aston-martin-vulcans-fiery-wrath-27424553/)
Post by: RE on March 28, 2016, 06:31:12 AM
EPIC FAIL!
RE
http://qz.com/648506/after-the-tesla-model-3-launches-this-week-the-world-will-know-if-elon-musk-called-the-electric-car-future-correctly/?utm_source=YPL (http://qz.com/648506/after-the-tesla-model-3-launches-this-week-the-world-will-know-if-elon-musk-called-the-electric-car-future-correctly/?utm_source=YPL)
After the Tesla Model 3 launches this week, the world will know if Elon Musk called the electric-car future correctly
Written by
Steve LeVine
It is Elon Musk’s moment of truth.
Over the last dozen years, the serial entrepreneur and inventor has built a buzzing fervor from Wall Street to Silicon Valley by accomplishing the improbable—erecting a globe-spanning automobile company from scratch. His Tesla Motors is the only such success in at least a half-century. In that time, scores of automaking ventures with global ambition have brightly launched, only to stall, fail, and, in the best cases, get picked over at pennies on the dollar. Tesla is still going, though, stylishly and single-handedly validating the commerciality of electric cars along the way.
Only, this achievement isn’t what drove Musk into autos. Back in 2004, when he became Tesla’s primary investor and chairman, his objective wasn’t to build cool cars, or even cool electric cars. It was to trigger the birth of a new, mainstream industry—to bring electric cars to the masses. Musk saw and continues to see electrics as a crucial part of a solution to climate change.
Despite being chronically late to deliver his cars, Musk has attracted a fanatical base of owners: mainly rich, green-minded clients who wish to make a statement, whether politically, aesthetically, or both. It’s a decidedly limited group. Last year, Tesla sold about 51,000 cars. Musk hopes to deliver another 93,000 vehicles this year, which, while an impressive jump, isn’t quite there if you’re thinking like a big carmaker: It would equal a mere 4% of the approximately 1.9 million cars sold in 2015 by both BMW and Mercedes, elegant brands that Musk regards as his true competition. It is not an industry, and Musk knows it....
read the rest at quartz
Post by: RE on June 10, 2016, 07:41:53 PM
RE
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/business/tesla-motors-model-s-suspension.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/business/tesla-motors-model-s-suspension.html?_r=0)
For Tesla Owner, Losing a Wheel Was Just the First Surprise
By NEAL E. BOUDETTE and ANNALYN KURTZJUNE 10, 2016
A Tesla Model S. Tesla said any suggestion that it was trying to keep owners from reporting safety problems “is preposterous.” Credit Michael Nagle for The New York Times
Pete Cordaro was creeping down a dirt road in his 2013 Tesla Model S electric car, on a Sunday outing with his wife to hunt mushrooms in the Pennsylvania woods, when he encountered a pothole and then heard a loud crack.
“The front of the car just dropped,” he said. “The left front wheel just detached from the car.”
When Tesla picked up his car, Mr. Cordaro was at first told he would have to pay for the repairs because they were from normal wear. After pressing his case with a Tesla manager, he was told the company would pay part of the cost — as long as he signed a nondisclosure agreement.
Neither the equipment breakdown nor the confidentiality demand turned out to be an isolated case. And now they have Tesla Motors on the defensive.
After the nation’s top auto safety regulator raised questions about reports of suspension problems with the Model S, Tesla declared in a blog post on Friday that the suspension system had no safety defects. But what set the case apart from other auto safety episodes was the introduction of a nondisclosure agreement into the relationship between car owner and automaker — an unusual practice by an unconventional company whose founder, Elon Musk, has roots in Silicon Valley, not Detroit.
The company acknowledged having had car owners sign such agreements, and said it did so to protect itself from potential lawsuits after performing a repair at a discount or at no charge.
But the practice has raised concerns that it could prevent owners from reporting safety problems to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which called Tesla’s use of such agreements “troublesome,” and told the company not to use terms that dissuade people from reporting safety concerns to the agency.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
Tesla Model S Suspension Failures Under Scrutiny by Safety Agency JUNE 9, 2016
Tesla to Sell $2 Billion in Shares to Bolster Model 3 Output MAY 18, 2016
Tesla Says It Will Sharply Ramp Up Production of Model 3 MAY 4, 2016
Tesla Recalls Model X S.U.V.s APRIL 11, 2016
Tesla Model 3 Orders Surge Even Before Its Unveiling APRIL 1, 2016
On Friday, a Tesla spokeswoman said in an email that “to remove any doubt,” the automaker would modify the language of the documents to make clear that the goal “is to benefit customers, while not harming us for doing a good deed.” She did not elaborate on how it would be changed.
The safety agency said in a statement that the changes were satisfactory, without elaborating. It described its review of the Model S suspension as “a routine data collection,” adding that it had not found any safety issues so far and that Tesla was cooperating.
In agreements like the one Mr. Cordaro signed, Tesla refers to the repairs as a “gesture of good will,” made without “any admission of liability or wrongdoing or acceptance of any facts.”
That statement alone is uncontroversial. It is standard legalese protecting Tesla from admitting any wrongdoing by way of making a repair, said David Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University and a former director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
But he said two other provisions in the contract were problematic in that they seemed to muzzle consumers: asking car owners to waive the right to future legal action and to keep the entire incident confidential.
“You agree to keep confidential our provision of the good will, the terms of this agreement and the incidents or claims leading or related to our provision of the good will,” the Tesla document said.
Tesla said it was “preposterous” to suggest that it was trying to prevent owners from reporting safety problems to N.H.T.S.A. or any other government agency. But Mr. Vladeck said that distinction was unimportant. “Most reasonable consumers would interpret this as a provision prohibiting them from talking to anyone, including government or lawyers or anybody else,” he said.
Tesla was founded in 2003 with the idea of establishing battery-powered cars as a viable emissions-free replacement for the internal combustion engine, and challenging many auto industry conventions. It sells cars directly to customers without franchised dealers, a practice that has led to legal battles in several states.
The company is also building a gigantic battery factory in Nevada and often announces news in Twitter posts by Mr. Musk.
The use of nondisclosure agreements with customers appears to be highly unusual in the auto industry. Ford, General Motors and Toyota all said they did not have customers sign confidentiality agreements in exchange for fixing cars that have broken down.
Joan Claybrook, a former head of N.H.T.S.A., said requiring customers to keep quiet about repairs aroused suspicion. “I don’t know why they’d do that,” she said. “It makes it seem like they want to cover something up.”
Representative Leonard Lance, Republican of New Jersey, introduced legislation in Congress in April that would prevent companies from including nondisclosure clauses in consumer contracts. California, where Tesla is based, enacted a similar law in 2014.
News of Mr. Cordaro’s breakdown and the nondisclosure agreement he signed was trumpeted by auto bloggers tracking suspension problems in the Model S, a luxury sedan whose pricing starts at about $70,000.
The N.H.T.S.A. website lists 33 complaints received since October about suspension failures in the car, Tesla’s top-selling model.
Mr. Cordaro, an auto enthusiast who used to make hot rod cars, said Friday that he did not think the agreement barred him from talking to the safety agency or anyone else about the breakdown his car suffered in late April. When he reviewed it, Mr. Cordaro concluded that “it was basically toothless,” he said. “It only keeps me from talking about the costs and filing a lawsuit.”
In fact, he posted a short video on YouTube showing the broken ball joint from his car.
Tesla failed control arm and ball joint Video by Pete Cordaro
Once his car was repaired and returned, he filed details of his suspension issue with the safety agency, and a few weeks later got the broken ball joint from Tesla and sent it on to N.H.T.S.A.
But he was nevertheless upset with how Tesla has dealt with what he thinks could pose a serious safety concern. “If it had happened on the highway, it could have been catastrophic,” Mr. Cordaro, 61, said by phone while driving his Model S.
The owner of a vending machine company in Connellsville, Pa., about 50 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, he said he was a Tesla fan and had already put down deposits to buy two Model 3 compacts when they come out in a year or so. “I just want them to look into this and do the right thing,” he said.
Mr. Cordaro said he was further annoyed because Tesla, in its blog post about the Model S suspension and confidentiality agreements, suggested his breakdown had resulted from hard driving.
The company said he lived on a long dirt road and noted that his car was “caked with mud” when it was picked up — information that Mr. Cordaro called “a fabrication.”
“I wasn’t out four-wheeling in the car,” he said. “I live on an asphalt road and have maybe driven on dirt roads 10 times.”
A Tesla spokeswoman said the company was looking into the matter.
Post by: RE on September 01, 2016, 01:02:10 AM
RE
Tesla plans to raise funds this year to tackle cash crunch
People visit a Tesla Model S car during the Auto China 2016 in Beijing, China, April 25, 2016. REUTERS/Jason Lee/File Photo
Facing a severe cash crunch, Tesla Motors Inc plans to raise additional money this year to help fund development and production of its new Model 3 sedan and build out a massive battery factory, the company said on Wednesday.
The electric carmaker plans to raise money through an equity or debt offering, it said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Some of that money could also support Tesla's planned acquisition of its money-losing sister company, SolarCity Corp.
Tesla Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk had warned the combined companies might need "a small equity capital raise" in 2017. Musk is the major shareholder in both firms.
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads
Tesla's cash situation has taken on additional urgency with the $2.6 billion SolarCity deal announced on Aug. 1.
Musk also said on Wednesday that Tesla plans to release an update of its partly automated self-driving system "in a few weeks." U.S. regulators are probing a May 7 fatality in Florida in which a driver using Tesla's Autopilot system crashed into a truck.
The timing of the SEC filing on Tesla's fundraising plans "reinforces the need for SolarCity to have quick access to capital," Barclays analyst Brian Johnson said.
The document also disclosed that Musk discussed a potential Tesla-SolarCity merger in February with SolarCity's CEO, Lyndon Rive, who is also Musk's cousin. At a subsequent special meeting on Feb. 29, the Tesla board rejected a proposal to evaluate a merger, according to the filing. On May 31, the Tesla board changed course and decided to pursue the merger.
In the meantime, Tesla's cash position has deteriorated, despite a $1.7 billion equity raise on May 19.
Earlier this month, Tesla said it closed the second quarter with nearly $3.25 billion in cash, but in July it repaid $678 million on a revolving credit line and planned to redeem $422 million in convertible notes.
Also In Technology News
White nationalists use Twitter with 'relative impunity': report
SolarCity advisor Lazard made mistake in deal with Tesla
U.S. tax code may allow dramatic retaliation in EU Apple case
Samsung shares hit over Galaxy Note delays, battery explosion claims
That would leave the company with $2.15 billion in cash. But it also told analysts earlier this year it planned to spend $1.75 billion in the second half on plants and equipment, primarily to get the $35,000 Model 3 ready for production next year and finish construction at the Reno, Nevada, "gigafactory."
As a result, Tesla would have around $400 million in cash at a time when both Tesla and SolarCity have been burning through cash.
Tesla has posted operating losses in 14 straight quarters and negative cash flow since early 2014.
(Reporting by Paul Lienert in Detroit; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe and Matthew Lewis)
Post by: RE on November 15, 2016, 06:50:48 PM
Work stops at electric-car factory site outside Las Vegas
Posted: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:37 pm | Updated: 6:46 pm, Tue Nov 15, 2016.
Associated Press | 0 comments
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Work has been suspended at a site outside Las Vegas where Nevada has pledged up to $335 million worth of incentives to an upstart electric car company that promises to have a vehicle still on the drawing board rolling off a new $1 billion assembly line in 2018.
The idling of the Faraday Future project at the Apex Industrial Park site in North Las Vegas was characterized by company spokesman Ezekiel Wheeler as a "temporary adjustment, or a work stop."
CCBA1115
Wheeler said hitting pause will let the company direct money and attention to developing the concept car it wants to present at the big Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January.
"Our refocusing is to ensure we bring a cutting-edge vehicle to a very dated system ... and show the world what we're capable of," Wheeler said.
"We want to fully fulfill our promise to the state of Nevada" for the 3 million-square-foot facility, he added.
The contractor, industrial construction firm AECOM, said it has completed grading and foundation work, and it expects the go-ahead to resume construction next year.
"At this time, Faraday Future is temporarily adjusting their construction schedule with plans to resume in early 2017," AECOM spokesman Brendan Ranson-Walsh said in an email statement. "We remain fully committed to our client and our employees working on this project, and we look forward to the facility's successful delivery."
Gov. Brian Sandoval called Nevada lawmakers to a special Legislative session 11 months ago to approve $215 million in tax breaks and $120 million in infrastructure improvements to attract Gardena, California-based Faraday Future to the North Las Vegas site.
In a statement, Steve Hill, chief of the Governor's Office of Economic Development, vowed Tuesday that the state will be protected "in the event the full factory does not open to produce and sell cars."
"Faraday Future does not earn abatements until they have invested $1 billion on the site," Hill said, and the state won't issue bonds to fund infrastructure until the company "provides security equal to the amount of the bonds."
Bond funding isn't expected to occur until next at least September, Hill added, and it will need approval by the state Board of Finance. The five-member board is chaired by the governor and includes state Treasurer Dan Schwartz, Controller Ron Knecht and two appointed members.
Schwartz has been a critic from the start of the Faraday Future project relying on what he called "financing by a mysterious Chinese billionaire for a project in a financially challenged municipality."
Schwartz said he remains skeptical the project will succeed. "I think he's out of money," Schwartz said of Chinese entrepreneur Jia Yueting, the financial backer of the electric car effort.
Wheeler and Hill each acknowledged that Jia has faced questions about the sustainability of a swift business expansion aimed at attracting U.S. customers. One of Jia's Chinese companies, LeEco, unveiled a sleek smartphone last month to compete with Apple's latest iPhone and Google's Pixel phone.
In July, LeEco announced it was buying Vizio, a leading North American brand for smart TV and sound bar sales.
"We understand his rapid growth ... (and) questions about overexpansion and cash issues," Wheeler said.
But Hill, the Faraday Future official, insisted the electric car project is a top Jia priority. "LeEco has announced that it will become more disciplined in the management of its enterprises," he said.
Post by: azozeo on January 18, 2017, 02:24:21 AM
Post by: azozeo on January 18, 2017, 02:38:57 AM
Post by: azozeo on January 18, 2017, 02:43:51 AM
Post by: azozeo on January 18, 2017, 03:56:36 AM
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/airbus-test-flying-car/ (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/airbus-test-flying-car/)
http://www.itnews.com.au/news/airbus-could-have-self-flying-car-prototype-by-end-of-year-447752 (http://www.itnews.com.au/news/airbus-could-have-self-flying-car-prototype-by-end-of-year-447752)
Post by: Eddie on January 18, 2017, 05:46:43 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/RJ4GQ_GfIWw&fs=1
They're marketing to LD and GM and that generation. Slick ad.
Post by: RE on January 18, 2017, 10:53:48 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/RJ4GQ_GfIWw&fs=1
They're marketing to LD and GM and that generation. Slick ad.
At their current prices, I don't think they will successfully sell one to LD & GM no matter how slick the ad.
RE
Post by: Eddie on January 18, 2017, 10:55:22 AM
Post by: RE on January 18, 2017, 11:26:56 AM
I meant that generation, not those particular individuals. With enough debt, all things are possible. Right?
If that were true, Elon Musk would have sold a lot more than 150,000 Teslas in 8 years.
RE
Post by: Eddie on January 18, 2017, 11:49:16 AM
I personally wouldn't spend that kind of money for any car, ever. Not even if I were a billionaire. But people obviously do. I see them here around town. Tech millionaires (and a few billionaires) with money to burn and a desire to impress somebody or prove something. Humans are often motivated by seeking status, and that means different things to different people (and different ethnicities).
Post by: RE on January 18, 2017, 12:13:38 PM
Several years back, when I was traveling to San Francisco a lot, I remember walking down Van Ness and peering in the window of a Lamborghini dealership. The cars were displayed with the prices clearly marked in large font. As I recall, the entry level model was $254,000. I wondered if they had 30 year mortgages to finance the purchase. That was maybe 15 years ago. LOL.
I personally wouldn't spend that kind of money for any car, ever. Not even if I were a billionaire. But people obviously do. I see them here around town. Tech millionaires (and a few billionaires) with money to burn and a desire to impress somebody or prove something. Humans are often motivated by seeking status, and that means different things to different people (and different ethnicities).
If you're a Billionaire, $254,000 is pocket change. If you like to drive fast, you buy a Lamborghini. After you wreck it, you buy a new one. If you like to ride in sumptuous luxury, you buy a Rolls-Royce.
To you, a Lamboghini is as far out of reach as a new Chevy Volt is for me. I would never spend the money for a Volt. I can get perfectly good cars for $2000.
For the outrageously rich, these are not costly items. Private Jets start to cost real money.
RE
Post by: azozeo on January 18, 2017, 02:30:19 PM
The 134 mile range will attract many new millennial aged buyers at that price.
I'm guessing the base model VW "Buzz" will come in around $39,995 to $44,995 next year when its released.
The eGOLF is mfg. in Dressden...
http://www.youtube.com/v/Lc-p4RYymJM&fs=1
Post by: Eddie on January 18, 2017, 02:40:36 PM
40K for that bus sounds low to me, but it would be a really good price.
Post by: RE on January 18, 2017, 03:04:39 PM
I just visited VW's website & the 2017 SE Model eGOLF starts at $28,995.
The 134 mile range will attract many new millennial aged buyers at that price.
Yes, I am sure that at a Starbucks Barrista salary, they will jut be flying off the lot. ::)
RE
Post by: RE on January 18, 2017, 03:44:56 PM
I just visited VW's website & the 2017 SE Model eGOLF starts at $28,995.
The 134 mile range will attract many new millennial aged buyers at that price.
Yes, I am sure that at a Starbucks Barrista salary, they will just be flying off the lot. ::)
RE
Post by: RE on January 19, 2017, 02:51:12 PM
I originally went on Monday to do this, forgetting it was MLK Day. In a snowstorm that went through Tuesday. I left Wednesday for the Plowboys to get all the roads cleared and holed up in the digs.
In the intervening 2 days, an extreme cold front moved through, bring the temps down to the Negative Teens Farenheit. I went out to start my car, dead as a doornail. I tried the other car. Also DOA. I'm going to go out in a few minutes to put a trickle charger on one of them and hopefully get it to start later today or tomorrow the latest. I'm waiting right now for my fingers to unfreeze before braving the cold again.
Now tell me, HTF will an EV work in this kind of cold? If your batts won't even START your car's ICE motor, they're going to be able to drive it around town when it is -15F?
RE
Post by: Eddie on January 19, 2017, 03:10:39 PM
Post by: RE on January 19, 2017, 03:15:35 PM
It might work better if you park it inside.
Nice idea, but the door is not big enough.
RE
Post by: RE on January 19, 2017, 03:46:27 PM
Getting the car started by tomorrow is CRITICAL, as I only stocked up enough beer and cancerettes to get me through to today, expecting I would travel into Palmer today and would restock from there. I am now rationing beer and smokes to make it through until tomorrow if necessary.
An alternative would be to try to ride the Ewz over to 3 Bears, but the snow isn't that well packed down yet and besides I would be an Ice Cube by the time I made it to 3 Bears, even if I fully SUIT UP for the cold.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HCBqjngZLMc/hqdefault.jpg)
RE
Post by: azozeo on January 19, 2017, 04:29:07 PM
I planned to make the trip into Palmer today to fire off the letter to Medicaid and to pick up my Medical Records from the Docs office who retired on New Years. The office is open through this month for patients to get their records.
I originally went on Monday to do this, forgetting it was MLK Day. In a snowstorm that went through Tuesday. I left Wednesday for the Plowboys to get all the roads cleared and holed up in the digs.
In the intervening 2 days, an extreme cold front moved through, bring the temps down to the Negative Teens Farenheit. I went out to start my car, dead as a doornail. I tried the other car. Also DOA. I'm going to go out in a few minutes to put a trickle charger on one of them and hopefully get it to start later today or tomorrow the latest. I'm waiting right now for my fingers to unfreeze before braving the cold again.
Now tell me, HTF will an EV work in this kind of cold? If your batts won't even START your car's ICE motor, they're going to be able to drive it around town when it is -15F?
RE
Leave it to the Germans, they're shit rolls in sub-zero temps.
As far as the Asian plastic wind-up crap goes, Y.O.Y.O. ::)
Post by: azozeo on January 19, 2017, 04:33:28 PM
OK, Nanook of the North RE is now back inside again after braving the frigid midwinter Alaska COLD to get a trickle charger running through the cigarette lighter DC Outlet on his 30 year old Mazda MPV to hopefully boost it into life sometime later today. Trying to open the hood to throw the big charger directly on the batt is too much of a chore in this kind of cold. Even in just the 5 minutes I was outside again on this one my fingers and toes froze up AGAIN, and I am waiting for them to thaw again now.
Getting the car started by tomorrow is CRITICAL, as I only stocked up enough beer and cancerettes to get me through to today, expecting I would travel into Palmer today and would restock from there. I am now rationing beer and smokes to make it through until tomorrow if necessary.
An alternative would be to try to ride the Ewz over to 3 Bears, but the snow isn't that well packed down yet and besides I would be an Ice Cube by the time I made it to 3 Bears, even if I fully SUIT UP for the cold.RE Nanook Goes on a Beer Run
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HCBqjngZLMc/hqdefault.jpg)
RE
Hire a cabbie.....
http://www.youtube.com/v/BV7AfWxKxyQ&fs=1
Post by: RE on January 19, 2017, 04:42:35 PM
Leave it to the Germans, they're shit rolls in sub-zero temps.
I'll let you know when I see an Electric Mercedes or even a Tesla running around here in mid winter. So far, it's a Goose Egg.
RE
Post by: RE on January 19, 2017, 04:47:44 PM
Hire a cabbie.....
That would considerably up the cost of my beer bill.
RE
Post by: RE on March 26, 2017, 12:16:41 AM
RE
https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/25/uber-self-driving-test-car-involved-in-crash-in-arizona/
Uber self-driving test car involved in crash in Arizona
Posted 19 hours ago by Natasha Lomas (@riptari)
More bad news for Uber: one of the ride-hailing giant’s self-driving Volvo SUVs has been involved in a crash in Arizona — apparently leaving the vehicle flipped onto its side, and with damage to at least two other human-driven cars in the vicinity.
The aftermath of the accident is pictured in photos and a video posted to Twitter by a user of @FrescoNews, a service for selling content to news outlets. According to the company’s tweets, the collision happened in Tempe, Arizona, and no injuries have yet been reported.
Uber has also confirmed the accident and the veracity of the photos to Bloomberg. We’ve reached out to the company with questions and will update this story with any response. Update: Uber has now provided us with the following statement: “We are continuing to look into this incident and can confirm we had no backseat passengers in the vehicle.”
TechCrunch understands Uber’s self-driving fleet in Arizona has been grounded, following the incident, while an investigation is undertaken. The company has confirmed the vehicle involved in the incident was in self-driving mode. We’re told no one was seriously injured.
Local newspaper reports suggest another car failed to yield to Uber’s SUV, hitting it and resulting in the autonomous vehicle flipping onto its side. Presumably the Uber driver was unable to take over the controls in time to prevent the accident.
The third-gen self-driving test cars were redeployed to Arizona from San Francisco in December, after Uber refused to bend to California regulators’ will and seek a permit for testing autonomous driving in the state. It claimed it does not need the permit as all its self-driving test vehicles have a human driver in them too.
Arizona state Governor Doug Ducey tweeted at the time that the region welcomed “this kind of technology & innovation”. Ducey does not as yet appear to have made any public statements regarding today’s Uber accident.
Given that the Uber vehicle has flipped onto its side it looks to be a high speed crash, which suggests a pretty serious incident versus the mostly minor accidents detailed by Google’s longer-lived self-driving car unit, Waymo, such as low speed rear-end shunts of the vehicles (by human-powered cars driving behind them).
Another concerning incident involving an Uber self-driving car occurred last December in California when one of its vehicles ran a red light — though Uber blamed this on human error, rather than the fault of the self-driving tech. (Although a New York Times report, citing two Uber sources, claimed the opposite.)
Leaked internal documents have also suggested Uber’s self-driving technology isn’t making steady improvements.
In February, the head of Uber’s self-drive program — who is himself being sued for allegedly stealing technology from Google’s Waymo, where he used to work, and using it to set up Otto, the self-driving truck startup that Uber acquired in August last year — confirmed Uber has 12 self-driving cars apiece on the roads in Phoenix and Pittsburgh.
Earlier this month a New York Times report also claimed the company was using a proprietary software tool to deny rides to members of code enforcement authorities or city officials that were attempting to gather data about Uber offering service where it’s currently prohibited. The company has since said it is reviewing use of the tool — which it claims can be used for “many purposes”.
The company is also facing a storm of controversy over allegations of systemic sexism poisoning its corporate culture — with president Jeff Jones leaving in recent days, and reports that Uber denied recruiters diversity data, piling more pressure on founder and CEO Travis Kalanick.
Post by: RE on March 27, 2017, 03:45:25 AM
I really think the techno triumphalist crowd overestimates how quickly these vehicles will overtake the commercial driving market.
RE
http://www.zdnet.com/article/uber-slams-on-the-brakes-stops-self-driving-car-tests/ (http://www.zdnet.com/article/uber-slams-on-the-brakes-stops-self-driving-car-tests/)
Uber slams on the brakes, stops self-driving car tests
The company has paused its efforts -- for now -- following a crash in Arizona.
Charlie Osborne
By Charlie Osborne for Between the Lines | March 27, 2017 -- 09:58 GMT (02:58 PDT) | Topic: Innovation
screen-shot-2017-03-27-at-10-56-49.jpg
Uber
Uber has suspended autonomous car tests in the US following an incident in which one of its self-driving cars was involved in a collision in Tempe, Arizona.
The ride-hailing service's tests in both Arizona and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania have been stopped following the high-impact crash, in which photos on Twitter reveal an Uber car on its side while another vehicle is behind, laden with dents, scratches, and smashed windows.
As reported by Bloomberg, the vehicle involved in the collision is a self-driving SUV, one of a fleet being tested by Uber.
An Uber spokesperson confirmed the crash, saying that tests have been paused while the ride-hailing service completes an investigation into the situation.
"We are continuing to look into this incident and can confirm we had no backseat passengers in the vehicle," the company said. In other words, there was a driver behind the wheel of Uber's SUV when the incident occurred.
According to Tempe police, Uber was not at fault and the crash was due to another car failing to yield, which led to Uber's Volvo ending up on its side.
Despite the collision being ruled out as Uber's responsibility by law enforcement, the company will not conduct any more testing until its own internal investigation has concluded.
See also: How to book an Uber ride for free
It is understandable why Uber may want to be extra careful of the firm's activities at the moment. Waymo, Alphabet's self-driving car division, accused the company earlier this year of stealing trade secrets to spring into autonomous vehicle research and development.
Waymo claims that previous employee Anthony Levandowski, who now works for Uber, downloaded roughly 14,000 documents related to Lidar, a sensor used in autonomous vehicle technology, which the former staff member worked on.
CEO Travis Kalanick has also been mired in scandal as of late. Former employees have accused Uber of promoting a toxic and sexist corporate culture, and Kalanick recently admitted he needed "leadership help" after being caught on video raging at an Uber driver who complained that he was made "bankrupt" because of Uber practices.
Uber was also thrown into the spotlight after the firm's "Greyball" program hit the spotlight. The secretive internal scheme used data, analytics, and fake apps to avoid coming into contact with local authorities in areas the ride-hailing service was frowned upon or banned outright.
Post by: RE on April 03, 2017, 12:50:04 AM
RE
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2017/04/02/tesla-has-its-best-quarterly-production-and-deliveries-can-it-quintuple-them/#17c3140b776b (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2017/04/02/tesla-has-its-best-quarterly-production-and-deliveries-can-it-quintuple-them/#17c3140b776b)
Tesla Has Its Best Quarterly Production and Deliveries. Can It Quintuple Them?
Alan Ohnsman ,
Forbes Staff
Thumbing a ride at the intersection of technology, autos and mobility
A Tesla Model S 90D electric sedan at the company's showroom in Hanam, Gyeonggi Province, South Korea. (SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg)
Tesla started 2017 with its best-ever quarterly vehicle production and delivery results, in line with the guidance given to shareholders earlier this year. While that’s a positive development, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to CEO Elon Musk’s goal of quintupling Tesla production to a half million units by 2018.
The Palo Alto, California-based company built 25,418 Model S sedans and Model X crossover vehicles in the quarter that ended March 31, Tesla said in a statement. That was slightly above its previous quarterly high of 25,185 in last year’s third quarter.
Global deliveries of Teslas, which often cost more than $100,000 each, totaled “a little bit more than 25,000,” or 69 percent better than in the first quarter of 2016, the company said. That included about 13,450 units of Model S and 11,550 of Model X. The figures issued April 2 are preliminary estimates that could vary by 0.5 percent from final results, Tesla said.
Musk raised more than $1.2 billion in a stock and debt sale last month to help fund costs related to producing the Model 3, Tesla’s first widely affordable electric car, with a promised base price of about $35,000.
Elon Musk speaks during a ceremony in Dubai in February. (KARIM SAHIB/AFP/Getty Images)
Recommended by Forbes
The youngest U.S. carmaker also got a vote of confidence last week when Chinese social media network giant Tencent revealed in a U.S. regulatory filing that it acquired a 5% stake in Tesla worth about $1.8 billion.
Ramping up production of the Model 3 sedan, which has a waiting list of about 400,000 people who each put down a $1,000 reservation fee, poses a considerable engineering challenge for the company. Equity analysts generally have mixed views on whether the new car will launch on schedule in the third quarter of 2017 and the likelihood of Tesla achieving an overall production rate of 500,000 vehicles per year in 2018 and 1 million annually in 2020.
Tesla is also still completing its sprawling $5 billion Gigafactory battery plant near Reno, Nevada, an essential ingredient to achieve Musk’s vision of vastly expanded production of lithium-ion cells needed for both vehicle battery packs and stationary power storage units paired with SolarCity solar panels.
Meanwhile, Musk is also pursuing grand plans for SpaceX to send humans into space next year, plotting the creation of a company dedicated to tunnel boring devices and another, Neuralink, to bolster the human brain with artificial intelligence. Oh, and he has to navigate with the impact of a new U.S. administration that's pursuing federal energy and environmental policies that are antithetical to his goals of weaning the world off of carbon-based energy,
Musk isn’t afraid to set highly ambitious goals for Tesla and has a history of pushing the company hard to achieve them. Whether he can transition Tesla from a highly valued niche brand into a true mass-market automaker remains to be seen, and will unfold over the next few quarters.
Alan Ohnsman covers the intersection of technology, autos and mobility. Follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn.
Post by: John of Wallan on April 03, 2017, 02:20:07 PM
Can we get infinite idiocy in a finite world?
Might be a topic to debate with Ka....
JOW
Post by: RE on April 03, 2017, 02:42:50 PM
I was hoping we had hit peak idiot, but it still seems to be growing exponentially.
Can we get infinite idiocy in a finite world?
Might be a topic to debate with Ka....
Idiocy, like Money can be conjured up in infinite amounts, as long as there are stupid people walking the earth.
RE
Post by: agelbert on April 03, 2017, 02:54:01 PM
They run them in Colorado, but their models don't have doors: :(
They are already quite affordable, and do come with a lithium battery option (that jacks up the price to about $25,000 :P. but when those lithium battery pack prices get to trailer treasure budget levels (E-tuk total cost $15,000 - $20,000 WITH doors and lithium battery pack :icon_mrgreen:), I will make another effort at convincing the boss (my wife) that she would look great in one! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvfcja.gif)
Post by: RE on April 03, 2017, 03:10:23 PM
I like the E-tuk, myself. :icon_mrgreen:
I just got an email from my friend at ZEV, the guy who manufactures Ewz vehicles in WV. He gets all his parts from China of course. I'll probably buy at least one if not two of them this year depending how the SS Case winds up.
(http://zelectricvehicle.com/resources/ZEV+work+trike+with+dump+bed.jpg) (http://www.environmentfriendlystore.com/images/products/electric-tricycle1.jpg)
These models come in around $10K and come with a VIN Number and can be licensed for street use. Various batt packs available and options on the motors as well. He will custom set it up for you.
RE
Post by: agelbert on April 03, 2017, 03:17:01 PM
I like the E-tuk, myself. :icon_mrgreen:
I just got an email from my friend at ZEV, the guy who manufactures Ewz vehicles in WV. He gets all his parts from China of course. I'll probably buy at least one if not two of them this year depending how the SS Case winds up.
(http://zelectricvehicle.com/resources/ZEV+work+trike+with+dump+bed.jpg) (http://www.environmentfriendlystore.com/images/products/electric-tricycle1.jpg)
These models come in around $10K and come with a VIN Number and can be licensed for street use. Various batt packs available and options on the motors as well. He will custom set it up for you.
RE
:emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :icon_sunny:
When I was pricing the e-tuk, it really bothered me that they want to add OVER $1,000 for every DOOR! I don't get it! :icon_scratch:
There is a van version that is okay for groceries, even though the driver still needs protective clothing, but they aren't exactly giving that one away either. :(
Post by: agelbert on April 03, 2017, 03:34:06 PM
Posted by eTuk Blog on Feb 23, 2017 3:54:33 PM
Three-wheeled zero-emission eTuks tout extreme versatility for both indoor and outdoor use.
Visit many urban centers worldwide and you’ll often find yourself submersed in a sea of three-wheeled colorful auto rickshaws. Also known as “tuk tuks”, these vehicles are a widely used form of transportation around the world. Until now, a tuk tuk could not be found in the United States, let alone an electric one. Today, eTuk USA announced that all of their Department of Transportation (DOT) certified models are available for sale in the U.S.
Free eTuk ebook on how businesses are using eTuks:
http://hs.etukusa.com/free-ebook-6-industries-growing-their-business-with-etuk (http://hs.etukusa.com/free-ebook-6-industries-growing-their-business-with-etuk)
The eTuks are street legal, making them great as passenger shuttles, delivery vehicles and perfect for selling food, drinks, and goods. In addition, since they are 100% electric, they can be used in interior spaces such as airports, convention centers and hotels; perfect for trade shows, vending, promotions, and so much more. For example, eTuk USA recently worked closely with a creative brand agency for their client Bhakti Chai based in Boulder, Colorado. “A modern version of the iconic Indian rickshaw, the eTuk is the perfect vehicle to bring the Bhakti Chai brand to the people,” said Judd Rogers, Lead Project Manager at Young Jenkins. “Bhakti Chai’s values of sustainability and their desire to promote their brand in a fun and engaging way are supported by this unique and versatile zero-emission vehicle. “
Each eTuk is manufactured and assembled locally in Denver, CO, allowing eTuk USA to make sure each eTuk conforms to the highest design and manufacturing standards. The vehicles meet or exceed all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) set forth by the US Department of Transportation (DOT). “We spent over 9 months preparing for the FMVSS testing for the DOT and our results were a huge success.” Said Colin Sommer of eTuk USA. Each eTuk has a 17 Character VIN allowing it to be registered and plated at the state level.
“We are extremely excited to bring these high quality electric, zero-emission vehicles to our clients in the U.S,” said Michael Fox of eTuk USA. “The fun nature and curb appeal of our vehicles instantly attracts attention, making them perfect for promoting a business, message or brand. The uses are limitless. ”
Request a quote (link in article link)
eTuk USA offers several models for both passenger and commercial use:
eTuk Classic
The eTuk Classic is the smallest vehicle offered in the line. It can shuttle three passengers for up to 50–80 miles (depending on the battery choice) of good green fun before needing a recharge. Great for public transport, shuttle services, tours, mobile marketing, or even just as a fun weekend alternative around town.
eTuk Limo
The eTuk Limo is a real smooth cruiser, equipped with seats for 6 passengers; a unique feature for an electric vehicle made for the road. It is the ultimate vehicle for recreation, public transport, shuttle services, city centre tours, and resorts.
eTuk Vendor
The eTuk Vendor offers an eco friendly way to sell anything; from merchandise to ice cream to fresh fruit to hot drinks, just to name a few. If food is your thing, you can custom fabricate these eTuks to cook and sell your delectables. It is fully customizable to any vending concept and offers the same green clean fun, similar to all other eTuks. The Vendor is available in standard or XL size.
eTuk Cargo
The eTuk Cargo offers an incredible mix of features. The big cargo space comes in 2 versions, the basic eTuk Cargo and the eTuk Cargo XL. This vehicle is the perfect fit for one that manages a supermarket supply chain or for a restaurateur looking for a memorable and economical way to deliver food fresh from their restaurant. As compared to larger vehicles the eTuk cargo’s maneuverability makes it far easier for urban delivery.
eTuk Utility
The eTuk Utility is similar to the eTuk Cargo but has an open exterior. The big cargo space comes in 2 versions, the basic eTuk Utility and the eTuk Utility XL. It is the perfect vehicle for maintenance companies as well as golf course greens managers.
Customization and more
All of the eTuks can be built to reflect an individual’s style, brand, or creativity. They can also be customized to fit a particular user’s needs – from designing a creative passenger experience to creating a functioning restaurant on wheels. You can order your eTuk in multiple colors schemes or start with white and custom wrap your eTuk with your own design. Take your business to the next level with digital advertising screens that can be mounted on top or the rear of the eTuk.
The eTuks can be purchased as a fleet or for individual use. Interested parties may also contact eTuk USA to inquire about setting up a partnering affiliate to create their own local eTuk urban mobility transportation company. The urban mobility companies, such as eTuk Denver, provides a fun and unique fleet of vehicles available for urban transportation.
About eTuk USA, LLC
Headquartered in Denver, CO eTuk USA manufactures 100% electric eco-friendly tuk tuks to suit a variety of customer needs throughout the USA. The company’s electric vehicles are well suited for a variety of applications. eTuk USA licenses the design from their partner, The Tuk Tuk Factory, and is the exclusive manufacturer and distributor of the eTuk in the United States. Check out the company’s passenger eTuks for shuttle and tour operator applications or its commercial eTuks for vending, delivery, or food truck applications
http://hs.etukusa.com/blog/etuk-usa-announces-the-first-street-legal-electric-tuk-tuks-in-the-united-states (http://hs.etukusa.com/blog/etuk-usa-announces-the-first-street-legal-electric-tuk-tuks-in-the-united-states)
Post by: agelbert on April 03, 2017, 03:44:27 PM
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/china-2016-new-cabin-tuk-tuk_60426118686.html (https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/china-2016-new-cabin-tuk-tuk_60426118686.html)
Post by: RE on April 08, 2017, 05:35:30 PM
RE
http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-questions-future-of-being-a-viable-business-without-self-driving-cars-2017-4 (http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-questions-future-of-being-a-viable-business-without-self-driving-cars-2017-4)
Uber isn't sure if it can 'remain a viable business' without building self-driving cars
Travis Kalanick Uber CEO Travis Kalanick Reuters Staff
If you're to believe Uber's lawyers, the fate of the $69 billion company is tied up in one bid from an opponent trying to stop its work on self-driving cars.
Waymo, a subsidiary of Google-parent company Alphabet, sued Uber in February claiming it stole trade secrets. Weeks later, it filed a preliminary injunction to try to stop Uber's work on self-driving cars until the case resolves.
Uber obviously doesn't want that to happen, but not because it may just slow down its research. A stop to the self-driving car work would apparently threaten to topple Uber's entire business.
In its response to court on Friday, Uber said stopping its work on self-driving cars would threaten its future as a "a viable business."
"To hinder Uber's continued progress in its independent development of an in-house lidar that is fundamentally different than Waymo's, when Uber has not used any of Waymo's trade secrets, would impede Uber's efforts to remain a viable business, stifle the talent and ingenuity that are the primary drivers of this emerging industry, and risk delaying the implementation of technology that could prevent car accidents," Uber said (emphasis ours).
Of course, many people question whether a company that's believed to be losing billions of dollars a year is a "viable" business to begin with. The six-year-old company hasn't yet figured out how to make humans in the drivers seat work as a profitable business, and it's also tackling everything from food delivery to vertical take off planes.
Discussions about the current viability aside, Uber continues to repeat that self-driving cars are "existential" to its future even though internally the company crowned 2017 the year of the driver (the human kind).
Even when it comes to its bottomline, Uber hasn't bet the house, based on its own internal calculations. In March, The Information revealed that removing the driver from the equation would "only increase Uber's projected long-term net profit margin by as much as 5 percentage points," according to the report.
So if a robocar fleet is the El Dorado of profitability, why does it consider self-driving cars the only way it can remain viable? It's because its CEO Travis Kalanick has a great fear of his entire business being left behind and has already bet that autonomous cars are the future.
Take this interview with Business Insider in August 2016 right after it purchased Otto, the company at the heart of the lawsuit (emphasis ours):
Biz Carson: You called the development of autonomous vehicles existential to the company, and you've also called buying Otto another existential move. So what is so existential about it and where is that threat really coming from?
Kalanick: I think it starts with understanding that the world is going to go self-driving and autonomous. Because, well, a million fewer people are going to die a year. Traffic in all cities will be gone. Significantly reduced pollution and trillions of hours will be given back to people — quality of life goes way up. Once you go, "All right, there's a lot of upsides there" and you have folks like the folks in Mountain View, [California,] a few different companies working hard on this problem, this thing is going to happen. So if that's happening, what would happen if we weren't a part of that future? If we weren't part of the autonomy thing? Then the future passes us by, basically, in a very expeditious and efficient way.
Carson: How soon will self-driving cars realistically be a significant portion of Uber's fleet?
Kalanick: That is the trillion-dollar question, and I wish I had an answer for you on that one, but I don't. What I know is that I can't be wrong. Right? I have to make sure that I'm ready when it's ready or that I'm making it ready. So, I have to be tied for first at the least.
Calling a single injunction a threat to Uber's future may be a bit of hyperbole on the behalf of Uber's lawyers, but it does match the paranoia of Uber's CEO.
Kalanick strongly believes that Uber needs to be among the leaders of the self-driving car revolution, even if internally the company doesn't think it'll radically change the business. Uber's already behind the mark in multiple ways, especially when compared with Waymo, which is trying to impede its development. Uber may sound hysterical that its future could really be up in smoke if a preliminary injunction goes through, but in the mind of its CEO, self-driving cars are one thing that it has to have before the future passes it by.
SEE ALSO: UBER RESPONDS: Google claims about stolen technology are a total 'misfire'
NOW WATCH: We took a ride in Uber’s new self-driving car on the streets of San Francisco — here's what it was like
Post by: RE on April 10, 2017, 01:11:01 PM
RE
http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-bubble-just-got-terrifying-2017-4 (http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-bubble-just-got-terrifying-2017-4)
The Tesla bubble just got terrifying
Matthew DeBord
Elon Musk Tesla CEO Elon Musk. REUTERS/Rashid Umar Abbasi
Tesla's stock has been on a tear.
On Monday the carmaker's market cap exceeded that of General Motors: $51 billion. This is about $15 billion more than where Tesla was valued for much of 2016. And it's about $7 billion more than Ford.
None of this makes any sense. Tesla's business fundamentals haven't changed substantially since late last year, and its first-quarter deliveries — 25,000 vehicles — set a sales pace for 2017 that will see Tesla produce about only 100,000 cars in 2017, an improvement of 20,000 over 2016.
One explanation for Tesla's most recent surge could be that short sellers (traders who had bet against Tesla) — are finally throwing in the towel and covering their positions. That, by definition, would have them buying the shares.
This does make sense, as Tesla is one of the most heavily shorted stocks on Wall Street and those short sellers have been suffering lately. Financial-analytics firm S3 Partners estimates that the shorts have lost $3.2 billion this year.
But given that Tesla was already heavily overvalued based on its core business — building and selling luxury electric cars — and that it has only a few billion dollars of assets to claim, it would be logical for investors to start discounting the value of Tesla's future.
Now that it's on a massive upward trajectory, its first quarter 2017 earnings loom as an opportunity for a more rational outlook on the company's valuation to take hold and could put new investors at real risk of being flushed out.
An alarming increase
But the manner in which Tesla spikes in the absence of real news and in defiance of the numerous challenges it faces over the next year becomes more alarming as the company's paper value climbs ever higher. Tesla bulls argue that Elon Musk's enterprise will be legitimately bigger than GM's and Ford's in the future because electric transportation will displace gas-powered mobility over the next few decades and Tesla has the best brand and largest head start.
TSLA Chart Tesla has been surging to new highs. Markets Insider
Bears insist that Tesla is a sucker's game and a capital-obliteration scheme. They point to the company's inability to make money a decade into its existence, and to Musk's steady refusal to consolidate the business, preferring to push forward and, for example, launch a mass-market electric car (the Model 3) later this year. Or create an energy-storage business. Or buy struggling, debt-laden SolarCity for over $2 billion. If the stock indeed represents a claim on future cash flows, they point out that those future cash flows could be zero.
Both angles overlook the company's most glaring problem, which is that Tesla is a carmaker that still isn't very good at making cars. The cars that it does make are impressive (at Business Insider, we've test-driven them all). But Musk expects to be delivering 500,000 vehicles by 2018 and 1 million by 2020 — the former represents a fivefold increase over projected 2017 production, and the latter would require Tesla to either double the capacity of its Fremont factory or build a new plant.
Nonsensical valuation
Viewed in this context, Tesla trading at $311 is flatly insane. Even if it were to sell 1 million vehicles by 2020, most of them would be lower-margin small cars. The most profitable market segments — big SUVs and large pickup trucks — would still be owned by the three Detroit automakers (GM, Ford, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) that the markets have decided are worthless in the future than Musk's operation.
GM CHART GM hasn't been surging. Markets Insider
The situation with Tesla's valuation will probably get worse before it gets rational.
The rally that began early this year occurred after another money-losing fourth quarter. Anyone who is a hardcore Tesla short simply needs to take solace in that Tesla's stock chart has always looked like a roller coaster; share always go down, typically taking billions in market cap with them. (GM, Ford, and FCA charts, by contrast, look completely boring.)
A larger question is why Tesla has in the past three months so wildly outperformed even growth-driven stock indexes, such as the Nasdaq. Yes, the markets overall have enjoyed a rally since Trump won the election. But Tesla has enjoyed a mega-rally — one that's actually out of character with what shares generally do at the beginning of a year, as investors recalibrate their expectations and, if they've owned Tesla for a while, grab some profits.
Beyond trader dynamics — longs versus shorts — Tesla's surge isn't driven by the company's actual performance, and that's exactly what anyone calling a speculative Tesla bubble would latch onto. But that's also old news because Tesla's fundamentals have been analyzed to death, with the obviously conclusion that a $300-plus stock price demands a level of execution that the company hasn't yet reached.
At this point, a Tesla bubble looks obvious, and it looks as obvious as it has since early this year. The difference now is that it's grown so large that it's become terrifying.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Business Insider.
Post by: azozeo on April 15, 2017, 03:21:21 PM
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tesla-semi-truck-20170413-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tesla-semi-truck-20170413-story.html)
http://www.ktxs.com/news/elon-musk-tesla-will-unveil-a-semitruck-in-september/449620031 (http://www.ktxs.com/news/elon-musk-tesla-will-unveil-a-semitruck-in-september/449620031)
http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/elon-musk-tesla-will-unveil-a-semitruck-in-september/449620354 (http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/elon-musk-tesla-will-unveil-a-semitruck-in-september/449620354)
http://www.news8000.com/news/national-news/elon-musk-tesla-will-unveil-a-semitruck-in-september/449619956 (http://www.news8000.com/news/national-news/elon-musk-tesla-will-unveil-a-semitruck-in-september/449619956)
Quote: "Tesla Inc. plans to unveil an electric cargo truck in September, Chief Executive Elon Musk said Thursday, heating up the race to get a zero-emissions semi truck on the road. 'Tesla Semi truck unveil set for September,' Musk said on Twitter. 'Team has done an amazing job. Seriously next level.' He did not provide any details, including when the truck would be available for purchase."
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 03:43:01 PM
He did not provide any details, including when the truck would be available for purchase."
Or:
1- How much the Batt Pack for this Big Rig will cost and how often you need to replace it.
2- How much HP does the motor deliver and can it pull 40 tons over the Rocky Mountains?
3- Where the Charging Stations will be located and how long it will take to charge a truck for say 500 miles of driving on a given day?
Now, on #3 specifically, even at a high throughput, it's going to take an overnight charge minimum to get one of these suckers charged up to pull 40 tons of Beer or Paper rolls for 500 miles, and that's over flat land. When I say high throughput, I am talking some big amps here, 50A Circuits I would say is minimum. Doable for one or two trucks perhaps.
BUT, in a typical Truckstop where the Big Rig drivers refuel each day, there can be anywhere from 10 to a 1000 Trucks parked for the night! Those truckstops would need to be pulling the power straight off the high voltage lines coming from the power plant and have their own transformers. The amount of juice the Joplin Petro or the Iowa 80 Truckstop would pull down every night would dwarf even an Aluminum Refining plant!
(https://www.fueloyal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/10-Awesome-Facts-About-Iowa-80-Truck-Stop-8.jpg)
More Snake Oil from EM. ::)
RE
Post by: Nearingsfault on April 15, 2017, 05:43:15 PM
Post by: RE on April 15, 2017, 05:54:44 PM
I have my problems with Tesla but electric trucks make sense. I do not think generation one of an electric transport truck's first job would be long haul. The obvious choice would be rejigging the industry for electric end point delivery. Hubs located at logical end points of long haul routes just outside the congested areas. Diesel for hub to hub electric for urban stop and go delivery. The hubs would be natural spots for super charger stations as well. If not Tesla someone else will figure it out.
EVs are somewhat more plausible for local deliveries than OTR. but you don't use Split Rigs for local work, you use 20-30' straight trucks. In theory, you could run a logistics system using the rails and local delivery EVs running back and forth from rail hubs. That is more plausible. Even so though, the power draw on the local grid to pull that stunt off would be incredible.
EM isn't proposing any of that though. He's proposing substituting EV Tractors for the current diesel ones. That is how I read it anyhow.
RE
Post by: Nearingsfault on April 15, 2017, 08:01:58 PM
Post by: agelbert on April 16, 2017, 11:59:26 AM
He did not provide any details, including when the truck would be available for purchase."
Or:
1- How much the Batt Pack for this Big Rig will cost and how often you need to replace it.
2- How much HP does the motor deliver and can it pull 40 tons over the Rocky Mountains?
3- Where the Charging Stations will be located and how long it will take to charge a truck for say 500 miles of driving on a given day?
Now, on #3 specifically, even at a high throughput, it's going to take an overnight charge minimum to get one of these suckers charged up to pull 40 tons of Beer or Paper rolls for 500 miles, and that's over flat land. When I say high throughput, I am talking some big amps here, 50A Circuits I would say is minimum. Doable for one or two trucks perhaps.
BUT, in a typical Truckstop where the Big Rig drivers refuel each day, there can be anywhere from 10 to a 1000 Trucks parked for the night! Those truckstops would need to be pulling the power straight off the high voltage lines coming from the power plant and have their own transformers. The amount of juice the Joplin Petro or the Iowa 80 Truckstop would pull down every night would dwarf even an Aluminum Refining plant!(https://iowa80truckstop.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Homepage_05.jpg)
(https://www.fueloyal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/10-Awesome-Facts-About-Iowa-80-Truck-Stop-8.jpg)
More Snake Oil from EM. ::)
RE
Sorry RE, powering a super charging truck stop is child's play for Elon Musk or any electrical engineer. The amount of power needed is NOT the issue when you have high voltage power lines RUNNING BY THE ROADS to EVERY truck stop in the USA, as we already do. There is no "snake oil" in sending gargantuan amounts of power over high tension lines. ;D
However, an easy solution around the truck stop thing is to electrify ALL the truck route roads. It was done for trolleys in cities 100 years ago. It can be done for large trucks that, unlike the trolleys, can run OFF the wires with batteries when they are at the delivery or pick up point. Look Ma, NO FOSSIL FUELS! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif)
ALL the range anxiety of battery systems VANISHES with this DOABLE solution. :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:
(https://www.scania.com/group/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/06/top-elv%C3%A4g-1760x770.jpg)
(https://gaadiwaadi.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Worlds-First-Electric-Road-Inaugurated-in-Sweden.jpg)
And for the naysayers, one final OBVIOUS first step is to put overhead recharging truck parking areas AT ALL THE TRUCK STOPS before you fully electrify the main cargo roads. WE COULD HAVE DONE THIS 50 FORKING YEARS AGO!
THIS IS THE REASON WE DIDN'T:
Post by: azozeo on April 16, 2017, 12:57:55 PM
I have my problems with Tesla but electric trucks make sense. I do not think generation one of an electric transport truck's first job would be long haul. The obvious choice would be rejigging the industry for electric end point delivery. Hubs located at logical end points of long haul routes just outside the congested areas. Diesel for hub to hub electric for urban stop and go delivery. The hubs would be natural spots for super charger stations as well. If not Tesla someone else will figure it out.
EVs are somewhat more plausible for local deliveries than OTR. but you don't use Split Rigs for local work, you use 20-30' straight trucks. In theory, you could run a logistics system using the rails and local delivery EVs running back and forth from rail hubs. That is more plausible. Even so though, the power draw on the local grid to pull that stunt off would be incredible.
EM isn't proposing any of that though. He's proposing substituting EV Tractors for the current diesel ones. That is how I read it anyhow.
RE
CFS would tell folks that diesel/electric like the railroads employ is the optimum power source until free energy is released
to the public domain. However when you have psychopathic baby killers running the show this is what we get.
I wonder how big of a puff of smoke those lithium batteries would make when a big rig erupts in JJF flames ?
Post by: RE on April 16, 2017, 01:14:22 PM
However, an easy solution around the truck stop thing is to electrify ALL the truck route roads. It was done for trolleys in cities 100 years ago. It can be done for large trucks that, unlike the trolleys, can run OFF the wires with batteries when they are at the delivery or pick up point. Look Ma, NO FOSSIL FUELS!
If you electrified the entire interstate, it could work. However, I don't think that is in EMs plan. The overhead wires are too clunky a solution for EM anyhow.
You still would be using FFs or Nukes to generate the electricity, there isn't enough solar and wind capacity and it's too intermittent.
RE
Post by: agelbert on April 16, 2017, 01:29:58 PM
However, an easy solution around the truck stop thing is to electrify ALL the truck route roads. It was done for trolleys in cities 100 years ago. It can be done for large trucks that, unlike the trolleys, can run OFF the wires with batteries when they are at the delivery or pick up point. Look Ma, NO FOSSIL FUELS!
If you electrified the entire interstate, it could work. However, I don't think that is in EMs plan. The overhead wires are to clunky a solution for EM anyhow.
You still would be using FFs or Nukes to generate the electricity, there isn't enough solar and wind capacity and it's too intermittent.
RE
That's a conditional statement. California generated over HALF of it's electricity from renewables March 11 and the percentage just keeps growing. The "intermittency" argument is a canard ever since mass production of battery storage and hydroelectric dam storage came to town.
If the decision was made to electrify the roads, by the time the infrastructure program was completed in 5 or ten years, fossil fuels and/or nukes would certainly NOT be needed to generate electricity. BUT, they would still be doing it BECAUSE of our bought and paid for clueless morons in the fossil fuel government.
I have my problems with Tesla but electric trucks make sense. I do not think generation one of an electric transport truck's first job would be long haul. The obvious choice would be rejigging the industry for electric end point delivery. Hubs located at logical end points of long haul routes just outside the congested areas. Diesel for hub to hub electric for urban stop and go delivery. The hubs would be natural spots for super charger stations as well. If not Tesla someone else will figure it out.
EVs are somewhat more plausible for local deliveries than OTR. but you don't use Split Rigs for local work, you use 20-30' straight trucks. In theory, you could run a logistics system using the rails and local delivery EVs running back and forth from rail hubs. That is more plausible. Even so though, the power draw on the local grid to pull that stunt off would be incredible.
EM isn't proposing any of that though. He's proposing substituting EV Tractors for the current diesel ones. That is how I read it anyhow.
RE
CFS would tell folks that diesel/electric like the railroads employ is the optimum power source until free energy is released
to the public domain. However when you have psychopathic baby killers running the show this is what we get.
I wonder how big of a puff of smoke those lithium batteries would make when a big rig erupts in JJF flames ?
CFS would have eliminated diesel long ago and used the hybrid natural gas/electric big rig with a generator charging the battery bank. They're already out there, you know. AND, with the newly patented E-CEM process that makes hydrocarbon FUELS from sea water, you can make all the CARBON NEUTRAL hydrocarbons you need WITHOUT EVER using fossil fuels. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvfcja.gif)
Device patented last year makes fuel from sea water (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/hydcrocarbons-from-seawater-(carbon-neutral)-for-less-than-$3-a-gallon!/msg6869/#msg6869) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183515.bmp)
Also, as to "exploding lithium battery systems": ::)
Do ya think it would be more "fun" than THIS? :
WITHOUT GASOLINE, THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN:
U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated average of 152,300 automobile fires per year in 2006-2010. These fires caused an average of 209 civilian deaths, 764 civilian injuries, and $536 million in direct property damage. Automobile fires were involved in 10% of reported U.S. fires, 6% of U.S. fire deaths.
Post by: azozeo on April 17, 2017, 02:34:08 AM
Post by: azozeo on April 24, 2017, 04:07:12 PM
2017-04-22 - Watch this all-electric 'flying car' take its first test flight in Germany:
http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/20/15369850/lilium-jet-flying-car-first-flight-vtol-aviation-munich (http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/20/15369850/lilium-jet-flying-car-first-flight-vtol-aviation-munich)
You know the Germans just aren't kiddin' around when comes to carz....
http://www.youtube.com/v/ATv_1Oa_G3Q&fs=1
Post by: azozeo on April 24, 2017, 04:13:47 PM
Post by: RE on April 24, 2017, 04:15:04 PM
2017-04-22 - Watch this all-electric 'flying car' take its first test flight in Germany:
Watch this all-electric car travel through time at 88 MPH.
RE
Post by: azozeo on April 24, 2017, 04:33:02 PM
If every Yeah-Who & George Jetson Wanna'bee thinks there going to pony up the necessary funds
to own a toy to zip around town in like it's a convertible musclecar on steroids, they frickin' dreamin'.
The FAA's gotta' be all over this FAD like a cheap suit.
Can you imagine the fucking mayhem this mode of transportation will bring ?
http://www.youtube.com/v/4h0Qvc6_MfQ&fs=1
Post by: RE on April 25, 2017, 01:00:20 AM
RE
Technology
No Longer a Dream: Silicon Valley Takes On the Flying Car
The Kitty Hawk Flyer is one of several prototypes being designed by Kitty Hawk, a start-up based in Mountain View, Calif. Credit Kitty Hawk
No Longer a Dream: Silicon Valley Takes On the Flying Car
This isn’t science fiction. A number of start-ups as well as big aerospace firms are trying to build personal aircraft you could fly around town.
By JOHN MARKOFFAPRIL 24, 2017
CLEARLAKE, Calif. — On a recent afternoon, an aerospace engineer working for a small Silicon Valley company called Kitty Hawk piloted a flying car above a scenic lake about 100 miles north of San Francisco.
Kitty Hawk’s flying car, if you insisted on calling it a “car,” looked like something Luke Skywalker would have built out of spare parts. It was an open-seated, 220-pound contraption with room for one person, powered by eight battery-powered propellers that howled as loudly as a speedboat.
The tech industry, as we are often told, is fond of disrupting things, and lately the automakers have been a big target. Cars that use artificial intelligence to drive themselves, for example, have been in development for a few years and can be spotted on roads in a number of cities. And now, coming onto the radar screen, are flying machines that do not exactly look like your father’s Buick with wings.
More than a dozen start-ups backed by deep-pocketed industry figures like Larry Page, a Google founder — along with big aerospace firms like Airbus, the ride-hailing company Uber and even the government of Dubai — are taking on the dream of the flying car.
The approaches by the different companies vary and the realization of their competing visions seems far in the future, but they have one thing in common: a belief that one day regular people should be able to fly their own vehicles around town.
The roads are clogged lets clog the air. If they have a road-rage up in the air you would only hope you are not driving beneath them....and...
L.Braverman 54 minutes ago
I can see it now: first the pilot achieves lift-off and then- bingo! -he gets a text. So of course he starts to respond... you know, It's...
NWJ 55 minutes ago
Another example of distraction from reality. Entertain the masses with dreams of new toys. It goes along with distraction with professional...
There are challenges, no doubt, with both the technology and government regulations. Perhaps the biggest hurdle will be convincing the public that the whole idea isn’t crazy.
Technology By KITTY HAWK 00:39
A Flying Car Prototype From Silicon Valley
Video
A Flying Car Prototype From Silicon Valley
Kitty Hawk, a Silicon Valley company backed by Larry Page, a Google founder, began testing a prototype over a lake in Northern California. By KITTY HAWK on Publish Date April 24, 2017. . Watch in Times Video »
“I love the idea of being able to go out into my backyard and hop into my flying car,” said Brad Templeton, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who has served as a consultant on Google’s self-driving project. “I hate the idea of my next-door neighbor having one.”
Kitty Hawk, the company backed by Mr. Page, is trying to be one of the first out of the gate and plans to start selling its vehicle by the end of the year.
The company has attracted intense interest because of Mr. Page and its chief executive, Sebastian Thrun, an influential technologist and self-driving car pioneer who is the founding director of Google’s X lab.
In 2013, Zee Aero, a Kitty Hawk division, became the object of Silicon Valley rumors when reports of a small air taxilike vehicle first surfaced.
Mr. Page declined a request for an interview but said in a statement: “We’ve all had dreams of flying effortlessly. I’m excited that one day very soon I’ll be able to climb onto my Kitty Hawk Flyer for a quick and easy personal flight.”
During his recent test flight, Cameron Robertson, the aerospace engineer, used two joysticklike controls to swing the vehicle back and forth above Clear Lake, sliding on the air as a Formula One car might shimmy through a racecourse. The flight, just 15 feet above the water, circled over the lake about 20 or 30 yards from shore, and after about five minutes Mr. Robertson steered back to a floating landing pad at the end of a dock.
The Kitty Hawk Flyer is one of several prototypes the start-up, based in Mountain View, Calif., is designing. The company hopes to create an audience of enthusiasts and hobbyists, who can pay $100 to sign up for a $2,000 discount on the retail price of a Flyer to “gain exclusive access to Kitty Hawk experiences and demonstrations where a select few will get the chance to ride the Flyer.”
Flying Carmakers
More than a dozen companies — from large to small — are now in various stages of creating flying vehicles.
It is an unusual offer, since the company has yet to set a price for the vehicle, and Mr. Thrun’s and Mr. Page’s involvement can be taken as evidence that the company is aiming beyond hobbyists. Still, Kitty Hawk is clearly targeting a new kind of transportation — air flight that can be performed safely by most people and hopefully with government approval.
“We have been in contact with the F.A.A. and we see the regulators as friends,” Mr. Thrun said in an interview. He agreed that concerns about vehicles flying over our heads were legitimate. “I believe that all of us have to work together to understand how new technologies will shape the future of society, ” he said.
Two years ago, Mr. Thrun recruited two other pioneers, Mr. Robertson and Todd Reichert, aerospace engineers from AeroVelo, a University of Toronto spinoff company that won a coveted prize for a human-powered helicopter and set the land speed record for a bicycle last year.
They are flying under a special Federal Aviation Administration category for ultralight aircraft that does not require a pilot’s license and is intended for recreational flying in uncongested areas. To add an extra margin of safety, the Kitty Hawk engineers are sticking to flying over open water. The company said the final commercial product would look different and be far quieter than the test model.
“We hope that this is more of an exciting concept than what most people have had in their minds about flying cars,” Mr. Robertson said. “This is not yet that product in terms of what we will say and what it can do, but I think it demonstrates a vision of the future.”
Kitty Hawk could face stiff competition, not just from about a half dozen start-ups, but from the giant Airbus, headquartered in Blagnac, France. The aerospace firm has announced two different vertical takeoff and landing, or VTOL, concepts and is reported to be planning an initial test flight before the end of the year.
At the Geneva International Motor Show last month, Airbus proposed an autonomous vehicle named Pop.Up that would operate on the ground and in the air. And this year, the government of Dubai, in partnership with a Chinese firm, EHang, said it planned to begin operating an autonomous flying taxi in July. Also, Uber is expected on Tuesday to detail its “vision for the future of Urban Air Mobility” at a conference in Dallas.
Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
See Sample Privacy Policy
There is no shortage of skeptics happy to point out the roadblocks for these vehicles. There is already significant resistance to the idea of unmanned drones flying over urban areas, and flying cars could face substantial opposition, even if they can be quieted to automotive noise levels.
For these personal air vehicles to become a reality in the United States, the country would need a new air traffic control system.
Two years ago, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration began development of an air traffic control system meant for managing all sorts of flying vehicles, including drones. One NASA developer described it as an air traffic control system, “for a sky dark with drones.” Researchers hope testing can begin by 2019.
Batteries are also an issue. While electric propeller-driven motors seem promising, today’s battery technology cannot support flights of a reasonable distance, say a 30- or 50-mile commute.
“How is this going to work? I don’t want to be a Debbie Downer, but we can’t even take our cellphones on airplanes today because of fears about battery fires,” said Missy Cummings, the director of the Humans and Autonomy Laboratory at Duke University, who is researching personal air transport for NASA.
And don’t forget that flying cars will not be able to pull to the side of the road in an emergency, said John Leonard, a mechanical engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
“Silicon Valley is full of very smart people, but they don’t always get the laws of physics,” he said. “Gravity is a formidable adversary.”
Correction: April 24, 2017
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the timing of an offer in which consumers pay $100 to sign up for a $2,000 discount on the retail price of a Kitty Hawk Flyer. They can do so now; they do not have to wait until later this year.
A version of this article appears in print on April 25, 2017, on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Defying Roadblocks, Silicon Valley Tests a Flying Car. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
Post by: azozeo on April 25, 2017, 04:26:59 AM
A dead cat bounce at best.
Post by: azozeo on April 26, 2017, 10:16:00 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/FJmm2C90JUc&fs=1
Post by: agelbert on April 26, 2017, 10:26:03 AM
500 Kilometer range....http://www.youtube.com/v/FJmm2C90JUc&fs=1
They had better get off their "concept car" ASS and put that EV out there or the Tesla model 3 will eat their Audi lunch! (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif)
Post by: agelbert on April 26, 2017, 10:52:16 AM
As a pilot I can tell you this type of flying machine is, and always has been, a great idea.
WHY? Because you need a lot more power to get to altitude than to stay there. For example, if I really had to extend the range of a twin engine aircraft (I never did have this situation, but it was in the range stats), all I had to do was shut down one engine and feather the prop at altitude. Yes, the velocity would be reduced. BUT, the RANGE (i.e. fuel used per mile of flight) would be REDUCED.
THEN, there is the fact that all the airport infrastructure doesn't have to be built and this type of electric flying machine is the best logical option for a DEMOCRATIC society.
And that is why the point AZ brings up, and the dude from that U.S. University about "regulatory" hurdles ;), is valid. The FAA will stop this dead in its tracks, NOT because it isn't "impractical" or "unsafe". A BRS system on a small VTOL can save your arse on any engine failure. A BRS system is a ballistic fired shute that looks like a mortar. I had them on ultralights 30 years ago. They aren't practical on larger aircraft but they are old hat for small flying machines.
As AZ alluded to, and I will explain in detail, the ability to fly from point A to point B in our fascist paradise is RIGIDLY controlled by our gooberment. THAT is why we've got GATES to the skies called airports. The gooberment does not want citizens to be able to fly hither and yon without having to go through the capitalist/fascist GATE structure. The elites don't CARE about that because the whole thing is built for them! Did you know you can go STRAIGHT to fancy resorts in the Dominican Republic from the U.S. WITHOUT going through customs at either end? Well yeah, you CAN if you are RICH and have an executive jet available. The LAWS are not for them, boys and girls.
Post by: azozeo on April 26, 2017, 01:28:13 PM
Don't get me wrong, sign me up for one of these 4th Reichstag's windup plastic run-abouts, there cool as shit.
I'm seasoned, AG's seasoned. We both possess a ticket to ride. I'm not current at this point in time. 30 days of
review in reg's, weather, sim time, left seat with an instructor & whaa-la I'm a Legal Eagle again. Oh, yeah & the medical. :icon_mrgreen:
SOOOOOO, it's complicated & for "1st timers" that's a BIG hurdle.
The point is, the ego is being tickled & the brain is in the caboose. Eye candy with big consequences.
If you'll notice in the vid, no one was aboard. That was a big boy toy drone test flight. These cats haven't even
received GOOBERmint approval to have a test pilot flight yet.
I'll take a Cherokee 6, an attractive female hostage, leave Lauderdale airspace & head to little Guana Cay for lunch.
Post by: agelbert on April 26, 2017, 02:47:14 PM
Very well put AG.
Don't get me wrong, sign me up for one of these 4th Reichstag's windup plastic run-abouts, there cool as shit.
I'm seasoned, AG's seasoned. We both possess a ticket to ride. I'm not current at this point in time. 30 days of
review in reg's, weather, sim time, left seat with an instructor & whaa-la I'm a Legal Eagle again. Oh, yeah & the medical. :icon_mrgreen:
SOOOOOO, it's complicated & for "1st timers" that's a BIG hurdle.
The point is, the ego is being tickled & the brain is in the caboose. Eye candy with big consequences.
If you'll notice in the vid, no one was aboard. That was a big boy toy drone test flight. These cats haven't even
received GOOBERmint approval to have a test pilot flight yet.
I'll take a Cherokee 6, an attractive female hostage, leave Lauderdale airspace & head to little Guana Cay for lunch.
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif)
So, you've flown a six? I put quite a few hours into those birds way back when. Here's a short war story from my air taxi rat days:
It was the San Juan to Vieques flight in a 260 hp Cherokee six sometime in 1969. The folks that lived in Vieques would fly to San Juan and buy stuff to take back to their island (half of it - the other half was routinely being blown to smithereens as a bomb fun and games place for the Navy and Marines - it looked like the moon :P).
Vieques islanders were sort of country bumpkins to the average cosmopolitan San Juan dweller. Country folks are very practical and aren't real particular about appearances. ;D On this particular flight I had some people carrying sacks of potatoes (I eyed these carefully when I did my weight and balance ;)) and a lady that had some live and healthy (and noisy) chickens. I can't imagine why, but country folks also smell a bit ripe on a hot day in the tropics... Perhaps it's fear of flying that makes them perspire a bit more than normal, but I was always glad for my tiny flip down pilot seat window... :D
Well we, took off and encountered a lot of wind noise. (http://yoursmiles.org/psmile/pilot/p0502.gif) I called the tower at the international airport 5 miles east of my air taxi base (Isla Grande airport) and asked for a touch and go, which they approved. It seems the latch over the door had not sealed the door properly. I had a friend riding in the right seat (he wasn't a pilot) and I asked him to see if he could force the door open a bit and then try to pull it closed again (we are in flight approaching the international airport at this time). He did that (sound of torrent of air going by at 150 mph) and the lady with the chickens screamed. The chickens weren't too happy about that either. :D
It didn't work. So, we landed, slowed down and did that again until we got that silly latch to catch right. Without ever coming to a stop, we just took off again and flew east over the north coast of Puerto Rico and then southeast to the island of Vieques.
The landing was "routine" but I should explain to you what that entailed at Vieques. They have a weird runway there. :P The runway, when you are landing going east (which is almost always) is much higher than the other end. To further complicate matters, the runway elevation goes UP after the threshold before it starts to go DOWN.
All that is a great advantage when you are taking off but a bit tricky when you are landing. AZ, you obviously know about ground effect and low wing aircraft fun and games. A runway sloping down hill is a ground effect nightmare that can lead you to overrun the runway if you don't watch it!
I don't know if you have ever flown a FULLY LOADED TO THE GILLS Cherokee six. They are very squirrelly on landing. You know that the normal drill is to round out and then flare out, right? Well that would result in way to much FLOAT at Vieques.
So, I came up with a trick to deal with that. :evil4: I would establish approach speed at a fixed pitch attitude. That's right, I would NOT flare. I would bring her over the threshold watching for the slight runway rise just before the downhill part started WITH MY HAND ON THE FLAP HANDLE (I had full flaps at this time, of course 8)). As I reached the bump I would lower the flaps to touch the main wheels without any pitch change and remove all flaps and hit the toe brakes. It worked like a charm. The people, potatoes and chickens all arrived safely. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png) (http://yoursmiles.org/psmile/pilot/p0503.gif)
I taught a few other pilots to do that and they said, HEY, it works! Flaps are just supposed to be there to steepen the glide path on approach when you apply them, not when you remove them, so we all agreed the FAA would not understand our cool trick and that we would never tell the feds about it. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvfcja.gif)
Getting back to the Electric Airplane subject, most people are not aware that aircraft internal combustion engines mostly fail when you are at full power, which happens to be when you are taking off and need that engine the most. Electric motors, can fail at any time. But when they do, it's almost always temperature related. Which means they will rarely fail on take off because they are fresh! For large EV flying machines, having a bunch of motors will make them far more reliable than internal combustion or even jet engines (less moving parts to fail).
I can imagine the FAA coming up with some BULLSHIT about having to learn
Post by: azozeo on April 27, 2017, 08:49:31 PM
They had better get off their "concept car" ASS and put that EV out there or the Tesla model 3 will eat their Audi lunch! (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif)
[/quote]
They have !
http://www.youtube.com/v/jB3UJW57zlw&fs=1
Post by: RE on April 28, 2017, 02:09:37 AM
They had better get off their "concept car" ASS and put that EV out there or the Tesla model 3 will eat their Audi lunch! (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif)
When I was in my early teens just back from Brazil, for a couple of years running I went to the annual Car Show held at the New York Colosseum, where the automakers would both debut their new models as well as offer up some "concept carz". The CCs were always my favorite, and I couldn't understand WTF they didn't put these into production? ??? :icon_scratch: They were so much COOLER then the dowdy old Chevy Impalas and Ford Station Wagons! They were even cooler than Mustangs, Corvettes and GTOs!
They also had the best models and spokespersons! :icon_mrgreen:
So, now they are finally putting these wannabee Space Ships into production, hoping a lot of diode lights will sell the car. Is there any real functionality to those lights? No, all you need on the car are left and right blinkers, headlights and tailights. In the computer world, what you have here is know as "bloat".
What are the GUTS of an EV? The suspension and steering system is all basically the same as an ICEmobile. The only real technical innovation is using an electric motor and batteries. All the EV makers have the same problem, trying to get those two things both cheap enough the consumer can afford them, and powerful enough and long lasting enough so they are more or less comparable to what an ICEmobile can do.
Both problems are fairly intractable at this point. Fewer consumers all the time have money or even credit to buy a new car, that's why there is so much channel stuffing. Batt prices have come down some, but a batt pack for one of these things still runs in the neighborhood of $5000 by itself, and you probably need to replace it every 5 years, if it doesn't self-immolate before that.
I don't think the cool diode lights will sell all that many of these carz. If they really wanna sell carz, they'll need some real innovation, like a Flying Delorean Fusion Powered Time Machine. ::)
RE
Post by: RE on May 04, 2017, 04:18:34 AM
The Inconvenient Truth About Electric Vehicles
By ZeroHedge - May 03, 2017, 2:24 PM CDT Electric Car
An electric automobile will convert 5-10 percent of the energy in natural gas into motion. A normal vehicle will convert 20-30 percent of the energy in gasoline into motion. That's 3 or 4 times more energy recovered with an internal combustion vehicle than an electric vehicle.
Electricity is a specialty product. It's not appropriate for transportation. It looks cheap at this time, but that's because it was designed for toasters, not transportation. Increase the amount of wiring and infrastructure by a factor of a thousand, and it's expensive.
Electricity does not scale up properly to the transportation industry due to its miniscule nature. Sure, a whole lot can be used for something, but at extraordinary expense.
Using electricity as an energy source requires two energy transformation steps, while using petroleum requires only one. With electricity, the original energy, usually chemical energy, must be transformed into electrical energy; and then the electrical energy is transformed into the kinetic energy of motion. With an internal combustion engine, the only transformation step is the conversion of chemical energy to kinetic energy in the combustion chamber.
The difference matters, because there is a lot of energy lost every time it is transformed or used. Electrical energy is harder to handle and loses more in its handling.
The use of electrical energy requires it to move into and out of the space medium (aether) through induction. Induction through the aether medium should be referred to as another form of energy, but physicists sandwich it into the category of electrical energy. Going into and out of the aether through induction loses a lot of energy.
Related: Oil Prices Fall As Hedge Funds Throw In The Towel
Another problem with electricity is that it loses energy to heat production due to resistance in the wires. A short transmission line will have 20 percent loss built in, and a long line will have 50 percent loss built in. These losses are integrated because reducing the loss by half would require twice as much metal in the wires. Wires have to be optimized for diameter and strength, which means doubling the metal would be doubling the number of transmission lines.
High voltage transformers can achieve 90 percent efficiency with expensive designs, but household level voltages achieve only 50 percent efficiency. Electric motors can get up to 60 percent efficiency, but only at optimum rpms and load. For autos, they average 25 percent efficiency. Gasoline engines get 25 percent efficiency with old-style carburetors and 30 percent with fuel injection, though additional loses can occur.
The 1 Resource Stock To Own Now
This small company could be one of the biggest winners of the electric car boom as tech giants and hedge funds fight over the limited supply of Cobalt.
Click here to find out more
Applying this brilliant engineering to the problem yields this result: A natural gas electric generating turbine gets 40 percent efficiency. A high voltage transformer gets 90 percent efficiency. A household level transformer gets 50 percent efficiency. A short transmission line gets 20 percent loss, which is 80 percent efficiency. The total is 40 percent x 90 percent x 50 percent x 80 percent = 14.4 percent of the energy recovered before the electrical system does something similar to the gasoline engine in the vehicle. Some say the electricity performs a little better in the vehicle, but it's not much.
Electricity appears to be easy to handle sending it through wires. But it is the small scale that makes it look cheap. Scaling it up takes a pound of metal for so many electron-miles. Twice as much distance means twice as much metal. Twice as many amps means twice as much metal. Converting the transportation system into an electrical based system would require scaling up the amount of metal and electrical infrastructure by factors of hundreds or thousands. Where are all those lines going to go? They destroy environments. Where is that much natural gas going to come from for the electrical generators? There is very little natural gas in existence when using it for a large-scale purpose. Natural gas must be used with solar and wind energy, because only it can be turned on and off easily for backup.
Related: Do Saudi Arabia And Russia Really Want Higher Oil Prices?
One of the overwhelming facts about electric transportation is the chicken and egg phenomenon. Supposedly, a lot of electric vehicles will create an incentive to create a lot of expensive infrastructure. There are a lot of reasons why none of the goals can be met for such an infrastructure. The basic problem is that electricity will never be appropriate for such demanding use as general transportation, which means there will never be enough chickens or eggs to balance the demand. It's like trying to improve a backpack to such an extent that it will replace a pickup truck. The limitations of muscle metabolism are like the limitations of electrical energy.
Electrons are not a space-saving form of energy. Electrons have to be surrounded by large amounts of metal. It means electric motors get heavy and large. When cruising around town, the problems are not so noticeable. But the challenges of ruggedness are met far easier with internal combustion engines. Engineers say it is nice to get rid of the drive train with electric vehicles. But in doing so, they add clutter elsewhere, which adds weight, takes up space and messes up the suspension system. Out on the highway, the suspension system is the most critical factor.
These problems will prevent electric vehicles from replacing petroleum vehicles for all but specialty purposes. The infrastructure needed for electric vehicles will never exist when limited to specialty purposes. This would be true even with the perfect battery which takes up no space and holds infinite charge.
Post by: RE on May 04, 2017, 05:08:40 AM
Tesla's Explosive Stock Price Now Deserves to Crash Hard
By Brian Sozzi Follow
| May 04, 2017 | 7:48 AM EDT
Stock quotes in this article: tsla, f, gm, dnkn, aapl, mcd, yum, dis, FB
Any sane investor listening to Tesla's (TSLA) earnings call on Wednesday evening had to be like "huh, this is why I have been buying the stock like a mad person over the past three months."
At least that's what this incredibly rational editor/former stock analyst came away thinking. What is now the world's most highly valued automaker gave investors a host of reasons to book profits, head for the hills and ponder nibbling at some beat-up shares of Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) .
A couple of concerns include:
Tesla shared zero specifics on how it would magically ramp up producing 5,000 Model 3 autos a week "some time" this year and then to another 10,000 a week "some time" in 2018. Oddly, analysts didn't press Elon Musk on this, but it's important. Tesla shares trade on future production hope, because earnings are non-existent. If these goals can't be met, then the stock deserves to crash hard. Seeing as details were absent, it's time to truly ponder if Tesla could reach its targets. The company's track record has been inconsistent, at best.
Tesla could be screwing itself by anti-selling its cars. No test drives? No marketing? Are you kidding here? The seemingly ridiculous decision looks like it's creating some confusion among would-be Tesla buyers between the Model S and the coming Model 3. People are telling the company they want to be shown the differences, or else they won't part with their cash. The way Tesla is valued, it needs all the consumer cash it could garner (note: customer deposits have declined for two straight quarters).
Tesla will need another cash infusion, probably sooner than the market expects. Morgan Stanley recently estimated that Tesla could burn through $3 billion in cash over the next three years. On the earnings call, Musk seemed pretty open to the notion of diluting shareholders to grow the company at a faster pace. This isn't something one wants to hear from a company trading more on hope than bottom-line profits.
Disclosure: gas-guzzling muscle car fan for life.
Post by: Palloy2 on May 04, 2017, 07:26:02 PM
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Inconvenient-Truth-About-Electric-Vehicles.html
The Inconvenient Truth About Electric Vehicles
Some very self-serving numbers in there (from OilPrice), and the methodology is all wrong. Gasoline is not found just lying around ready to be picked up and poured into your car, so you have to factor in the energy used in finding oil, developing the oil-field, the pumps, the storage tanks, the pipelines, the transport, the refineries, the distribution network, the gas stations, and all the raw materials that need to be found and collected. Likewise, the sunlight is free, but the panels aren't, nor the grid to distribute it, and the batteries and charging equipment.
It is not really worthwhile doing all the calculations, because what happens in practice is not dependent on facts, but on the access to capital, influence over taxes, competition, and so on. Who would have thought that adverts for cars would be all about their "sleek, elegant design, bluetooth connectivity, and stereo systems? - nothing about the brake horse power, or fuel efficiency. Who would have thought that cars would do twice the speed of the highest speed limit?
Post by: RE on May 11, 2017, 03:07:36 PM
Many more pics and specs on the ZEV Website (http://zelectricvehicle.com/31.html).
It's fully street legal, and here in Alaska I believe I could get away with running it on just bike paths and trails with no license and registration.
It comes in two versions, one with a silicate batt system at $5500, then a Li-I version for $9000. The Li-I version has more range, but I don't need more range, and a $4000 premium is a hefty price to pay for something I don't really need. If it gets 30 miles on a charge, that is plenty. I never do more than that in a typical day tooling around the neighborhood, which is all I would use it for. Certainly would never take something like this on the highway to Anchorage! Talk about a Death Trap! lol.
The only thing holding me back right now from this purchase is where to ship this thing to? ??? :icon_scratch: If I am going to leave Alaska once my SS case has been adjudicated, it would be stupid to have them ship it up here. Down in the lower 48, I would ship it either to LDs place or Eddie's Toothstead. It would fit inside a 16' enclosed trailer pulled by an ICE powered Stealth Van quite easily. If I shipped it to LD though, I would worry about him wrecking it before I got there. lol.
As opposed to the 2-wheelers, this trike is FULLY ENCLOSED, giving you protection from the elements. Downside, I somehow doubt they will let me drive it inside 3 Bears, though maybe. It's smaller than the electric forklifts they use to move around the pallets in the place.
RE
Post by: Eddie on May 11, 2017, 05:42:35 PM
Post by: RE on May 11, 2017, 05:48:05 PM
I like the looks of that one. Will they take a Harley Road King in trade?
Maybe. I'll ask. lol.
RE
Post by: azozeo on May 11, 2017, 07:06:22 PM
I like the looks of that one. Will they take a Harley Road King in trade?
Maybe. I'll ask. lol.
RE
Any rollover, crash test data on this Morkmobile
http://www.youtube.com/v/gDFIMAPLp4w&fs=1
Post by: RE on May 11, 2017, 07:14:53 PM
I like the looks of that one. Will they take a Harley Road King in trade?
Maybe. I'll ask. lol.
RE
Any rollover, crash test data on this Morkmobile
http://www.youtube.com/v/gDFIMAPLp4w&fs=1
Are there crash test and rollover test data for motorcycles? They're not too safe either in these events. lol.
The vehicle is DMV certified as a road worthy vehicle and can be registered and insured.
As to how safe it is? On a bike path or trail up here doing around 25 mph or so, quite safe IMHO.
Take it out on the local roads doing 40 mph, you are getting pretty risky.
Go on the highway with it at 55, you have a Death Wish.
RE
Post by: azozeo on May 11, 2017, 07:31:25 PM
Unique & unto themselves. They're kind of like those micro cars of the 40's & 50's ... Crosleys etc.
Post by: azozeo on May 11, 2017, 07:34:13 PM
Absolutely no one is developing a nat. gas powered 1 cyl ICE powerplant to provide juice to batteries
& an electric motor type vehicle. Why is this ?
Post by: RE on May 11, 2017, 07:43:01 PM
See, that's the thing with these 3 wheelers. To big for a bike path & small enough to impede the flow of traffic.
For the bike paths around here, not too big. 4 wheelers use them all the time. It's smaller than a typical 4-wheeler.
Unique & unto themselves. They're kind of like those micro cars of the 40's & 50's ... Crosleys etc.
For them to really work, you need to get the big carz running at high speeds off the road. That will happen in due time of its own accord.
RE
Post by: RE on May 19, 2017, 04:52:52 AM
Tesla workers are passing out on the factory floor, according to a report
Robert Ferris | @RobertoFerris
2 Hours AgoCNBC.com
Workers assemble cars on the line at the Tesla's factory in Fremont, California.
David Butow | Corbis | Getty Images
Workers at Tesla's California car factory have been passing out and requiring rides in ambulances, the Guardian newspaper reported Thursday.
The conditions at the factory suggest the lengths the company is going to in order to meet its extremely ambitious production goals, and the tension employees feel between their pride in being part of the company and the stress and exhaustion the company's goals are causing them, according to the report.
Fainting spells, dizziness, seizures and other symptoms have led to more than 100 calls to ambulances since 2014, according to incident reports obtained by the Guardian.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk told the publication in an interview that workers are "having a hard time, working long hours, and on hard jobs," but also said he cared deeply about their health and well-being. Tesla has also said its factory safety record has significantly improved over the last year.
SpaceX's Elon Musk has the bold ambition of sending men and women on a one-way trip to the Red Planet.
SpaceX's Elon Musk's bold ambition to colonize Mars
Wednesday, 17 May 2017 | 7:00 AM ET | 01:29
The news comes as Tesla prepares to launch production of its first electric car intended for the mass market, the $35,000 Model 3.
"We're changing the world," said one worker, Richard Ortiz. "I can't wait for my granddaughter to one day go to class and say, 'My grandfather was in there.'"
But he also said he recently lost the strength in his right arm, which was "scaring" him. "I want to use my arm when I'm retired," he told the Guardian.
Some workers at the factory have attempted to unionize over the last several months.
Tesla responded to CNBC's request for comment by pointing to a company blog post, published Sunday, on safety at the Tesla factory.
"Tesla's safety record is much better than industry average, but it is not enough," it said in the post. "Our goal is to have as close to zero injuries as humanly possible and to become the safest factory in the auto industry. We will get there by continuing to ask our employees to raise safety concerns and to keep proposing ideas that make things even better."
Post by: RE on May 30, 2017, 02:37:52 AM
I'll probably post this article of his to the blog next week, but we can get a jump start on discussing it here Inside the Diner.
RE
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2017/05/why-american-way-of-life-is-negotiable.html (http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2017/05/why-american-way-of-life-is-negotiable.html)
I own 2 cars. The cost is negligible, one is 15 years old, the other almost 30. Both run great. It costs me close to nothing to own them, because I hardly ever drive them!
Car OWNERSHIP isn't expensive, DRIVING cars is expensive! That's because the energy it takes to move such a hunk of metal around is getting more expensive. TAAS doesn't make moving carz along the road any cheaper. Assuming you could implement such a system (and you can't for reasons I will detail below) each car gets more use carrying more passengers with less down time for more total miles, but summed the total driving miles are the same for the population given the same infrastructure layout. So same total energy requirement there. Since each carbot does more miles quicker, it also wears out quicker and needs to be replaced quicker. TONS of embedded energy in the manufacture of an automobile, ICE or EV powered. You won't have any of them lasting 30 years like my Mazda.
In terms of the computational requirements to completely replace human driven carz with Carbots, it's one thing to have a few of them on the road passing data across the net, it's another story to have the entire fleet of vehicles doing this basically 24/7 globally. They can't keep airline reservation systems working these days for crying out loud! British Airways was just down for 3 days, and that isn't even processing real time data!
Then you have the energy distribution system necessary to run all your Carbots. The amount of electricity passing across the grid would easily quadruple and I bet go up by an order of magnitude. The current wiring cannot take that load. You would need to restring copper cable easily triple the diameter of the current cables to handle that kind of load, and I'm not sure even that would be thick enough. You can't do it with individual charging stations with solar PV panels either. Where around NYC for instance is there going to be enough space for the fuel up station to have enough solar panels collecting enough energy to fill up every UBER Cab that needs a charge to move people around all day and night?
You're a Physical Science professor Ugo, this just doesn't pencil out in any way shape or form. TAAS does not resolve the absolute energy requirement to begin with, the complexity is outrageous and the computational power to pull it off simply is not there.
You gotta stop shooting up on Techno-Hopium. Your addiction is getting bad.
RE
Post by: monsta666 on May 30, 2017, 11:24:29 AM
Another point and this may or may not be true in America but the way car ownership works in Britain is changing significantly. Instead of buying or getting a car through standard finance many people in the UK are opting for PCP (Personal Contract Purchase) agreements. The PCP arrangement entails the person paying a deposit and thereafter paying a monthly fee. However unlike a standard loan where ownership goes towards the purchaser straightaway (whereby the loan is secured on the car) in the PCP arrangement the ownership of the car still belongs to the dealership. The actual transfer of ownership only actually occurs after a set period of time when the purchaser must pay the remaining balance or return the car and opt for another car which would usually be an upgrade to the newer model from the dealer. In this arrangement people do not actually own the car so it is more like a long lease. What this type of arrangement does is it makes people get used to the idea they do not own a car and it is just on loan and they can upgrade in the next year or two much like you would upgrade a smartphone. With that kind of mentality becoming more prominent I suspect the next leap of outright sharing through TAAS would not be such a big deal as people no longer have it in their heads that the cars they drive are their own personal space. The idea of freedom and doing what you want will also be less strong as in many PCP deals there are strict conditions on how many miles you can drive a car in a given year. Failure to keep within a set mileage will result in penalty fees so you can't just hit the highway without a second thought.
Post by: agelbert on May 30, 2017, 11:41:07 AM
TAAS is not a long-term sustainable model but I believe, at least in theory, in could be more manageable than our current system of car ownership. The theory behind this venture is that if you and I both owned cars then each of us would have to buy a car. Whilst you can buy some old bangers on the cheap quite often people buy new or close to new so purchasing costs will be considerable. The benefit of TAAS is those purchasing costs are shared so we both save money. To put this in a energy perspective the embodied energy for the car industry decreases as the total number of cars used would decline due to greater car pooling. Now some of those energy gains would be offset by greater maintenance due to greater mileage but there would be a reasonable chance those maintenance costs would not outweigh the savings in purchasing costs. If memory serves the energy used to create a vehicle is around 10-20% of the total energy life-cycle of a car assuming the car runs 100,000 miles. Making cars is highly energy intensive. Saying all that I think collapse would happen first before any energy savings of substance can be had. What is more there is a question mark of how effective car sharing would work as quite often we need the car at the same time namely rush hour.
Another point and this may or may not be true in America but the way car ownership works in Britain is changing significantly. Instead of buying or getting a car through standard finance many people in the UK are opting for PCP (Personal Contract Purchase) agreements. The PCP arrangement entails the person paying a deposit and thereafter paying a monthly fee. However unlike a standard loan where ownership goes towards the purchaser straightaway (whereby the loan is secured on the car) in the PCP arrangement the ownership of the car still belongs to the dealership. The actual transfer of ownership only actually occurs after a set period of time when the purchaser must pay the remaining balance or return the car and opt for another car which would usually be an upgrade to the newer model from the dealer. In this arrangement people do not actually own the car so it is more like a long lease. What this type of arrangement does is it makes people get used to the idea they do not own a car and it is just on loan and they can upgrade in the next year or two much like you would upgrade a smartphone. With that kind of mentality becoming more prominent I suspect the next leap of outright sharing through TAAS would not be such a big deal as people no longer have it in their heads that the cars they drive are their own personal space. The idea of freedom and doing what you want will also be less strong as in many PCP deals there are strict conditions on how many miles you can drive a car in a given year. Failure to keep within a set mileage will result in penalty fees so you can't just hit the highway without a second thought.
ANYTHING that runs using an Internal combustion engine is what is REALLY unsustainable, Monsta.
May 29th, 2017 by Steve Hanley
Originally published on Gas2.
For years, the conventional wisdom has been that pollution from diesel engines was far worse than from gasoline engines for two reasons: First, diesel exhaust fumes are known to contain nitrous oxide emissions. Second, they also contain particulates, small molecules that are too small to see. Both are believed to cause serious damage to human lungs.
Now it turns out that conventional wisdom is wrong. ;D A study by researchers at the Materials, Science, and Technology Laboratory in Switzerland claims that particulate emissions from gasoline engines can be far greater than those from diesel engines.
The laboratory studied the emissions of 7 gas engine vehicles equipped with direct-fuel-injection systems. The research found that they emit from 10 to 100 times more particulates than modern diesel engines. In fact, they have higher particulate emissions than older diesel without particulate filters.
Wait, did you read that right? Gasoline engines spew out up to one hundred times more particulates that a modern diesel engine equipped with a particulate filter? Yes, you read that right. Yikes. And people wonder why the incidence of asthma and other lung related diseases is on the rise!
The researchers, led by Norbert Heeb, who has 25 years of experience analyzing emissions from diesel engines and designing filter systems, showed that the particles are the same size as those from older diesel engines. They measure between 10 and 20 nanometers and clump together into particles between 80 and 100 nanometers before they leave the exhaust system.
The gas engines were also found to discharge unburned hydrocarbons in the form of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), along with other liquid and solid toxins which accumulate on the surface of the emitted particles.
Particulates Penetrate The Lungs
Heeb says the particles are so small they penetrate lung tissue and pass into the bloodstream, bringing those toxins with them. Is this beginning to sound like the days when researchers first told the world about all the nasty stuff contained in cigarette smoke? It should, because it turns out there is a connection to smoking. The researchers also found that the exhaust gasses coming out ot the tailpipes of the cars with gas engines also contain benzo-α-pyrene, a carcinogenic produced when tobacco is burned.
A Call For Particulate Filters
He urgently suggests that carmakers begin equipping their gas-powered cars with particulate filters. “New exhaust emission technologies launched on the market typically need about 13 years to become fully effective. Only after that period of time will 9 out of 10 cars in the vehicle fleet be replaced,” he says. “So, the faster particle filters are mandatory in gasoline cars, the better it will be for everyone’s health.”
The culprit in all of this appears to be direct-injection systems themselves. Gasoline engines do not inherently form particulates in the exhaust. In older electronic fuel injection systems with an injector located in the intake tract, fuel is added at the end of the exhaust stroke as the piston is travelling away from the combustion chamber.
In direct injection engines, the fuel is added as the piston is headed back toward the combustion chamber after the end of the intake stroke. This gives the fuel less time to evaporate, claims Heeb, which results in more more unburned hydrocarbons, which means more soot.
Direct injection allows more precisely controlling the fuel delivery process, leading to better fuel economy and lower carbon dioxide emissions. Apparently, few people have tested gas-powered cars equipped with direct-injection systems for anything other than CO2 until now.
Another Reason To Go Electric (http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png)
What’s the bottom line? Just this: Thanks to the Swiss researchers, now we know that our cars are slowly killing us and the planet we live on. (http://realsociology.edublogs.org/files/2010/08/460_0___30_0_0_0_0_0_shell_skull_colour.jpg) It is time to end the reign of the internal combustion engine and push forward with the transition from fossil fuel cars to zero-emissions electrics. Our health depends on it.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/29/gas-cars-much-dirtier-expected/ (https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/29/gas-cars-much-dirtier-expected/)
Agelbert NOTE: Take THAT, Charles Hall, Gail Tverberg and all you other bought and paid for "energy expert" prevaricating propagandists cheerleading fossil fuels to the detriment of people and planet! LIARS! CROOKS! (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif)
And you too, you propagandized intelliburros defending the "real world" of fossil fueldom "high energy density" BALONEY! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif)
Post by: agelbert on May 30, 2017, 11:50:44 AM
May 30th, 2017 by Jose Pontes
SNIPPET:
Looking at the monthly model ranking:
#1 Renault Zoe – Due to some quality glitches, the deliveries of some 2,000 Zoe were delayed, hurting April’s performance of the French hatchback, which last month only landed 1,627 registrations, its worst result of the year. But that was still enough to win Europe’s monthly best seller status for the fourth month in a row. Due to these production hiccups, the model’s performance suffered across Europe, from its home market (939 registrations, down 5%) to Austria (96, down 2%). Nevertheless, it somehow managed to grow in the all-important German market (280 registrations, up 27%).
#2 BMW i3 – The German hot hatch had its worst-selling month in Europe since the massive arrival of the 33 kWh battery, with 1,562 cars being delivered. Despite this, deliveries were up 27% year over year (YoY), with good numbers especially in Norway (426 registrations), all of them being fully electrics(!), but also in its home Germany (357), the United Kingdom (195), and Austria (93). Looking ahead, expect deliveries to slowly drop throughout the summer as people anticipate the revised version, coming later in the year.
#3 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV – After a tight race with the BMW i3, the Japanese SUV ended March in 3rd place (1,507 registrations, down 15% YoY). Despite reaching interesting sales levels in important markets, like Germany (294 units) or Norway (222 units), Mitsubishi will have a hard time finding a replacement for UK sales — incentives for PHEVs have now become much less appealing there.
#4 Nissan Leaf – Thanks to deep discounting, the ageing hatch is resisting a wipeout from the newer offerings, reaching 4th place despite registrations going down 31% YoY to 1,326 units. With steady sales in its stronghold markets — like Norway (287 units), the United Kingdom (350), and France (198) — and a surprising performance in Sweden (189 units, a new record), the veteran model is keeping momentum by appealing to a new demographic still untapped by EVs: Bargain Hunters.
#5 Mercedes GLC350e – The (not so big) surprise of the month came from the Mercedes GLC350e. This trendy Mercedes model is in the intersection of two hot trends on the Old Continent: SUVs and plug-ins, all served in a Euro-friendlier size than the yacht-like models above it (Tesla Model X, Volvo XC90 …). The GLC350e landed #5 in April with 961 registrations. The largest markets for the Mercedes SUV were Belgium (204 units, new record), Norway (179 units), and Germany (126). The three-pointed star has hit a homerun with this model, especially considering that it doesn’t have direct competition among the premium brands. (Well, perhaps not a homerun in Europe — maybe a hat trick.)
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/30/renault-zoe-hiccups-remains-1-europe-electric-car-sales-report/
Post by: agelbert on May 30, 2017, 11:56:49 AM
May 16th, 2017 by James Ayre
SNIPPET:
There have long been critics of the idea of widespread use of electric vehicle (EV) vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technologies for a variety of reasons, but largely in relation to the potential damage done to EV batteries, and thus reduced battery lifespan.
New research from the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute at the University of Hawaii at Manoa seems to clearly support this assertion — the extra cycling that accompanies use of an EV battery for grid balancing, even when at constant power, reduces EV battery cell performance significantly.
To be more specific, the use of an EV with V2G tech could reduce the working lifespan of an EV battery pack to under 5 years time, according to the new work. :( :P
The researchers note, though, that simply delaying the charging of EVs as a means of balancing the grid would have only a “negligible” effect on EV batteries, and could thus represent a better option. However, this could prove to not be the case in environments warmer than “room temperature.”
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif)
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/16/vehicle-grid-discharge-even-constant-power-detrimental-ev-battery-performance-study-finds/ (https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/16/vehicle-grid-discharge-even-constant-power-detrimental-ev-battery-performance-study-finds/)
Agelbert COMMENT: Well, provided this is true, EV car manufacturers should use common sense and join with electric Utilities to offer EV car buyers a 10 year guarantee, WITHOUT ANY ADDED CHARGES, for replacing the used battery pack with a new one. I make the caveat about "no added charges" because the fun and games on the average lead acid battery "guarantee" is, and always was, a rip off.
Avoiding peaking costs is well worth the 10 year battery pack guarantee. In fact, if we had a sane government, they would REMOVE all the fossil fuel "subsidies" and, instead provide EV battery pack 10 year guarantee subsidies as a matter of National Security grid stability.
But common sense and logic in regard to renewable energy is rather difficult for the United Petro-States of America. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gaah.gif)
wattleberry (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg)
A useful warning to users of today's batteries but of limited relevance to their successors which, if anything, will be encouraged by the disclosure of another flaw awaiting correction in a key component of a product which is still at a very early stage of evolution.
agelbert > wattleberry
Like what, the tendrils that grow and short them? We know about that. The battery development is quite mature, thank you very much. It's the fossil fuel polluting machine called an internal combustion engine that never got past the profit over people and planet stage. Gas stations will soon go the way of the dodo bird too.
The only issue with batteries of any significance that needs improvement is rapid replacement technology. We NOW have access to electricity in FAR more places than we have access to gasoline. All we need is a small "spare" battery pack that can take us home or too a quick pack replacement location nearby if our main battery pack fails.
eveee (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)
This discussion needs more clarity. People are defining whats better in odd ways. How do we define it? By how much the EV owner saves in retail electricity costs vs how much the value of the car is reduced by battery degeneration?
I tend to feel V2G doesn't make sense, because a car is not just a battery. However, when the battery is used more, the value of the car reduces.
If you want V2G, get a PowerWall instead. Then you are only reducing the value of the PowerWall, not the car.
A PowerWall is 6500. A Model S is > 65000. 10x.
Now on the other hand, we are only looking at one storage scenario, load shifting.
Already, California is starting a demand response program that pays users not to use electricity during peaks and allow the utility to dial back demand when it needs to.
That is an area for an EV owner to benefit by allowing charging to be controlled or timed to miss expensive peak demand times. That makes total sense. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)
Post by: RE on May 30, 2017, 02:50:10 PM
TAAS is not a long-term sustainable model but I believe, at least in theory, in could be more manageable than our current system of car ownership. The theory behind this venture is that if you and I both owned cars then each of us would have to buy a car. Whilst you can buy some old bangers on the cheap quite often people buy new or close to new so purchasing costs will be considerable. The benefit of TAAS is those purchasing costs are shared so we both save money. To put this in a energy perspective the embodied energy for the car industry decreases as the total number of cars used would decline due to greater car pooling. Now some of those energy gains would be offset by greater maintenance due to greater mileage but there would be a reasonable chance those maintenance costs would not outweigh the savings in purchasing costs. If memory serves the energy used to create a vehicle is around 10-20% of the total energy life-cycle of a car assuming the car runs 100,000 miles. Making cars is highly energy intensive. Saying all that I think collapse would happen first before any energy savings of substance can be had. What is more there is a question mark of how effective car sharing would work as quite often we need the car at the same time namely rush hour.
Another point and this may or may not be true in America but the way car ownership works in Britain is changing significantly. Instead of buying or getting a car through standard finance many people in the UK are opting for PCP (Personal Contract Purchase) agreements. The PCP arrangement entails the person paying a deposit and thereafter paying a monthly fee. However unlike a standard loan where ownership goes towards the purchaser straightaway (whereby the loan is secured on the car) in the PCP arrangement the ownership of the car still belongs to the dealership. The actual transfer of ownership only actually occurs after a set period of time when the purchaser must pay the remaining balance or return the car and opt for another car which would usually be an upgrade to the newer model from the dealer. In this arrangement people do not actually own the car so it is more like a long lease. What this type of arrangement does is it makes people get used to the idea they do not own a car and it is just on loan and they can upgrade in the next year or two much like you would upgrade a smartphone. With that kind of mentality becoming more prominent I suspect the next leap of outright sharing through TAAS would not be such a big deal as people no longer have it in their heads that the cars they drive are their own personal space. The idea of freedom and doing what you want will also be less strong as in many PCP deals there are strict conditions on how many miles you can drive a car in a given year. Failure to keep within a set mileage will result in penalty fees so you can't just hit the highway without a second thought.
What you are talking about is a lease-purchase agreement with a balloon payment for ownership at the end of the lease, and that has been done here in the FSoA for a long time. People who are afficionados of driving around new cars do this all the time, at the end of the lease they don't buy the car with the balloon payment, they simply sign up for a new lease on the latest model.
Having one car service the needs of several different people doesn't save any money, it just burns the car out faster. Maintenance costs across the lifespan of the vehicle are the same. It also has the problem you mentioned, which is that all the vehicles tend to be needed for use at the same time of day, aka rush hour. So unless all the people in a given bedroom community work in the same general downtown location, it doesn't help at all and really is just techno-carpooling.
Far as going all-electric is concerned, I noted the problem of the load on the grid to keep all these vehicles charged. The wiring isn't built to handle that much throughput. You would need MUCH thicker copper cables, and where is all that copper going to come from and who is going to pay for it to be strung?
RE
Post by: Nearingsfault on May 30, 2017, 06:40:22 PM
Best regards, David B.
Post by: agelbert on May 31, 2017, 02:26:52 PM
TAAS is not a long-term sustainable model but I believe, at least in theory, in could be more manageable than our current system of car ownership. The theory behind this venture is that if you and I both owned cars then each of us would have to buy a car. Whilst you can buy some old bangers on the cheap quite often people buy new or close to new so purchasing costs will be considerable. The benefit of TAAS is those purchasing costs are shared so we both save money. To put this in a energy perspective the embodied energy for the car industry decreases as the total number of cars used would decline due to greater car pooling. Now some of those energy gains would be offset by greater maintenance due to greater mileage but there would be a reasonable chance those maintenance costs would not outweigh the savings in purchasing costs. If memory serves the energy used to create a vehicle is around 10-20% of the total energy life-cycle of a car assuming the car runs 100,000 miles. Making cars is highly energy intensive. Saying all that I think collapse would happen first before any energy savings of substance can be had. What is more there is a question mark of how effective car sharing would work as quite often we need the car at the same time namely rush hour.
Another point and this may or may not be true in America but the way car ownership works in Britain is changing significantly. Instead of buying or getting a car through standard finance many people in the UK are opting for PCP (Personal Contract Purchase) agreements. The PCP arrangement entails the person paying a deposit and thereafter paying a monthly fee. However unlike a standard loan where ownership goes towards the purchaser straightaway (whereby the loan is secured on the car) in the PCP arrangement the ownership of the car still belongs to the dealership. The actual transfer of ownership only actually occurs after a set period of time when the purchaser must pay the remaining balance or return the car and opt for another car which would usually be an upgrade to the newer model from the dealer. In this arrangement people do not actually own the car so it is more like a long lease. What this type of arrangement does is it makes people get used to the idea they do not own a car and it is just on loan and they can upgrade in the next year or two much like you would upgrade a smartphone. With that kind of mentality becoming more prominent I suspect the next leap of outright sharing through TAAS would not be such a big deal as people no longer have it in their heads that the cars they drive are their own personal space. The idea of freedom and doing what you want will also be less strong as in many PCP deals there are strict conditions on how many miles you can drive a car in a given year. Failure to keep within a set mileage will result in penalty fees so you can't just hit the highway without a second thought.
What you are talking about is a lease-purchase agreement with a balloon payment for ownership at the end of the lease, and that has been done here in the FSoA for a long time. People who are afficionados of driving around new cars do this all the time, at the end of the lease they don't buy the car with the balloon payment, they simply sign up for a new lease on the latest model.
Having one car service the needs of several different people doesn't save any money, it just burns the car out faster. Maintenance costs across the lifespan of the vehicle are the same. It also has the problem you mentioned, which is that all the vehicles tend to be needed for use at the same time of day, aka rush hour. So unless all the people in a given bedroom community work in the same general downtown location, it doesn't help at all and really is just techno-carpooling.
Far as going all-electric is concerned, I noted the problem of the load on the grid to keep all these vehicles charged. The wiring isn't built to handle that much throughput. You would need MUCH thicker copper cables, and where is all that copper going to come from and who is going to pay for it to be strung?
RE
It takes less energy to move electrons through wires than gasoline and diesel though trucks. The fact that our stupid and inefficient system is set up that way does not mean we have to continue being stupid and inefficient.
I suggest you research copper. Mr. copper is a known indicator of a healthy economy if the price remains strong. If copper was so difficult to obtain, why isn't the price going through the roof now when copper is already in great demand all over the planet due to the massive expansion going on of Renewable Energy technology, which requires more and bigger electric motors, generators and high voltage transmission wiring?
That is the question you should have asked first. Then you wouldn't have asked the others. I know you are not comfortable with a total, balls out transition away from gas guzzlers, but the availability of copper is not a valid supply/demand type argument against that transition.
I agree with you that copper mining is dirty business and ruinously polluting. But making steel for cars and internal combustion engines is even MORE ruinous. EVs will be, pound for pound, MUCH lighter in metals than gas guzzlers. All that energy no longer wasted making umpteen metal parts for gas guzzlers can certainly be used to build out the grid high voltage power line structure.
Yeah, I know, you aren't convinced. ::) What else is new? ;)
Post by: agelbert on May 31, 2017, 02:37:12 PM
There are a few things that come to mind I have not heard mentioned before. Most obviously is if there are far fewer cars made due to car sharing the economies of scale start to dissappear and the price of a car goes up. The other thing would be how willing everyone would be to pay for the roads, policing and countless infrastructure they do now if they don't all own vehicles. Electrics are mostly an answer to gridlock and urban air polution. We are starting to see some in my rural area. How far they penetrate with our long distances, pot holed riddled springs, salt use and deep cold is the question.
Best regards, David B.
Yes, it certainly is. But consider that what we put on Mars runs on electricity, not gasoline or diesel. So the ultimate answer to a robust and reliable ATV for rural areas is logically an EV with a well protected power train and battery pack. Additionally, if such a vehicle has a solar panel, you could, in the unlikely event your battery pack ran out of juice, just sit and wait for enough juice to get you to a charging station. You will never be able to do that with a gas guzzler that runs out of gas.
In regard to the urban city environment you discussed, expect electric movement in three dimensions, not just two. Ski lift an gondola technology is electric, as are moving sidewalks and escalators on causeways or tubes from building to building. The point is that if you aren't putting out poison from a tail pipe, several options, previously dangerous or impractical, become sensible, practical and cost effective.
Post by: azozeo on July 15, 2017, 04:05:51 PM
Post by: RE on July 28, 2017, 09:37:00 AM
RE
https://www.theverge.com/transportation/2017/7/27/16052118/bollinger-b1-electric-sport-truck-outdoors (https://www.theverge.com/transportation/2017/7/27/16052118/bollinger-b1-electric-sport-truck-outdoors)
The Bollinger B1 is an all-electric truck with 360 horsepower and up to 200 miles of range
Built for — and in — the great outdoors
by Sean O'Kane@sokane1 Jul 27, 2017, 7:00pm EDT
Picture an electric vehicle startup. What do you see? A sleek, clean, bright industrial building next to one of California’s sun-baked highways? A massive factory in the Nevada desert? Or maybe an office in one of the smog-choked megacities of China?
What about upstate New York?
That’s where you’ll find Bollinger Motors, a small new American EV startup. Founded by Robert Bollinger, a former Manhattan ad exec turned skincare entrepreneur turned grass-fed cattle farmer, today the company unveiled its first vehicle during an event at Manhattan’s Classic Car Club — the B1, an all-electric “sport utility truck,” with up to 200 miles of range for somewhere around $60,000, all with a look that lands between Jeep Wrangler and a Land Rover Defender.
Bollinger isn’t trying to start the next Tesla, and he’s not trying to compete with electric cars like the Chevy Bolt. His company isn’t pursuing autonomous tech, or worrying about how ride-sharing is going to affect the future of transportation. Bollinger is simply trying to prove that there’s room for some grit in the typically clean electric vehicle space. He just happens to be doing it in the middle of goddamned nowhere.
Bollinger Motors headquarters is easy to miss, though the trip there is truly scenic. Drive north from New York City for a few hours, then turn onto one of the myriad state highways that wind through the Catskill Mountains. Go past the country sheds, the churches covered in peeling paint, and try to resist the temptation of chalky signs advertising weekly clambakes. But if, while heading West, you pass the site of the very first milk pasteurization plant in the United States, know that you’ve gone too far.
A few miles back east of that historic dairy spot is where Bollinger and his team have spent the last year or so working on the B1. Their shop is nothing remarkable — just a plain, dark brown four-door garage that the Google Street View cameras haven’t even laid eyes on since 2009.
So why start an electric truck company here?
“The point of us being that far from Silicon Valley is that we're looking at [electric vehicles] in a completely different way,” Bollinger says. I met him in that garage earlier this July, where I watched his team hustle to assemble the B1 prototype ahead of the official reveal.
"The B1 was inspired by life in the Catskills"
For Bollinger, the B1 is a vehicle that’s inspired by life in the Catskills. Like many New Yorkers who grow tired of the churn of city life, Bollinger moved upstate a few years ago. Only he bypassed the larger suburbs of Westchester and the quaint Hudson River hamlets and went straight to Delaware County — population 47,980 — to become a farmer. But in short order, he became fed up with the limited versatility of both the small utility vehicles typically used on a farm as well as the larger trucks that constantly shuttle around the countryside.
“On my farm I was like, ‘My pickup truck, I hate this, it’s getting stuck in the snow,’” Bollinger says. “And then when you're driving around in a pickup all day, you're kind of too long for everything. You go into any of the small towns around here, and it’s you're like too big.”
Bollinger, who has an industrial design degree from Carnegie Mellon University, wanted something that could do more, so he decided to make his own multipurpose truck. He hired a team of engineers and designers from different automotive backgrounds, and they got to work.
The B1 is the result of that collaboration. It’s a dark gray aluminum box of a vehicle that’s riddled with rivets. There’s a winch in the front bumper, and the whole thing stands on 33-inch tires for an overall height of just over six feet. It screams “utility” — so much so that, standing next to the B1, I expected someone to slap an oversized blueprint down on the hood at any moment, signaling the start of some fantastically ambitious backyard project.
Should that happen, though, boy would you be ready to go. The B1’s dual-motor drivetrain makes 360 horsepower with 472 pound-feet of torque, which is good enough to get the truck from 0–60 miles per hour in 4.5 seconds, according to Bollinger. How far that will get you will vary, because the company plans to sell the B1 in two battery pack configurations. Bollinger says the standard 60kWh battery should be good for about 120 miles of range, but a 100kWh option that can reach about 200 miles will also be available.
Bollinger is still working on securing a manufacturing partner that will make the 10,000–20,000 units per year target that he’s set for the company. (That will also play into the final price of the car, and is part of the reason why the company hasn’t set an exact one yet.) And, currently, the only B1 the company has made is a working prototype — the company will still need to get a real test mule vehicle through certification and compliance later this year. But if all the pieces fall into place — and that’s a big if — the B1 seems like a dream for EV hobbyists that want something more rugged than a Model X or its likeness.
"Dual motors, 360 horsepower, up to 200 miles of range, and 0–60 in 4.5 seconds"
Take the ground clearance, for example: the B1 sits 15 and a half inches off the ground, even at the wheels, which can be raised or lowered by five inches to help navigate tough terrain using the truck’s self-leveling, four-wheel independent hydro-pneumatic suspension. That’s a solid five inches or so more clearance than a Jeep Wrangler, and twice as much as the Model X.
The big draw for the B1 as far as utility goes, though, is the amount of space available. The two rear seats are removable, and the back trunk area is 49 inches wide between the wheel wells, which is just big enough to stack 4 x 8-foot plywood sheets.
There’s a front trunk, too, since there’s no engine taking up the space. And while we’ve seen front trunks in other EVs, the B1’s is connected to the cockpit by a 13 x 14-inch door. This means you could run two-by-four planks, or skis, or steel rebar, or anything long all the way from the front trunk, between the seats, and through to the tailgate. Basically, the B1 has the ability to carry things that would otherwise be dangling off the back of your pickup truck’s paltry eight-foot bed. And because the batteries, motors, and nearly all the electronics are under the floor of the B1, the truck has a low center of gravity that’s balanced right in the middle of the vehicle.
The B1 isn’t only different from other EVs because of its utility. It also bucks the high-tech trend of new cars in general. There will be a radio with an AM/FM receiver, Bluetooth connectivity, and an AUX input, but there’s no touchscreen. In fact, the dashboard is otherwise almost completely analog. There’s even an analog battery level indicator. The only digital display is a small LCD screen to the far left that can be toggled between outside temperature, range, and MPGe, or miles per gallon gasoline equivalent.
The idea here is to get out of the way of the driving (and working) experience, Bollinger explains. But he also thinks it will help reduce some of the anxiety that comes with EVs.
"The B1 is so anti-tech it has an analog battery level indicator on the dash "
“I was just driving a Nissan Leaf, and I realized that a big part of range anxiety is that electric cars constantly tell you [how much battery is left], and it's right in your face,” he says. “It's almost like "AHHHH" worrying the whole time while you're driving.”
But he and his team didn't stop there. The B1 even bucks low-tech comforts. There are no power windows; instead, there’s a lever on each one that you can squeeze to slide them open or closed. The air vents are spartan, too. They sit on top of the dash and are pocked with holes, like the vented barrel of a machine gun. Get too cold or too hot, and you can just twist the cylinder to turn the air away from you. The stalks on the steering wheel, the door handles, and even the trim around the gauges are all machined metal.
“The idea is that it's all hands-on,” Bollinger says, twisting his hands in the air. “You want to go do something with your own two hands, this is the vehicle. It’s the opposite of where things are going with electric, where the screen will tell you everything, and [it’s] autonomous. That's all great, but it's just not our thing.”
Despite the low-tech approach, it’s still an EV, so there’s plenty of power. There are USB and 12-volt outlets in the dashboard, and a host of standard 110-volt plugs throughout the truck. Combine this with the available space throughout the vehicle and the B1 looks like a rather attractive outdoor alternative to a Jeep.
Electric vehicles might still not be the easiest sell for camping due to the simmering fear of getting stuck with a dead battery. (You can always carry a spare can of gas for a combustion car.) But the B1 seems like it would happily accommodate folks who look at isolation from charging stations as a challenge, not a threat. It’s adaptable, too: the doors, the roof, and the rear windows can all be taken off.
And if the idea of the B1 as a futurist camper’s dream doesn’t work out, the truck might have success in a more official capacity. Bollinger says the company’s had discussions with agencies like the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Government agencies (and more local groups like police) have been under pressure in recent years to make their fleets more green, but the available options all represent extreme compromise. Something like the B1 could be much more attractive than a Nissan Leaf or a Toyota Prius to a park ranger team with miles of uneven ground to cover every day.
Manufacturing can be a problematic process — just ask Tesla. And since Bollinger Motors isn’t doing that part of the work itself, a lot is riding on whether or not it can land a manufacturing deal with the right partner. And in the meantime, a startup like Bollinger Motors could easily be outmuscled by one of the many OEMs that have pledged to push their fleets toward electric power, should one choose to train its sights on this part of the market.
But before Bollinger Motors gets the B1 certified and finds a production partner, it will start testing out the desirability of the truck by taking reservations on its website. That process is free for now, but reservation holders will have to put in their official orders with a $1,000 down payment in early 2018 or give up their spot in line. If and when the company can find a manufacturing partner, the plan is to deliver the first B1s about 19 months after the start of production, with the end goal of opening up dedicated retail stores.
That alone might be the B1’s biggest challenge: holding people’s attention until the B1 rolls off the line. The idea of an all-electric, all-terrain truck with great range and abundant utility is tantalizing now, but it’s hard to say whether the B1 will still stand out in two or more years. The roiling automotive market has swallowed plenty of great ideas in the past — why should Bollinger’s be any different?
Or, to put it another way: if an electric vehicle gets built in the woods, and no one’s around to buy it, what happens then?
Photography by Sean O’Kane / The Verge
Post by: Eddie on July 28, 2017, 09:46:40 AM
It's nice to be rich enough to hire a team of engineers to build an EV exactly to the design you want. ::)
RE
https://www.theverge.com/transportation/2017/7/27/16052118/bollinger-b1-electric-sport-truck-outdoors (https://www.theverge.com/transportation/2017/7/27/16052118/bollinger-b1-electric-sport-truck-outdoors)
The Bollinger B1 is an all-electric truck with 360 horsepower and up to 200 miles of range
Built for — and in — the great outdoors(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/q5cH4ShYXJG6l_bv1jeY_MRC6gc=/0x0:2040x1360/2070x1164/filters:focal(955x635:1281x961)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55931769/Image_uploaded_from_iOS_3.1501192800.jpg)
by Sean O'Kane@sokane1 Jul 27, 2017, 7:00pm EDT
Picture an electric vehicle startup. What do you see? A sleek, clean, bright industrial building next to one of California’s sun-baked highways? A massive factory in the Nevada desert? Or maybe an office in one of the smog-choked megacities of China?
What about upstate New York?
That’s where you’ll find Bollinger Motors, a small new American EV startup. Founded by Robert Bollinger, a former Manhattan ad exec turned skincare entrepreneur turned grass-fed cattle farmer, today the company unveiled its first vehicle during an event at Manhattan’s Classic Car Club — the B1, an all-electric “sport utility truck,” with up to 200 miles of range for somewhere around $60,000, all with a look that lands between Jeep Wrangler and a Land Rover Defender.
Bollinger isn’t trying to start the next Tesla, and he’s not trying to compete with electric cars like the Chevy Bolt. His company isn’t pursuing autonomous tech, or worrying about how ride-sharing is going to affect the future of transportation. Bollinger is simply trying to prove that there’s room for some grit in the typically clean electric vehicle space. He just happens to be doing it in the middle of goddamned nowhere.(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/OZecbzdHVc2Dv2ljNre3fesMqKk=/2000x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8942207/sokane_170711_1870_0011.jpg)
Bollinger Motors headquarters is easy to miss, though the trip there is truly scenic. Drive north from New York City for a few hours, then turn onto one of the myriad state highways that wind through the Catskill Mountains. Go past the country sheds, the churches covered in peeling paint, and try to resist the temptation of chalky signs advertising weekly clambakes. But if, while heading West, you pass the site of the very first milk pasteurization plant in the United States, know that you’ve gone too far.
A few miles back east of that historic dairy spot is where Bollinger and his team have spent the last year or so working on the B1. Their shop is nothing remarkable — just a plain, dark brown four-door garage that the Google Street View cameras haven’t even laid eyes on since 2009.
So why start an electric truck company here?
“The point of us being that far from Silicon Valley is that we're looking at [electric vehicles] in a completely different way,” Bollinger says. I met him in that garage earlier this July, where I watched his team hustle to assemble the B1 prototype ahead of the official reveal.
"The B1 was inspired by life in the Catskills"
For Bollinger, the B1 is a vehicle that’s inspired by life in the Catskills. Like many New Yorkers who grow tired of the churn of city life, Bollinger moved upstate a few years ago. Only he bypassed the larger suburbs of Westchester and the quaint Hudson River hamlets and went straight to Delaware County — population 47,980 — to become a farmer. But in short order, he became fed up with the limited versatility of both the small utility vehicles typically used on a farm as well as the larger trucks that constantly shuttle around the countryside.
“On my farm I was like, ‘My pickup truck, I hate this, it’s getting stuck in the snow,’” Bollinger says. “And then when you're driving around in a pickup all day, you're kind of too long for everything. You go into any of the small towns around here, and it’s you're like too big.”
Bollinger, who has an industrial design degree from Carnegie Mellon University, wanted something that could do more, so he decided to make his own multipurpose truck. He hired a team of engineers and designers from different automotive backgrounds, and they got to work.
The B1 is the result of that collaboration. It’s a dark gray aluminum box of a vehicle that’s riddled with rivets. There’s a winch in the front bumper, and the whole thing stands on 33-inch tires for an overall height of just over six feet. It screams “utility” — so much so that, standing next to the B1, I expected someone to slap an oversized blueprint down on the hood at any moment, signaling the start of some fantastically ambitious backyard project.(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/sPDIAaqmpmn7UZPiMMLS4BhaIiQ=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8942235/sokane_170711_1870_0100.jpg)
Should that happen, though, boy would you be ready to go. The B1’s dual-motor drivetrain makes 360 horsepower with 472 pound-feet of torque, which is good enough to get the truck from 0–60 miles per hour in 4.5 seconds, according to Bollinger. How far that will get you will vary, because the company plans to sell the B1 in two battery pack configurations. Bollinger says the standard 60kWh battery should be good for about 120 miles of range, but a 100kWh option that can reach about 200 miles will also be available.
Bollinger is still working on securing a manufacturing partner that will make the 10,000–20,000 units per year target that he’s set for the company. (That will also play into the final price of the car, and is part of the reason why the company hasn’t set an exact one yet.) And, currently, the only B1 the company has made is a working prototype — the company will still need to get a real test mule vehicle through certification and compliance later this year. But if all the pieces fall into place — and that’s a big if — the B1 seems like a dream for EV hobbyists that want something more rugged than a Model X or its likeness.
"Dual motors, 360 horsepower, up to 200 miles of range, and 0–60 in 4.5 seconds"
Take the ground clearance, for example: the B1 sits 15 and a half inches off the ground, even at the wheels, which can be raised or lowered by five inches to help navigate tough terrain using the truck’s self-leveling, four-wheel independent hydro-pneumatic suspension. That’s a solid five inches or so more clearance than a Jeep Wrangler, and twice as much as the Model X.
The big draw for the B1 as far as utility goes, though, is the amount of space available. The two rear seats are removable, and the back trunk area is 49 inches wide between the wheel wells, which is just big enough to stack 4 x 8-foot plywood sheets.
There’s a front trunk, too, since there’s no engine taking up the space. And while we’ve seen front trunks in other EVs, the B1’s is connected to the cockpit by a 13 x 14-inch door. This means you could run two-by-four planks, or skis, or steel rebar, or anything long all the way from the front trunk, between the seats, and through to the tailgate. Basically, the B1 has the ability to carry things that would otherwise be dangling off the back of your pickup truck’s paltry eight-foot bed. And because the batteries, motors, and nearly all the electronics are under the floor of the B1, the truck has a low center of gravity that’s balanced right in the middle of the vehicle.(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/3_skFc1H_vqcxtQzjP300CLqRk4=/2000x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8942213/sokane_170711_1870_0037.jpg)
The B1 isn’t only different from other EVs because of its utility. It also bucks the high-tech trend of new cars in general. There will be a radio with an AM/FM receiver, Bluetooth connectivity, and an AUX input, but there’s no touchscreen. In fact, the dashboard is otherwise almost completely analog. There’s even an analog battery level indicator. The only digital display is a small LCD screen to the far left that can be toggled between outside temperature, range, and MPGe, or miles per gallon gasoline equivalent.
The idea here is to get out of the way of the driving (and working) experience, Bollinger explains. But he also thinks it will help reduce some of the anxiety that comes with EVs.
"The B1 is so anti-tech it has an analog battery level indicator on the dash "
“I was just driving a Nissan Leaf, and I realized that a big part of range anxiety is that electric cars constantly tell you [how much battery is left], and it's right in your face,” he says. “It's almost like "AHHHH" worrying the whole time while you're driving.”
But he and his team didn't stop there. The B1 even bucks low-tech comforts. There are no power windows; instead, there’s a lever on each one that you can squeeze to slide them open or closed. The air vents are spartan, too. They sit on top of the dash and are pocked with holes, like the vented barrel of a machine gun. Get too cold or too hot, and you can just twist the cylinder to turn the air away from you. The stalks on the steering wheel, the door handles, and even the trim around the gauges are all machined metal.
“The idea is that it's all hands-on,” Bollinger says, twisting his hands in the air. “You want to go do something with your own two hands, this is the vehicle. It’s the opposite of where things are going with electric, where the screen will tell you everything, and [it’s] autonomous. That's all great, but it's just not our thing.”
Despite the low-tech approach, it’s still an EV, so there’s plenty of power. There are USB and 12-volt outlets in the dashboard, and a host of standard 110-volt plugs throughout the truck. Combine this with the available space throughout the vehicle and the B1 looks like a rather attractive outdoor alternative to a Jeep.
Electric vehicles might still not be the easiest sell for camping due to the simmering fear of getting stuck with a dead battery. (You can always carry a spare can of gas for a combustion car.) But the B1 seems like it would happily accommodate folks who look at isolation from charging stations as a challenge, not a threat. It’s adaptable, too: the doors, the roof, and the rear windows can all be taken off.
And if the idea of the B1 as a futurist camper’s dream doesn’t work out, the truck might have success in a more official capacity. Bollinger says the company’s had discussions with agencies like the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Government agencies (and more local groups like police) have been under pressure in recent years to make their fleets more green, but the available options all represent extreme compromise. Something like the B1 could be much more attractive than a Nissan Leaf or a Toyota Prius to a park ranger team with miles of uneven ground to cover every day.(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/yo-df75EhBza5GhjxC2NGWqaJkA=/2000x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8942243/sokane_170711_1870_0161.jpg)
Manufacturing can be a problematic process — just ask Tesla. And since Bollinger Motors isn’t doing that part of the work itself, a lot is riding on whether or not it can land a manufacturing deal with the right partner. And in the meantime, a startup like Bollinger Motors could easily be outmuscled by one of the many OEMs that have pledged to push their fleets toward electric power, should one choose to train its sights on this part of the market.
But before Bollinger Motors gets the B1 certified and finds a production partner, it will start testing out the desirability of the truck by taking reservations on its website. That process is free for now, but reservation holders will have to put in their official orders with a $1,000 down payment in early 2018 or give up their spot in line. If and when the company can find a manufacturing partner, the plan is to deliver the first B1s about 19 months after the start of production, with the end goal of opening up dedicated retail stores.
That alone might be the B1’s biggest challenge: holding people’s attention until the B1 rolls off the line. The idea of an all-electric, all-terrain truck with great range and abundant utility is tantalizing now, but it’s hard to say whether the B1 will still stand out in two or more years. The roiling automotive market has swallowed plenty of great ideas in the past — why should Bollinger’s be any different?
Or, to put it another way: if an electric vehicle gets built in the woods, and no one’s around to buy it, what happens then?
Photography by Sean O’Kane / The Verge
I just saw that and was going to post it. Nice truck.
Post by: RE on July 28, 2017, 09:49:12 AM
I just saw that and was going to post it. Nice truck.
I figured you would like this one. lol. Sign up to buy one yet? ;D
RE
Post by: Eddie on July 28, 2017, 10:15:28 AM
Post by: RE on July 28, 2017, 10:26:14 AM
It needs to be a pickup. And much cheaper, LOL.
I doubt you will see a New EV Pickup for any less than $60K anytime too soon.
RE
Post by: Eddie on July 28, 2017, 10:48:48 AM
Post by: agelbert on July 28, 2017, 02:56:30 PM
That said, I did learn a few things that I will pass on to you:
A Volt is an Opel Ampera in Europe.
Most EV owners overwhelmingly wanted a fast charge option (that added about a thousand dollars to the price :P) even though over 90% of those EV owners DID NOT use fast charging in their routine daily lives.
Most EV owners love new technology. NOTE: There is a big split here between Tesla owners and all the rest. The Tesla owners are way too Jetson Tech freaky, which is sort of expected since they dished out so much money for an EV.
Most owners of EVs in the Leaf level of cost wanted economy and a tool to help them use less energy all around, not just in transportation.
Most owners of EVs in the Leaf level of cost (and about 30% of Tesla model S owners too!) reported being inspired to lower their household energy consumption after buying their EV.
All EV owners reported lower operation and maintence costs than on their previous gas guzzler cars.
In actual use EV range anxiety is not a factor because EV owners bone up quickly on where the charging stations are, in case of need, and plan every move they make. This is a big difference from when they owned gas guzzlers, and some reading this might say, AHA! the EV "restricts freedom!". NOPE. What it does is make people do something they do not like to do: THINK about energy use and become more conscious of when and how it is used so as to NOT ABUSE it. The narcissistic greed balls among us will find this "restrictive", of course. But greed balls do not understand biosphere math. EV owners learn it quickly. (http://www.bativert.ma/images/image3.jpg) After about a month, the EV owner is conscious of, and attuned to, energy use like never before. (http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/xig/ojx/xigojx6KT.png) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif) They settle into an energy and cost saving routine that, except for longer trips which occur maybe two or three times a YEAR, does not require planning or restrict their movement. All the hand wringing from the peanut gallery gas guzzlers about "EV range anxiety" is, in practice, unjustified. Gas guzzler owners will say that EV owners are exhibiting endowment bias. The survey report admits there must be some bias because non-EV owners are not in the survey. That said, ALL the EV owners reported having owned gas guzzlers previously (in some cases they still have one). So the "bias" of EV owners, is really an objective conclusion reached after having driven gas guzzlers all their adult lives. That IMHO, is NOT a bias; it's sound critcal thinking. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif)
The overwhelming majority of EV owners is male, not female. :( This is depressing to me, but I understand it. Females of our species, though assumed to be more "environmentally conscious and caring" than males, are actually naturally reticent to try new things. IOW, they are far more conservative than the average male. Women, in general, dislike risk. What, pray tell, is "risky" about owning an EV for a woman? Well, IMHO, the propaganda out there against EVs is NOT what is keeping women from being too keen to buy them or influencing them to view EVs as "too risky". (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)
What is "risky" about EVs for women is that they cannot "fill up the tank" at all those gas stations out there. ;D Women are more culturally acclimated than men. They LIKE to be part of the herd. Owning an EV is, at present, an act of defiance to herd mentality and a potential source of gossip for her female friends. So, more females are in the "wait and see" category than males. This will totally flip when the DAMAGE to the environment of owning a gas guzzler becomes part of the herd knowledge. I am being a bit long winded about this issue because my wife simply will not hear of owning an EV. I told her they can no longer gouge us for mufflers, catalytic converters, emission sensor replacements, cooling system hoses, coolant, oil changes, transmission fluids, frequent brake jobs and other inspection fun and games. She counters that the mechanics will "think of something else" to gouge us with and EVs cost too much money up front. I tell there is an offer for a NEW 2017 Leaf lease (for Vermont residents) that, including the $1,999 (includes first $199 monthly payment) down payment plus 35 $199 payments and residual - cost to buy - of $8,207 plus cost to own $300 fee comes to a TOTAL of $17,471.00 (manufacturer's rebate of $13,400 :o ;D) plus taxes (which are much lower because the vehicle is three years old at that point), not the high $31,565 MSRP. She says there must be a gimmick or they want to offload them because they are lemons and can't sell them. ::) I tell her about the low operation and maintenance and that, since she mostly uses the car for groceries (we drive less than 2,000 miles a YEAR, so the 12,000 mile per year lease "limitation" is irrelevant to us), we don't have a range anxiety issue. She says she doesn't want to have to run an extension cord from our manufactured home to the car after she does errands (we do not own the land - we rent it - we CANNOT build a garage and put a charging unit in it). (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gaah.gif)
I certainly don't agree with it, but now I sympathize more with Adam's decision to eat that fruit. :(
If the following has some hidden cost I am not seeing, I don't know what it is. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif) (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif)
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280717140511.png)
Post by: Nearingsfault on July 28, 2017, 03:20:16 PM
I could see a kit format too...
Now I just have to come up with 60000 us. Then there is My well maintained 11 year old explorer that just won't die.
Post by: agelbert on July 28, 2017, 03:42:23 PM
July 28th, 2017 by Zachary Shahan
Originally published on Planetsave.
SNIPPET:
Tesla was on a death watch notice nearly one decade ago. News coverage and editorials frequently postulated Tesla’s coming demise. It couldn’t produce cars. No one wanted its cars. Its cars broke down around every turn. Where would people charge? Where could the cars be fixed?
Full article packed with lots of CROW for people like Tyler Durden of ZeroHedge to eat. (http://lucidating.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/eatcrow.gif)
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/Banane21.gif)
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/28/tesla-death-watch-hahaha/ (https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/28/tesla-death-watch-hahaha/)
Post by: azozeo on August 13, 2017, 02:29:55 PM
http://igeeksapps.com/2017/08/11/tesla-looking-to-start-testing-autonomous-lorry-in-platoon/ (http://igeeksapps.com/2017/08/11/tesla-looking-to-start-testing-autonomous-lorry-in-platoon/)
http://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/08/reuters-tesla-looking-to-start-testing-autonomous-semi-in-platoon-formation/ (http://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/08/reuters-tesla-looking-to-start-testing-autonomous-semi-in-platoon-formation/)
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/10/tesla-test-autonomous-electric-trucks-without-drivers-public-roads-nevada-elon-musk (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/10/tesla-test-autonomous-electric-trucks-without-drivers-public-roads-nevada-elon-musk)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/08/10/tesla-semi-truck/555266001/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/08/10/tesla-semi-truck/555266001/)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-truck-autonomous-idUSKBN1AP2GD (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-truck-autonomous-idUSKBN1AP2GD)
Quote: "Tesla is looking to test a fleet of self-driving electric trucks in Nevada and California according to new details revealed in an email between the Silicon Valley-based electric auto giant and Nevada's Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The news comes via Reuters, which read an email discussion between Tesla and the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles. The idea of 'platooning' suggests that Tesla's autonomous driving tech will allow the vehicles to move in a convoy formation, with one vehicle leading a fleet of autonomous trucks."
Note: This is anti-slumper tech, driverless vehicles, since people are going to be spazzing out and slumping over dead too often in vehicles to keep civilization functioning. Driverless vehicles will buy us a little more time...
Post by: agelbert on August 13, 2017, 03:02:39 PM
2017-08-11 - Tesla preparing to test autonomous big rigs in California and Nevada:
http://igeeksapps.com/2017/08/11/tesla-looking-to-start-testing-autonomous-lorry-in-platoon/ (http://igeeksapps.com/2017/08/11/tesla-looking-to-start-testing-autonomous-lorry-in-platoon/)
http://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/08/reuters-tesla-looking-to-start-testing-autonomous-semi-in-platoon-formation/ (http://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/08/reuters-tesla-looking-to-start-testing-autonomous-semi-in-platoon-formation/)
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/10/tesla-test-autonomous-electric-trucks-without-drivers-public-roads-nevada-elon-musk (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/10/tesla-test-autonomous-electric-trucks-without-drivers-public-roads-nevada-elon-musk)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/08/10/tesla-semi-truck/555266001/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/08/10/tesla-semi-truck/555266001/)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-truck-autonomous-idUSKBN1AP2GD (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-truck-autonomous-idUSKBN1AP2GD)
Quote: "Tesla is looking to test a fleet of self-driving electric trucks in Nevada and California according to new details revealed in an email between the Silicon Valley-based electric auto giant and Nevada's Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The news comes via Reuters, which read an email discussion between Tesla and the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles. The idea of 'platooning' suggests that Tesla's autonomous driving tech will allow the vehicles to move in a convoy formation, with one vehicle leading a fleet of autonomous trucks."
Note: This is anti-slumper tech, driverless vehicles, since people are going to be spazzing out and slumping over dead too often in vehicles to keep civilization functioning. Driverless vehicles will buy us a little more time...
Yep. They are going to move on this very quickly.
But don't tell Luciid. He'll claim you are smokin' sumptin'. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)
Post by: azozeo on August 17, 2017, 05:06:12 AM
“Roads? Where we’re going, we don’t need roads.”
As a fan of Back to the Future and Doc Brown’s DeLorean time machine as well as someone who still stops and stares longingly when a brushed stainless steel DeLorean DMC-12 drives by, this is the kind of news that makes one want to yell “Great Scott!”. The nephew of the famous car guru John DeLorean announced that the DeLorean Aerospcae DR-7 – a real flying car using the same kind of futuristic technology that went into the DMC-12 – is just months away from traveling the skies … and perhaps time? Where does the line start?
Paul DeLorean is the CEO and chief designer of DeLorean Aerospace, a company in Laguna Beach, California, with a mission John DeLorean and Doc Brown would both be proud of:
To bring the freedom and exhilaration of personal air transportation to the masses. With superior design and engineering, our advanced architecture provides a practical, elegant, and extremely safe alternative to conventional aircraft, with the convenience of airport-free access.
(http://mysteriousuniverse.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/DeLorean-open-570x275.jpg)
DeLorean’s biggest asset is his DNA. His uncle John started at the Packard Motor Company but became famous at General Motors, where he designed the Pontiac GTO muscle car, the Pontiac Firebird, Pontiac Grand Prix and (proving he was human) the Chevrolet Vega subcompact. Then he became infamous by starting his own car company to make the gull-winged DMC-12. John’s father and Paul’s grandfather, Zachary DeLorean, emigrated to the United States from Romania and eventually worked at the Ford Motor Company factory in Highland Park, Michigan, where he was also a union organizer. Needless to say, transmission fluid is in Paul DeLorean’s blood.
DeLorean Aerospace was founded in 2012 to build a flying car or, in somewhat Doc Brown-ish technical terms, a two-seat vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) personal air transport vehicle. Accrdoing to the website, the DR-7 combines a “zero-emission modern electric power system with a lightweight yet highly stable platform” and will contain a wide variety of futuristic innovations. Not to mention good looks, or as Doc Brown might say, “The way I see it, if you’re gonna build a ‘flying’ machine into a car, why not do it with some style?”
The DR-7 has been designed with a number of unique technologies for improved safety and overall functionality. With an industry-first centerline twin vectoring propulsion system, stall-resistant canard wing, and multiple patent-pending features, our aircraft is intrinsically safer. With an incredibly low drag coefficient, the DR-7 maximizes range under fully electric power.
The DR-7 will be 20 feet (6 meters) long and 18.5 feet (5.5 meters) wide with wings that fold in so it can be parked in a large garage. A one-third scale model has already been built and DeLorean is now working on a full-sized, fully-functional prototype that he claims will have a range of 120 miles per charge and be ready within a year.
At DeLorean Aerospace, we are actualizing the dream of practical and accessible air mobility with our DR-7 aircraft.
As Marty McFly would say … “Whoa!” All that’s left to answer is when and how much. The prototype is expected to be flying sometime in 2018. And the price? For now, you’ll need Doc Brown’s DeLorean to find that out.
Post by: azozeo on September 08, 2017, 07:21:09 AM
http://www.norwegianamerican.com/featured/unintended-consequences-electric-car-fires-on-the-rise-in-norway/ (http://www.norwegianamerican.com/featured/unintended-consequences-electric-car-fires-on-the-rise-in-norway/)
Post by: azozeo on September 15, 2017, 08:42:09 AM
http://www.ktxs.com/news/elon-musk-tesla-to-reveal-semitruck-beast/620668766 (http://www.ktxs.com/news/elon-musk-tesla-to-reveal-semitruck-beast/620668766)
http://www.kpax.com/story/36362473/elon-musk-tesla-will-reveal-semi-truck-beast-next-month (http://www.kpax.com/story/36362473/elon-musk-tesla-will-reveal-semi-truck-beast-next-month)
http://www.krtv.com/story/36362473/elon-musk-tesla-will-reveal-semi-truck-beast-next-month (http://www.krtv.com/story/36362473/elon-musk-tesla-will-reveal-semi-truck-beast-next-month)
http://www.kxlh.com/story/36362473/elon-musk-tesla-will-reveal-semi-truck-beast-next-month (http://www.kxlh.com/story/36362473/elon-musk-tesla-will-reveal-semi-truck-beast-next-month)
Quote: "Get ready to meet Tesla's 'beast' of a semi-truck. The electric vehicle maker is aiming to unveil the Tesla Semi and do a test ride on Oct. 26, according to CEO Elon Musk. 'Worth seeing this beast in person,' he tweeted late Wednesday. 'It's unreal.'"
Post by: RE on October 02, 2017, 04:35:33 PM
Auto OEMs Plan To Flood Market With New Electric Car Models Despite Massive Losses
Oct 2, 2017 2:48 PM
Last month we noted that Tesla really outdid itself in 2Q 2017 by posting a record cash burn of $1.2 billion, or roughly $13 million every single day. Per the chart below, Tesla's Q2 cash burn was just a continuation of the company's money-losing trend that goes back at least 6 years and seems to be getting worse with each passing quarter.
But Tesla isn't alone in burning cash on "EV's" as pretty much every electric vehicle offered to customers loses money on a per unit basis.
At this point, expensive battery technology still makes them money drains. General Motors Co. loses about $9,000 on every Chevrolet Bolt electric car it sells. Tesla had record sales of its EVs last year -- and still lost $675 million on $7 billion in sales. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV loses $20,000 on every electric version of its 500-model subcompact sold in the U.S., Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne said in a speech in Italy on Monday. Battery-powered models should be marketed based on consumer demand and not depend on incentives, he said.
Of course, with statistics like that, it should come as no surprise that auto OEM's all around the world are tripping over themselves to introduce dozens of new electric models in the coming years. Even Bloomberg was somewhat perplexed to report that OEMs will introduce 50 new electric vehicle models over the next 5 years despite the industry's staggering cash burn.
Here are two facts that defy logic: By the end of the year, electric-car maker Tesla Inc. will have burned through more than $10 billion without ever having made 10 cents. Yet companies around the world are lining up to compete with it.
Almost 50 new pure electric-car models will come to market globally between now and 2022, including vehicles from Daimler AG and Volkswagen AG. Even British inventor James Dyson is getting into the game, announcing last week that he’s investing two billion pounds ($2.7 billion) to develop an electric car and the batteries to power it.
“Nobody doubts that the future will be electric,” said Erich Joachimsthaler, founder and CEO of brand-strategy firm Vivaldi, which works with German luxury carmakers. “The car companies dragged their feet with electric. Now they are being dragged into it by Tesla and by regulations.”
Finding a financial advisor who you could trust used to be difficult, but not anymore. SmartAsset's Financial Advisor Matching tool will find the best advisor for you, based on your financial profile. Learn more about how easy it is - here.
Meanwhile, as the race to add supply of electric cars goes into overdrive, Bloomberg points out that "there is little evidence that there is a lot of consumer demand for it." We'll have to check our notes from Econ 101 but we're almost certain that adding new supply to an industry that already loses money due to a lack of demand is a bad idea...
In North America alone, the number of electric vehicles will soar to 47 by the first quarter of 2022 from 24 in the third quarter of this year, according to data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. China’s EV market will go to 80 from 61, and European buyers will have 58 electric choices, up from 31. Globally, there will be 136 EVs on the market by the end of that year, and that doesn’t even include the hybrid models or fuel cells.
That will make for a very crowded field in a nascent zero-emission car market that most consumers have yet to embrace and where financial losses loom large. In the U.S., electric car sales were less than 1 percent of the market last year, according to the International Energy Agency. They were 1.4 percent in China and in the U.K.
“Companies are committed to electric cars, but there is little evidence that there is a lot of consumer demand for it,” said Kevin Tynan, senior analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence.
Here are some of the significant new models coming to market:
VW’s Audi brand will start building the E-tron Quattro, a luxury SUV, in 2018, followed by the Sportback coupe in 2019 and a third, unnamed vehicle by 2020.
Porsche AG will sell a production version of its Mission E sports sedan concept car starting in 2019.
In addition to BMW’s current electric i3 compact and i8 sports car, the German automaker will have an electric Mini in 2019, an X3 compact SUV in 2020 and 10 others by 2025, Chairman Harald Krueger said in a speech in September.
Daimler’s Mercedes-Benz brand plans 10 battery-powered vehicles in its EQ sub-brand through 2022, while Volvo Car Group, which is owned by China’s Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd., has said any new models launched in 2019 or later will be offered only as hybrid, plug-in hybrid or all-electric versions.
Tesla plans to build the Model Y small SUV in 2019 or 2020.
While we joke, the reality is that much of the blame for the auto industry's bizarre decisions on electric vehicles stems from the perverse, misinformed regulations imposed by various governments around the world. As the Sacramento Bee pointed out last week, California, to our complete shock, is leading the efforts to force higher losses on OEMs with San Francisco assemblyman Phil Ting promising to introduce new legislation in January that would ban all combustion-engine vehicles by 2040.
France and the United Kingdom are doing it. So is India. And now one lawmaker would like California to follow their lead in phasing out gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.
When the Legislature returns in January, Assemblyman Phil Ting plans to introduce a bill that would ban the sale of new cars fueled by internal-combustion engines after 2040. The San Francisco Democrat said it’s essential to get California drivers into an electric fleet if the state is going to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets, since the transportation sector accounts for more than a third of all emissions.
“The market is moving this way. The entire world is moving this way,” Ting said. “At some point you need to set a goal and put a line in the sand.”
“California is used to being first. But we’re trying to catch up to this,” Ting said.
Of course, the irony of all of this is that no one is more happy about the shift to electric cars than the folks working in the coal industry who will supply the power required to keep them on the road.
Post by: azozeo on October 02, 2017, 05:39:59 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-02/auto-oems-plan-flood-market-new-electric-car-models-despite-massive-losses (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-02/auto-oems-plan-flood-market-new-electric-car-models-despite-massive-losses)
Auto OEMs Plan To Flood Market With New Electric Car Models Despite Massive Losses
Oct 2, 2017 2:48 PM
Last month we noted that Tesla really outdid itself in 2Q 2017 by posting a record cash burn of $1.2 billion, or roughly $13 million every single day. Per the chart below, Tesla's Q2 cash burn was just a continuation of the company's money-losing trend that goes back at least 6 years and seems to be getting worse with each passing quarter.(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2017/07/20/tesla%20cash%20burn%20q2_0.jpg)
But Tesla isn't alone in burning cash on "EV's" as pretty much every electric vehicle offered to customers loses money on a per unit basis.
At this point, expensive battery technology still makes them money drains. General Motors Co. loses about $9,000 on every Chevrolet Bolt electric car it sells. Tesla had record sales of its EVs last year -- and still lost $675 million on $7 billion in sales. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV loses $20,000 on every electric version of its 500-model subcompact sold in the U.S., Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne said in a speech in Italy on Monday. Battery-powered models should be marketed based on consumer demand and not depend on incentives, he said.
Of course, with statistics like that, it should come as no surprise that auto OEM's all around the world are tripping over themselves to introduce dozens of new electric models in the coming years. Even Bloomberg was somewhat perplexed to report that OEMs will introduce 50 new electric vehicle models over the next 5 years despite the industry's staggering cash burn.
Here are two facts that defy logic: By the end of the year, electric-car maker Tesla Inc. will have burned through more than $10 billion without ever having made 10 cents. Yet companies around the world are lining up to compete with it.
Almost 50 new pure electric-car models will come to market globally between now and 2022, including vehicles from Daimler AG and Volkswagen AG. Even British inventor James Dyson is getting into the game, announcing last week that he’s investing two billion pounds ($2.7 billion) to develop an electric car and the batteries to power it.
“Nobody doubts that the future will be electric,” said Erich Joachimsthaler, founder and CEO of brand-strategy firm Vivaldi, which works with German luxury carmakers. “The car companies dragged their feet with electric. Now they are being dragged into it by Tesla and by regulations.”(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2017/10/02/2017.10.02%20-%20Electric%20Car%20Models_0.JPG)
Finding a financial advisor who you could trust used to be difficult, but not anymore. SmartAsset's Financial Advisor Matching tool will find the best advisor for you, based on your financial profile. Learn more about how easy it is - here.
Meanwhile, as the race to add supply of electric cars goes into overdrive, Bloomberg points out that "there is little evidence that there is a lot of consumer demand for it." We'll have to check our notes from Econ 101 but we're almost certain that adding new supply to an industry that already loses money due to a lack of demand is a bad idea...
In North America alone, the number of electric vehicles will soar to 47 by the first quarter of 2022 from 24 in the third quarter of this year, according to data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. China’s EV market will go to 80 from 61, and European buyers will have 58 electric choices, up from 31. Globally, there will be 136 EVs on the market by the end of that year, and that doesn’t even include the hybrid models or fuel cells.
That will make for a very crowded field in a nascent zero-emission car market that most consumers have yet to embrace and where financial losses loom large. In the U.S., electric car sales were less than 1 percent of the market last year, according to the International Energy Agency. They were 1.4 percent in China and in the U.K.
“Companies are committed to electric cars, but there is little evidence that there is a lot of consumer demand for it,” said Kevin Tynan, senior analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence.
Here are some of the significant new models coming to market:
VW’s Audi brand will start building the E-tron Quattro, a luxury SUV, in 2018, followed by the Sportback coupe in 2019 and a third, unnamed vehicle by 2020.
Porsche AG will sell a production version of its Mission E sports sedan concept car starting in 2019.
In addition to BMW’s current electric i3 compact and i8 sports car, the German automaker will have an electric Mini in 2019, an X3 compact SUV in 2020 and 10 others by 2025, Chairman Harald Krueger said in a speech in September.
Daimler’s Mercedes-Benz brand plans 10 battery-powered vehicles in its EQ sub-brand through 2022, while Volvo Car Group, which is owned by China’s Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd., has said any new models launched in 2019 or later will be offered only as hybrid, plug-in hybrid or all-electric versions.
Tesla plans to build the Model Y small SUV in 2019 or 2020.
While we joke, the reality is that much of the blame for the auto industry's bizarre decisions on electric vehicles stems from the perverse, misinformed regulations imposed by various governments around the world. As the Sacramento Bee pointed out last week, California, to our complete shock, is leading the efforts to force higher losses on OEMs with San Francisco assemblyman Phil Ting promising to introduce new legislation in January that would ban all combustion-engine vehicles by 2040.
France and the United Kingdom are doing it. So is India. And now one lawmaker would like California to follow their lead in phasing out gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.
When the Legislature returns in January, Assemblyman Phil Ting plans to introduce a bill that would ban the sale of new cars fueled by internal-combustion engines after 2040. The San Francisco Democrat said it’s essential to get California drivers into an electric fleet if the state is going to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets, since the transportation sector accounts for more than a third of all emissions.
“The market is moving this way. The entire world is moving this way,” Ting said. “At some point you need to set a goal and put a line in the sand.”
“California is used to being first. But we’re trying to catch up to this,” Ting said.
Of course, the irony of all of this is that no one is more happy about the shift to electric cars than the folks working in the coal industry who will supply the power required to keep them on the road.
We should be seeing the 2017 EV leftovers from the mfg. being massively discounted by now.
I haven't seen anything from Nissan or VW on incentives to move out their EV's...
Post by: RE on October 02, 2017, 06:11:19 PM
We should be seeing the 2017 EV leftovers from the mfg. being massively discounted by now.
I haven't seen anything from Nissan or VW on incentives to move out their EV's...
They can't discount them, they'll pop the bubble. They're channel stuffing them.
RE
Post by: azozeo on October 03, 2017, 04:23:04 AM
We should be seeing the 2017 EV leftovers from the mfg. being massively discounted by now.
I haven't seen anything from Nissan or VW on incentives to move out their EV's...
They can't discount them, they'll pop the bubble. They're channel stuffing them.(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/05/cars%202.jpg)
RE
I just visited the VW web site & not a peep about discounts. Still full pop.
However, I did see VW posted this.
Kind of early to the dance. 5 yrs out.
https://newsroom.vw.com/vehicles/future-cars/official-the-vw-bus-is-back-and-its-electric/ (https://newsroom.vw.com/vehicles/future-cars/official-the-vw-bus-is-back-and-its-electric/)
Post by: RE on October 03, 2017, 07:05:45 AM
RE
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-model3-problems-20171002-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-model3-problems-20171002-story.html)
A very bad September for Tesla's Model 3 as production falls far short
Tesla said Monday it had produced only 260 Model 3s last month, well below its forecast. (Tesla Motors)
Russ MitchellRuss MitchellContact Reporter
In July, Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk warned that “production hell” was ahead for Tesla’s new and long-anticipated Model 3.
He wasn’t kidding. On Monday, the company said it had only produced 260 Model 3 cars from the start of production in late July through September 30, far short of the 1,500 the company had forecast.
That’s bad news for Tesla. The success or failure of the Model 3 could make or break the company.
The car is billed as a more affordable alternative to Tesla’s luxury Model S and Model X. The company had planned to be churning out 20,000 of them a month by December, and 500,000 a year by the end of 2018.
When my children were younger, I remember looking forward to the time that they’d be old enough to sit up, order, and eat all on their own. Now that they can…I’m not so sure.
Sponsored Content by Sara Burnett, Director of Wellness and Food Policy at Panera
In a note to investors Monday, Tesla blamed “production bottlenecks” but offered no details.
“It is important to emphasize that there are no fundamental issues with the Model 3 production or supply chain,” the company said. “We understand what needs to be fixed and we are confident of addressing the manufacturing bottleneck issues in the near-term.”
The company did not say whether its December or 2018 production forecasts remain on track.
The Model 3 production numbers were included in an investor message, posted online, that touted “our all time best quarter for Model S and X deliveries.” Tesla delivered 25,930 of those cars, up 4.5% over the same quarter last year.
Tesla critics saw little to crow about. Sales of the Model S and Model X have remained in the low to mid-20,000s for the last four quarters, sowing doubts about whether sales growth for those cars is nearly tapped out.
"The most shocking thing about this report isn't even the low Model 3 production number,” said Mark Spiegel of Stanphyl Capital. “It's that Model S and X sales were only up 4.5% year-over-year despite massive discounting and before all the luxury EV competition arrives next year from Jaguar and Audi and in 2019 from Mercedes and Porsche. This is supposed to be a hypergrowth company.”
Although sales are tiny compared with the major auto companies and Tesla has spent billions in cash without profit, its stock price has exceeded that of Ford and General Motors.
In the last three weeks, however, Tesla’s stock is down around 10%. It closed up 43 cents Monday to $341.53 but fell in after-hours trading.
Some workers at the Tesla factory in Fremont, Calif., are attempting to organize a union. State legislation passed in September will force companies that offer state-paid rebates on their electric vehicles to prove their labor practices are fair. The rules on what counts as fair are yet to be written.
The Model 3’s stated price ranges from $35,000 to near $60,000, depending on options. The cars now qualify for a $2,500 state rebate and a federal rebate of $7,500. If production reaches Tesla’s forecasts, however, the federal subsidies will run out sometime next year.
Tesla has said that more than 350,000 people have paid $1,000 each in refundable deposits to hold a place in line.
russ.mitchell@latimes.com
Twitter: @russ1mitchell
Post by: RE on October 07, 2017, 07:56:49 AM
#Business News
October 6, 2017 / 12:44 PM / Updated 14 hours ago
Tesla delays big rig truck debut; Model 3 in 'production hell'
Munsif Vengattil
3 Min Read
FILE PHOTO: Tesla Model 3 cars wait for their new owners as they come off the Fremont factory's production line during an event at the company's facilities in Fremont, California, U.S., July 28, 2017. REUTERS/Alexandria Sage/File Photo
(Reuters) - Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) Chief Executive Elon Musk on Friday pushed back the unveiling of the company’s big rig truck until mid-November, tweeting that the electric vehicle maker was diverting resources to fix production bottlenecks of its new Model 3 sedan and to help Puerto Rico.
Musk said Tesla’s Model 3 was “deep in production hell” echoing his own comments in July, when he showed off some of the first cars of that model.
The Model 3 could help Tesla approach its goal of becoming more of a mass market producer. Recent comments have tempered expectations about the speed of the increase in production, though.
Musk’s comments came after the close of stock trading on Friday. The company’s shares fell 0.8 percent in extended trading.
The Palo Alto, California-based company delivered just 220 Model 3 sedans and produced 260 in the third quarter. It had planned to produce more than 1,500.
Musk also tweeted the company was diverting resources to increasing battery production to help hurricane-hit Puerto Rico, where most residents remain without electricity.
Earlier this week Tesla reported that “production bottlenecks” had left it behind the planned ramp-up for the Model 3.
In response to a Tesla customer asking if he would get his car delivered this year, Musk tweeted, “December will be a big month, so probably, but it is impossible to be certain right now.”
A Wall Street Journal report said parts of Model 3 were being made by hand as recently as early September, adding to production delays. (on.wsj.com/2kt5E17)
Musk also said Tesla would reschedule the unveiling of its semi-truck to Nov. 16 as it focuses on fixing production issues tied to Model 3 and increases battery production for Puerto Rico.
The unveiling of the truck, called Tesla Semi, has been delayed for the second time this year. Musk had initially said the truck would be unveiled in September, but he later rescheduled it to late October.
“Semi specs are better than anything I’ve seen reported so far. Semi eng/design team work is aces, but other needs are greater right now,” Elon replied to a twitter user who asked him about the specifications of the semi-truck.
Reuters in August reported that the truck would have a working range of 200-300 miles.
Earlier in the day, Musk said the company will send more battery installers to Puerto Rico to help restore power after Hurricane Maria knocked out power on the island over two weeks ago.
Reporting by Munsif Vengattil in Bengaluru; Editing by Peter Henderson and Anil D'Silva and David Gregorio
Post by: RE on October 08, 2017, 01:20:24 AM
RE
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-tesla-is-struggling-to-make-model-3-2017-10/#1-the-numbers-dont-mean-anything-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/why-tesla-is-struggling-to-make-model-3-2017-10/#1-the-numbers-dont-mean-anything-1)
Tesla is struggling to build the Model 3 — here's why
Tesla is struggling to build the Model 3 — here's why
Matthew DeBord
Tesla Model 3The Tesla Model 3.Timothy Artman/Tesla
TSLA Tesla
356.88 1.55 (+0.40 %)
Disclaimer Get real-time TSLA charts here »
Tesla's third-quarter delivery numbers were both impressive — and depressing. The carmaker is on pace to sell 100,000 vehicles in a year for the first time in its 14-year history. But it's also far, far behind with the production of its new Model 3 sedan, the vehicle that's supposed to bring Tesla to the masses and spell the beginning of the end for gas-powered cars.
Tesla said that it would produce 1,500 Model 3s in September; it has managed fewer than 300 since the car was launched in July.
Getting to 20,000 in monthly production by December now seems like a hopeless expectation, as does CEO Elon Musk's prediction that Tesla will be manufacturing 500,000 vehicles annually by the end of 2018.
This means that the half-million pre-orders for the Model 3 could go unfulfilled for several years, putting a huge number of $1,000 refundable deposits for each new car in doubt. That threat is real, but the markets are unconcerned. Tesla stock is still up 65% in 2017 and the brand has lost none of its captivating aura.
But it's also obvious that for a carmaker that's been around as long as Tesla shouldbe good at, Tesla isn't: building vehicles.
So why is Tesla struggling to build the Model 3 on its own admittedly ambitious schedule? There are five main reasons:
View As: One Page Slides
1. The numbers don't mean anything.
1. The numbers don't mean anything.
What numbers?Bill Pugliano/Getty Images
Tesla has a long history of overpromising and underdelivering. Customers and investors have been more than happy to forgive the automaker for this transgression, largely because both groups understand that there's nothing to be gained if Tesla under promises and over delivers.
Tesla does not benefit from being normal. The company's entire DNA is organized around being special, different, extraordinary. Leave it to the General Motors' of the world to announce an all-electric Tesla Model 3 competitor, the Chevy Bolt, in 2015 and have it hit the streets by 2016.
Tesla's game is to astound (eventually), not execute. As such, the only predictions that matter are outsized ones. You don't change the world by restraining yourself.
And Wall Street doesn't care. Over the past two years, Tesla's stock has been wildly volatile. But it's still up over 1,200% since the company's 2010 IPO. Despite almost no profitable quarters and a balance sheet that can keep the company in business for only about a year before the cash is all gone.
2. The Model 3 is all-new production.
2. The Model 3 is all-new production.
Robots assembling Teslas.Benjamin Zhang/Business Insider
Tesla is reasonably good at manufacturing its expensive, luxurious Model S sedans and Model X SUV. Production of these vehicles was designed around a run-rate of about 100,000 per year, and Tesla will hit that mark most likely in 2017.
Of course, the Model X endured "production hell," as Musk memorably put it, during its roll-out in 2016. The Model S also endured early production issues that were later corrected. And Musk declared that production hell would be back for the Model 3. In fact, production hell often seems to be Tesla's default state.
Traditional automakers are quite good at mass production, but Tesla has not been challenged to be a mass-production company until now. Musk talks about Model 3 production in terms of an "S curve," with a very slow ramp rapidly speeding up before leveling off at a desired point.
But Tesla also has a second S curve, related to learning. It doesn't know, exactly, how to build the Model 3. The company also skipped a beta-stage of production, in order to launch the Model 3 ahead of schedule this year. And although the Model 3, according to Musk, was engineered for rapid production, it's still a new thing.
Established automakers build cheaper cars in volume all the time; Tesla never has.
3. Tesla enjoys endless patience from everybody.
3. Tesla enjoys endless patience from everybody.
Just trust me on this one!Reuters/Mike Blake
Tesla's brand equity is probably its most valuable asset. Short-sellers aren't fans, and plenty of analysts argue that Musk is all hat and no cattle, but everybody else loves the company.
And Tesla knows it. Having built up massive positive brand equity over the years, Tesla has the advantage of "spending" it from time to time by, frankly, deceiving the public. Within this negative pact, however, is shared understanding: Yes, we aren't going to make our goals — but we also aren't going to lose focus on the big picture, which isn't to sell more cars, but rather to save the planet.
Unlike most other companies, even professedly do-gooding outfits in Silicon Valley, Tesla truly has a mission, one that's difficult to resist or criticize. Importantly, Tesla has earned this trust by delivering a genuine payoff to anybody who's willing to go along for the ride.
4. Tesla isn't actually mass-producing the Model 3 yet.
4. Tesla isn't actually mass-producing the Model 3 yet.
The first 30 Tesla being delivered at the carmaker's factory.Screenshot/Tesla
A lot of things have to happen at the right time even for an inexpensive, simple-to-build vehicle to stay on schedule. In 2011, when a tsunami and nuclear-plant disaster hit Japan, the automotive supply chain was massively disrupted for Toyota and Honda, leading to manufacturing slowdowns worldwide.
Tesla is still small by the standards of the auto industry. The company's California factory is also off the grid a bit, as the US car business runs out of the Midwest and the South. Tesla has only recently gained access, according to the company, to the best teams at the best suppliers, and the history of its manufacturing is one of fits and starts. The Model X, for example, went through both a rear-door and rear-seat redesign just months before the car launched in 2015.
Even if Tesla had hit its goal of 1,500 Model 3s in September, it would still be a long way from the levels of production needed to meet demand. The low numbers, which the company chalked up to production "bottlenecks," suggest that the ramp to just pre-mass-production is taking longer than expected.
If Tesla hadn't fallen so short of its own run-rate for September, we could assume some bobbles, but unfortunately, it looks more like the decision to forego the process of testing out the Model 3 assembly line before trying to accelerate the production ramp isn't working out.
5. The Model 3 looks simpler then the Model S and Model X — but is it?
5. The Model 3 looks simpler then the Model S and Model X — but is it?
The Model X is complication. The Model 3 is supposed to be simple.Tesla
Tesla designed the Model 3 to be easier to build than the Model S and Model X, but compared with electric cars that have now been in production for a while — the Chevy Bolt and the Nissan Leaf, for example — there's a lot of "clean slate" to the newest Tesla.
To build an EV that they can get to market quickly, build easily, and price below $40,000, other manufacturers are just adapting existing gas-car platform to the task. The Bolt doesn't feel all that futuristic inside, and the Leaf has a fairly conventional interior. Neither car is dramatic to look at on the outside.
Tesla has eliminated as much dashboard instrumentation as possible with the Model 3, going for a very clean, minimalist vibe that stars a single, horizontal touchscreen. Although that might sound like it makes everything easier, it doesn't necessarily because it's a major departure from how cars are currently put together.
Ultimately, Tesla's plan to simplify will pay off, but in the short term, negotiating the learning curve could slow them down.
Post by: RE on October 08, 2017, 02:19:16 PM
RE
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4112310-teslas-pretense-model-3-production-ripped-away
Tesla's Pretense Of Model 3 Production Has Been Ripped Away
Oct. 8.17 | About: Tesla Motors (TSLA)
Mark Hibben
Tesla still making Model 3s by hand.
Elon Musk's not very reassuring Tweets.
The EU pledges $2.6 billion to automotive battery development.
Rethink Technology business briefs for October 6, 2017.
Tesla still making Model 3s by hand
Source: Tesla
Tesla's (TSLA) Q3 vehicle delivery report showed only 220 Model 3s being delivered with 260 being produced. Tesla blamed the low count on “production bottlenecks” and stated:
Although the vast majority of manufacturing subsystems at both our car plant and our Nevada Gigafactory are able to operate at high rate, a handful have taken longer to activate than expected.
This makes it sound as if there are just isolated problems in the production chain and that most of it is working as planned. An article today from the Wall Street Journal paints a very different picture:
Unknown to analysts, investors and the hundreds of thousands of customers who signed up to buy it, as recently as early September major portions of the Model 3 were still being banged out by hand, away from the automated production line, according to people familiar with the matter.
While the car’s production began in early July, the advanced assembly line Tesla has boasted of building still wasn’t fully ready as of a few weeks ago, the people said. Tesla’s factory workers had been piecing together parts of the cars in a special area while the company feverishly worked to finish the machinery designed to produce Model 3’s at a rate of thousands a week, the people said.
It was obvious back in July when the first “production” Model 3s were delivered to Tesla insiders and employees that these were unlikely to have been produced on a true mass production line. Back then I wrote:
It's reasonable to assume that all the parts and components of the cars are production parts, whether from suppliers or from Tesla's own factories. What isn't likely is that the cars have gone through the final assembly process as it will be in a few months time. Tesla has committed to a highly automated assembly process, but it's unlikely that this is fully operational. Most likely, there was a very substantial amount of hand assembly that won't be needed once the production line is fully operational.
In fact, it now appears that not even all the components of the Model 3 were final production parts. Electrek.co has reported that Tesla has been replacing “prototype” parts with production parts in Model 3s delivered in July. These include the seats, headlight and tail lights, and the all-important battery packs.
The WSJ report indicates that Tesla is still where I thought it was back in July. And the article points out that there is limited value in hand assembly of Model 3 at this point, since it doesn't serve to test out the final assembly process.
Hand assembly of the Model 3 now seems mainly designed to soothe investors by convincing them that Model 3 “production” has started. What I find so distressing about this is that increasingly, Tesla's actions seem to be governed not by technical necessity but by the need to keep investors sold on Tesla.
This has, of course, been an ongoing theme of the Tesla bears, who have portrayed efforts such as the Gigafactory as “Potemkin Villages.” Such portrayals have been self-serving exaggerations, in my view. But building Model 3s by hand because the production line isn't up and running seems a waste of time and money.
The concern is that while the Model 3 is indeed a simpler to build car, the process of building it has become more complex through the attempt to build the “Alien Dreadnought.” The Alien Dreadnought is to be an almost completely automated “machine that builds the machines.” In attempting to re-invent the way cars are built, Tesla has taken on another Model X type of goal, with potential Model X types of delays.
Also distressing is the fact that Tesla indicated that the initial production line would be a less ambitious version of the Alien Dreadnought that was not fully automated. I think it remains a foregone conclusion that Tesla will not achieve its goal of 5,000 Model 3/week production by the end of the year. But I consider it a distinct possibility that Tesla will not even meet my “Pessimistic Scenario” of 2,500/week by the end of the year.
This will impose even more financial strain on the company and probably necessitate yet another capital raise early next year.
Elon Musk's not very reassuring Tweets
At about the same time that the WSJ article appeared, Musk was answering questions about the Model 3 via Twitter. Among other things, he was asked when the Model 3 design studio would become available for non-employee reservation holders. He replied “Probably 6 to eight weeks."
Electrek's Fred Lambert pointed out that Tesla is still guiding to “late October” for first customer deliveries, so this appears to be a delay. Once again, Musk was not reassuring, indicating that “Late Oct is possible, but not certain.” Probably what's certain is that “late October” customer deliveries aren't happening.
The EU pledges $2.6 billion to automotive battery development
Bloomberg reports that the EU is holding a meeting in Brussels on October 11, led by its top energy official Maros Sefcovic. Sefcovic has pledged $2.6 billion for battery development. The goal of the meeting is to create a European battery consortium.
The German government appears to be supportive of the concept, and big German industrial companies such as BASF and BMW have been invited to the meeting. All of the major German automobile manufacturers have committed substantial investment in electric vehicles, but there's a growing perception that battery manufacturing needs to be approached on a pan-European scale. A spokeswoman for the Economy and Energy Ministry was quoted by Bloomberg as saying:
It’s right and important that the commission finally addresses the issue of battery cell manufacturing on an EU level. We need European sovereignty on key technologies and battery cells are one of the most important differentiating factors for electric mobility.
I think the Tesla Bears have tended to make a little too much of the impact of competition from electric vehicles such as the Nissan Leaf and GM Bolt. But I do have a sense that Tesla's window of opportunity is starting to close. Although it's taken the automobile industry an appallingly long time to catch on, it finally has. Most auto makers will have very effective competition for Tesla in production by 2020.
Tesla needs to be profitable well before 2020. Tesla needs to have large scale (250-500K) production of the Model 3 well underway, and profits being generated, so that it can fund the next generation Model S and X as well as the crossover version of the Model 3. Tesla will need these to compete effectively in the new electric vehicle age it has helped create.
Post by: RE on October 13, 2017, 08:50:36 PM
RE
Tesla Fires Hundreds of Workers After Their Annual Performance Review
They're not layoffs, the automaker says.
By Kirsten Korosec October 13, 2017
Electric automaker Tesla Motors fired hundreds of employees this week, including workers at its Fremont, Calif. factory and corporate managers, as it tries to solve production problems for its recently released Model 3.
An estimated 400 to 700 people were dismissed this week, according to a San Jose Mercury News report published Friday afternoon. That’s between 1% and 2% of the company’s more than 33,000 employees. Former and current employees told the Mercury News that little or no warning preceded the dismissals.
A Tesla spokesman would not confirm that number but told Fortune that the move follows its annual performance reviews, which typically involve both involuntary and voluntary departures.
“Like all companies, Tesla conducts an annual performance review during which a manager and employee discuss the results that were achieved, as well as how those results were achieved, during the performance period,” a Tesla spokesman said in an emailed statement. “This includes both constructive feedback and recognition of top performers with additional compensation and equity awards, as well as promotions in many cases. As with any company, especially one of over 33,000 employees, performance reviews also occasionally result in employee departures. Tesla is continuing to grow and hire new employees around the world.”
Tesla insists that the losses are not layoffs and that it plans to backfill the positions. That’s likely accurate, at least for jobs in California. State law requires companies to notify employees of layoffs through its WARN notification system. There are no records of new layoffs from Tesla. About 200 Tesla and SolarCity employees in the company’s Roseville, Calif. offices were notified Aug. 30 that they would be terminated.
The latest cuts come as the automaker tries to fix bottlenecks on the production line for its Model 3, an all-electric model designed to appeal to the masses. Earlier this month, Tesla reported that it produced 260 Model 3 cars in the third quarter, of which it has delivered 220. That figure is far less than CEO Elon Musk’s prediction that Tesla would produce more than 1,600 of the vehicles by September.
In July, Musk tweeted a production update for the Model 3, saying the car had passed all regulatory requirements ahead of schedule. After announcing that the first 30 customers would receive the Model 3s on July 28, Musk wrote, “production grows exponentially, so Aug should be 100 cars and Sept above 1,500.”
Altogether, Musk said that third quarter production numbers for the Model 3 would be around 1,630 vehicles—a prediction off by 84%.
A Wall Street Journal report published earlier this month revealed that Tesla workers were assembling Model 3 vehicles by hand until at least early September. One of the “bottlenecks” Musk alluded to was a process that involved positioning and welding body panels by hand, rather than by precision robots, according to workers interviewed by the Journal.
Musk recently delayed the unveiling of an electric semi-truck until Nov. 16 so the company can focus its attention on production problems with its new mass-market car, the Model 3.
Post by: Golden Oxen on October 15, 2017, 05:16:04 AM
I'll give you the reader's digest version of WHY. Because Tesla is a Bullshit company run by a Bullshit Artist Snake Oil Salesman named Elon Musk.
RE
GO is becoming fearful that Tesla could be the Black Swan that cracks the entire Financial con game. Delusions that give way to reality can cause havoc. :-\ :icon_scratch: ::)
Word is spreading that something is "Rotten in Denmark" :icon_scratch:
forbes.com
Tesla Shareholders: Are You Drunk On Elon Musk's Kool-Aid?
Michael Lewitt
7-8 minutes
He has Tesla buy bankrupt affiliate Solar City and claims the company will be selling huge volumes of solar rooftops though few have materialized. He promises that Tesla will produce 200,000 vehicles in 2017 and will come nowhere close, 500,000 in 2018 and 1,000,000 in 2020, figures that are laughable before considering that the company loses money on every one of them so it may be better off not meeting these fanciful targets. And in order to divert attention from his lies, he makes ridiculous claims that Tesla can rebuild South Australia’s and Puerto Rico’s power grids and then uses these as excuses for further product delays. In any case, there is no discussion of who will pay for this or how TSLA will make any money on these projects.
If investors want to throw away their money on a serial prevaricator, that’s their business and I will happily take the other side of the trade and the profits bound to come with it. But the SEC is supposed to police securities fraud and Mr. Musk is laughing in its face by producing one lie after another with impunity. If he were a coal producer or a member of a politically unprotected class rather than a purveyor of green cars for rich people, the SEC would be investigating him for his incessant market manipulation. This is another example of the collapse of the rule of law in America and it is going to cost investors tens of billions of dollars. Short sellers again are performing a public service by calling attention to this travesty of a company and failure of the regulators to police a serious abuse of the system.
Seeking Alpha isn’t the only place where people are trying to pump up Tesla stock in the face of a steady flow of bad news. A couple of days after the Journal reported that TSLA’s production line is a shambles (and after Tesla issued a non-denial denial to its house publicity organ, CNBC), one of its loudest Wall Street supporters (who happens to work at one of its habitual underwriters), Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas issued a ridiculous report raising his price target from $317 per share to $379 per share based on the alleged strength of TSLA’s infrastructure to support electric vehicles and lowered the discount rate of his imaginary and unsupported estimates which themselves are simply linear.
The report made absolutely no mention of the production difficulties that limited production in the third quarter but was filled with lots of colorful diagrams about all of the charging stations and Model 3s that are going to mysteriously materialize and fill America’s roadways (by the way, how come we never hear about the environmental challenges involved in disposing of all the auto and other batteries that TSLA and other electric car makers are going to produce?). Mr. Jonas treats TSLA as the only automaker engaged in the production and sale of electric vehicles, ignoring the fact that the largest automakers in the world with much greater resources than TSLA are devoting billions of dollars to the sector. His work shows little sense of the realities of the severe competitive pressures that TSLA is already starting to experience and will only intensify in the coming years.
TSLA Chart
TSLA data by YCharts
Mr. Jonas is the analyst who imagined that Tesla will create a ride-sharing business he calls Tesla Mobility that will revolutionize the auto industry despite the fact that there is no sign such a business will ever exist and then used the value of that imaginary business to pump up his target price on the stock. His financial model for TSLA, which includes $70 per share for Tesla Mobility, is rife with inconsistencies and unrealistic assumptions. For example, his model shows only modest increases in share counts (from 167 million shares today to 188 million in 2020 and 203 million in 2025) and declining interest expense, which assumes that the company will not need to raise much additional capital, a wholly unrealistic assumption. He only shows the company raising $2.5 billion in additional equity in 2018, which won’t be nearly enough to fund TSLA’s capital needs.
I believe the company will need at least $10 billion of additional capital and should move quickly to sell as much stock as it can before the stock price collapses (if Elon Musk is indeed the visionary that the media describes, his brilliance does not extend to corporate finance where he is missing the important lesson that you raise money when you can, not when you need to). Mr. Jonas’s accounting also shows non-GAAP earnings exceeding GAAP earnings in 2020 ($4.72 a share non-GAAP v. $3.79/share GAAP) while stock options are still being granted in size ($468 million in 2017 rising to $724 million in 2025 and $926 million in 2030). His model also assumes straight line growth with no recessions, no hiccups, no problems, and endless government subsidies over the next dozen years. Good luck with that.
I think what may have happened is that Elon Musk called Morgan Stanley, one of TSLA’s underwriters, and asked it to write a positive report after the negative news came out over the weekend about its production snafus. Wanting to stay in its client’s good graces, Morgan Stanley obliged. Mr. Jonas had to come up with something and concocted his report about the importance of TSLA’s charging stations and other infrastructure to support its future fleet, which is all well-and-good looked at in isolation but provides no basis for inflating an already inflated price target. Rather, it is a transparent attempt to support the stock price. As I’ve often said, Wall Street makes brothels look like churches when it comes to ethics.
Naturally, after dropping double digits on the Journal story that the assembly line is in disarray, the stock rallied back by double digits on publication of the Morgan Stanley report. So that leaves us having to decide whether TSLA shareholders are geniuses or delusional.
There are some highly respected investors betting on TSLA, but there were a lot of smart people heavily invested in Valeant Pharmaceuticals International (VRX) when I told people to short that stock when it was trading at nearly $200 a share because I knew it was based on foundation of lies. Even smart people can make big mistakes. You need to think for yourself and look at the facts when you study a company, not rely on who else is invested or what the media is saying. The negative facts surrounding TSLA far outweigh the positive fantasies being hammered together like the cars in its factories by Elon Musk and his media and Wall Street sycophants. Keep the car but sell the stock. Or, put another way, don’t be delusional.
[Disclosure: The author may have positions in the securities mentioned in this article.]
Excerpted from The Credit Strategist
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellewitt/2017/10/13/tesla-shareholders-are-you-drunk-on-elon-musks-kool-aid/2/#18cbaecb4716 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellewitt/2017/10/13/tesla-shareholders-are-you-drunk-on-elon-musks-kool-aid/2/#18cbaecb4716) :icon_study: :icon_study: :icon_study: :o :-\
Post by: azozeo on October 22, 2017, 01:30:18 PM
The Verge
Tesla has made an arrangement with Shanghai’s government to built a manufacturing plant in the city’s free-trade zone, according to The Wall Street Journal, which cites reports from people briefed on the company’s plans.
The WSJ reports that Tesla will own the factory, rather than partner with a local manufacturer, as it typically the case. Chinese officials have recently begun to considerrelaxing some of the more stringent rules concerning local partners, as a way to encourage electric vehicle manufacturers. The arrangement would be the “first of its kind for a foreign auto maker,” but will likely not allow Tesla to avoid a 25 percent import tariff.
In June, Tesla confirmed that it was in talks to build a factory in Shanghai, ending months of speculation about the company’s plans. At the time, a spokesperson explained that while the company anticipated keeping most of its production in the US, it did “need to establish local factories to ensure affordability for the markets they serve.”
The world’s largest market for automobiles, China has recently worked to encourage the development of a robust market for EVs. In September, Xin Guobin, the country’s vice minister of industry and information technology, noted at a forum that the country is beginning to phase out sales of fossil fuel vehicles as it works to cut its carbon emissions, and that existing manufacturers will need to begin building more EVs in the coming years. As such, establishing a factory in China will be a major deal for Tesla as it works to ramp up its production around the world.
We’ve reached out to Tesla for comment, and will update this story if we hear back.
Post by: RE on October 25, 2017, 06:33:14 AM
Driverless in Manhattan: A Comedy
By Tom Lewis | October 23, 2017 | Miscellany/LOL
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Android | RSS
So I was on my way back to my hut in the Slough of Despond, there to lick my wounds a while, when I said to myself, “Wait a minute, perhaps we should read a bit beyond the headline and the first paragraph.” And what I found there made me smile again, briefly.
All the stories were about an announcement from the office of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo that a subsidiary of General Motors had applied to begin the first tests in the state of a “fully autonomous vehicle.” Curiously, every story that I have seen said that GM got the contract to do the testing, when all the governor’s announcement said was that they had applied for the contract. But that is far from the only abject failure of “journalism” with respect to this story:
The driverless cars will not be driverless. There will be not only a qualified engineer seated at all times on the driver’s seat, performing on demand the functions of a driver, but in addition there will be a person in the passenger’s seat, performing, as required, the functions of a passenger. This was clearly laid out in the governor’s release.
The autonomous cars will not be autonomous. The governor referred to them as “fully autonomous” cars, but they are not. In the industry, there are four levels of autonomy, and only Level Five cars, which can go anywhere in any weather at any time without human intervention, are properly called fully autonomous. No such car has yet been built, and there is no timetable for when one might be built. What has been achieved is Level Four, a car that can automatically perform certain prescribed tasks within a prescribed area.
The cars will not “roam New York City streets” at will. As the governor’s statement pointed out but few stories mentioned, the tests will take place within a “geofenced area” of about five square miles, the mapping of which, says the governor, “has begun.” Wait, what? There are no existing maps of Manhattan, including Google Maps, that the cars can use? That’s going to be a problem for the rest of the country, right?
The tests will not exactly be “real world.” In addition to the driver hovering over the driverless controls, and the passenger hovering over the driver, each individual car in the test will be escorted by a New York State Police cruiser, and will be under the umbrella of a five million dollar insurance policy. Other than that, though, it’s just another Monday in Manhattan.
Despite all this, driverless cars are a great investment. Consider. A few months before being “selected” by the governor to get the first contract to test autonomous cars in New York, GM gave $17,500 to Cuomo’s reelection campaign. As word spread of GM’s victory in the struggle to dominate a non-existent industry, General Motors stock went up 25%. You just don’t see that kind of return on investment much anymore. Not since Bernie Madoff, anyway.
So now that we know how that works, let us repair once again to the Slough of Despond, there to contemplate our technological future.
Post by: RE on October 26, 2017, 03:06:36 AM
by Tyler Durden
Oct 25, 2017 3:50 PM
Poor Elon Musk really, really can't catch a break. Just over the past couple of weeks he's been forced to push back his Model 3 delivery schedule due to some "production hell" issues (like not knowing how to weld...a fairly critical component of auto manufacturing), got one-upped by Daimler who beat him to the punch by revealing an all electric semi-truck earlier today (several weeks ahead of Elon), was sued by former employees who alleged a "hostile and racist work environment" in his Fremont plant...and the list goes on and on.
Now, according to a report from CNBC, Tesla's mass firings have spread to SolarCity, a company which Musk just purchased last year despite warnings from concerned shareholders that it would be nothing more than a distraction. While it's unclear how many people have been fired from each division, former employees estimate that some 1,200 people have been let go in total between the various Tesla entities.
Employee dismissals at Tesla are continuing, according to six former and current employees, and have spread from its motor division to SolarCity offices across the U.S.
Echoing reports from earlier this month, these SolarCity employees say they were surprised to be told they were fired for performance reasons, claiming Tesla had not conducted performance reviews since acquiring the solar energy business.
All the people spoke under condition of anonymity, citing fears of retaliation from Tesla.
Tesla had already announced plans to lay off 205 SolarCity employees at its Roseville, California, office by the end of October this year. However, SolarCity employees across the country have been fired in the last two weeks — not just in California, but also in Nevada, Arizona, Utah and beyond, according to these employees.
Two former employees told CNBC that the Roseville office was being completely shut down. A Tesla spokesperson said the office will remain open with about 50 full-time employees.
The total number of dismissals could not be determined. However, former employees estimate around 1,200 people have been fired in the company's wave of dismissals at Tesla including SolarCity. That figure does not include previously announced layoffs.
Musk
When asked about the mass firings, Tesla once again reiterated their stance that the 1,200 people in question were being terminated as the result of "performance reviews"...
Related Video
Beauty Entrepreneur Bobbi Brown Explains the 'Secret Sauce' to Building a Brand Loved By Everyone
"Like all companies, Tesla conducts an annual performance review during which a manager and employee discuss the results that were achieved, as well as how those results were achieved, during the performance period. This includes both constructive feedback and recognition of top performers with additional compensation and equity awards, as well as promotions in many cases. As with any company, especially one of over 33,000 employees, performance reviews also occasionally result in employee departures. Tesla is continuing to grow and hire new employees around the world."
...which is odd because SolarCity employees, much like those working at the Tesla plant in Fremont, say they were never given performance reviews.
SolarCity employees (like other Tesla employees) then received separation agreements via email. The documents cited "failure to meet performance expectations" as the reason for their terminations, according to excerpts of the documents shared with CNBC by multiple parties.
The former SolarCity employees all said performance reviews had not been conducted since Tesla acquired the clean energy business for $2.6 billion in November 2016.
Three recently fired SolarCity employees (who worked in disparate city offices, and were contacted separately by CNBC) said they asked HR at Tesla for a copy of their performance reviews. But those never materialized.
In some cases, HR never acknowledged their requests but went ahead and sent them separation agreements. These agreements force ex-employees of Tesla into arbitration if they want severance pay. In other words, they have to sign away the rights to sue the company for two weeks' worth of salary.
Meanwhile, these angry, laid-off employees don't seem to be buying it.
But it's ok, they can presumably all re-apply for their positions once Tesla opens it's new manufacturing facility in China...though it will require a fairly long-distance move and a rather sizeable pay cut.
Post by: RE on November 02, 2017, 07:56:18 AM
Data Sheet—Elon Musk's Humiliating Shortfall at Tesla
Mute
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 0:30
By Aaron Pressman and Adam Lashinsky 5:09 AM EDT
The rap against Tesla has always been of the “yes, but” variety. Yes, it’s a fine artisanal designer and manufacturer of electric cars and its CEO is one of the few business leaders alive for whom the label “visionary” isn’t hyperbolic. But Elon Musk’s auto company can’t seem to make very many vehicles and will run out of money long before it figures how.
Tesla offered new grist for the bears Tuesday, with an earnings report that copped to a hellish manufacturing situation for its game-changing, $35,000 Model 3 sedan. Tesla has humiliated established carmakers with its brilliant vision. But Detroit, Turin, Stuttgart, and so on have understood scale as well as capital allocation for decades. Such gargantuan tasks could yet humiliate Tesla.
The company’s fans hang on. Gene Munster, a Wall Street analyst turned venture-capitalist/analyst, published a report promising Tesla “will be worth the wait.” One set of Munster’s statistics stands out, though, in describing Tesla’s plight. Munster reckons Tesla has accepted 475,000 pre-orders for Model 3s. Munster thinks Tesla will be able to make just 2,500 Model 3s in the fourth quarter. Were that production level to remain unchanged, it would take Tesla nearly 50 years to deliver on its promises. Even at the 190,000 rate Munster predicts for all of 2018—and Tesla rarely hits its goals—competitors will be onto a new model before pre-orders are satisfied.
Get Data Sheet, Fortune’s technology newsletter.
The bears, by the way, finally appear to be more numerous than the bulls, at least for today. Tesla’s stock was off more than 6% on the news.
***
Under Armour, whose run of sales growth has ended, is doing away with its line of wearable fitness trackers. That’s a formidable graveyard that now includes products by Nike, Jawbone, Pebble, and Microsoft. Another tough business.
Post by: RE on November 11, 2017, 04:22:21 PM
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4122890-tesla-approaches-terminal-decline (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4122890-tesla-approaches-terminal-decline)
[html]
Tesla Approaches Terminal Decline
Summary
Financial performance deteriorates - structural unprofitability likely.
Most cash raised recently is already burnt - next equity sale looms.
Institutional ownership declines - distribution continues.
Management churn accelerates - corporate culture looks damaged.
Only the story matters - the stock remains a trade vehicle.
Here we are, seven months later, and Tesla's (NASDAQ:TSLA) financial performance deteriorates at an alarming rate. Bearish macro scenarios, always just around the corner since 2011, refuse to play out and Queen TINA and King FOMO remain enthroned. The much anticipated interest rate assault by central banks is further delayed. And once it arrives, it will do so in rather piecemeal fashion, unlike the infamous macro-scaremongers suspect. No surprise then that the Panglossian valuation of Tesla abides, while journalists and analysts alike continue falling for every new-fangled non-profit idea emerging from Palo Alto.
And then, as long as 1) wealthy consumers in western nations but also China are eager to seek indulgence by way of green-washing and, 2) are in search of a Steve Jobs replacement persona onto which they can project their hopes for a gleaming future and, 3) are disillusioned with the establishment and its leaders, the company will likely succeed to raise cash again. Some say it might already be too big to fail.
The Tesla narrative is based on an illusion, a contradictio in adjecto - the promise that humankind can shop and consume itself into a sustainable future. However, even a million Teslas on the world’s roads will not impact the environment for better or worse. It is a systemic issue. The Financial Times agrees. Sustainability and promoting the purchase of raw-material consuming heavyweight products are mutually exclusive. There is no right life in the wrong, to paraphrase Theodor Adorno.
At the time of writing, the company’s precarious financial position shows that it remains a bottomless pit. Let’s go in.
1. Stock
2. Finances
3. Perspective
4. Management
5. Market
6. Sales
7. Model 3
8. Autopilot
9. Distractions
(Source: Joe Rohde, not Montana Skeptic, abseiling into the cash incinerator)
1. Stock
For some early-stage investors and traders, Tesla’s stock has been a solid profit generator, despite the recent descent. After former President Obama’s new energy policy speech in 2013, the stock rose sharply on high volume to then traded mostly sideways with a suitably high volatility for put buyers and short sellers to skim the astute contrarian’s share. Likewise, call buyers and dip buyers used the frequent opportunities to extend their position, hoping to sell at a higher price to a “greater fool” in the future.
(Source: NASDAQ TSLA)
And that brings me to the point of it all. Neither self-acclamatory anecdotes of having bought the stock in 2013 nor having sold short in 2017 help the retiree or retail investor’s decision-making - right here, right now.
There are only two plain ways to make money from stocks: 1) buying and holding to then profit from the company’s profit in form of dividends, and 2) buying to sell later to a higher bidder. The question then is: Buy around $300 and hope for enticing regular dividends to emerge soon, or hope to sell in a few years for a good profit after taxes. In any case, no money is made until that sell button is clicked or the dividend announced. With no prospects of profitability for years to come, if ever, current buyers are choosing the second option, hoping to sell to a “greater fool,” a game of musical chairs.
Shareholders were diluted by a substantial 45% since 2013. Share-based compensation and the highly questionable SolarCity takeover – sold on synergies and profit contributions that never materialized – took their toll. It was a takeover primarily engineered to benefit Elon Musk and his cousins Lyndon and Peter Rive, who not only saw their precarious SolarCity stock options conveniently converted to safer Tesla stock options, but also their SolarCity bonds paid back prematurely with full interest. Several executives converted their stock options over time, particularly hard-working board member Kimbal Musk as soon as his options vest.
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
Concurrent with dilution, institutional investors have been selling Tesla stock since the Model 3 presentation in March 2017. Institutional ownership declined from 73% in 2013 via 67% in 2016 to now 58%. Notable sellers were T. Rowe Price (NASDAQ:TROW) (-49%), Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS) (-60%) and Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) (-24%), among many other international banks and funds. The SEC will publish the quarterly tally of all 13F filings this month and it will be exciting to see if distribution to retail investors continued or if Chinese Tencent Holdings (OTCPK:TCTZF) increased its stake from 5%.
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
2. Finances
Tesla currently derives 89.4% of its total revenue from the automotive business including leasing and selling CPO cars. One can only wonder why, after 14 years have passed in the company’s history, Ben Kallo of Robert W. Baird & Co. or Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley continue claiming Tesla being an “energy,” “mobility,” “ride-sharing” or “software company.” If anything, Model 3 sales will skew the balance further toward automotive, with the SolarCity and Powerwall/Powerpack aspects of the business in a precarious state.
For three consecutive quarters, automotive sales and automotive leasing revenue have stalled. While total revenue rose slightly from Q2 to Q3, COGS rose more steeply. If it were not for the inclusion of SolarCity (energy generation and storage) and the increasing sale of CPO cars (services and other), YoY revenue growth would look even worse for a company that was to “disrupt” the automotive sector - whatever that's supposed to mean in concrete terms.
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
Despite an ASP that held up well (26,137 cars reported as sold in total, with 20,608 cars sold directly and 5,529 cars that consequently must have gone to leasing), the ever soaring operational costs saw the company reporting its largest ever loss in Q3. As in previous quarters, the supposedly formidable cash and profit generators SolarCity (“synergies”) and Powerwall (“off the hook demand”) failed to deliver. It is very doubtful how the latter two product categories, suffering from commoditisation, and exquisite competition, will ever meaningfully contribute to the bottom line.
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
Although the company has collected an enormous $982,375,000 in governmentally enforced regulatory credit sales from its automotive peers since 2013, that cash never helped turn the tide, simply helping to somewhat lower the growing quarterly losses. Rising competition will eventually see this source of easy money drying up.
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
The company continues failing to improve its cost structure, engaging in meaningless business efforts, struggling with the SolarCity legacy and a bloated workforce. The more cars it sells the more cash it burns.
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
While more cars were sold in Q3, Tesla’s cash burn acceleratedeven more and essential metrics like FCF and OCF worsened considerably. Profitability and dividends remain as elusive as ever, or, in other words, the company generates zero value for shareholders.
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
Besides ever-growing costs of revenue and deficient cash generation ability, Tesla’s current liability position, cash settlements due within next 12 months, and accounts payable, essentially an IOU from Tesla to its suppliers, paint an equally grim picture.
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
Since 2013, Tesla incessantly sells equity and debt, despite numerous claims it not being necessary, to finance the battery factory and Model 3 production, only to then use the proceeds to plug its cavernous operational holes. The battery factory that was supposed to be completed last month, powered by PV solar panels and wind turbines, is still far from being finished, while the Model 3 remains mainly a hand-built effort in Tesla’s dysfunctional and undersized Freemont facility.
Contrary to the CEO’s claims, the Model S never financed the Model X and the Model X never financed the Model 3. Consequently, Tesla exists at the mercy of other people’s money and interest expense began to climb more sharply to close in on $500 million per year (enhanced by SolarCity indebtedness, SolarCity interestingly being the behind-the-curtain guarantor for the recent $1.8 billion issue of senior notes). 80% of cash raised this year has already been incinerated. No surprise then that Tesla’s latest 5.30% junk bonds already yield 6.16%. Tesla’s total recourse debt is growing and it will be interesting to see if the company will either sell more stock or issue more junk bonds to finance its insatiable cash burn.
One should remember the beneficiaries from SolarCity bonds, as there were only token takers at the time of issue. From the Q3 10-Q:
“On March 21, 2017, $90.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 4.40% Solar Bonds held by SpaceX matured and were fully repaid by us. On June 10, 2017, $75.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 4.40% Solar Bonds held by SpaceX matured and were fully repaid by us. On April 11, 2017, our Chief Executive Officer, SolarCity’s former Chief Executive Officer and SolarCity’s former Chief Technology Officer exchanged their $100.0 million (collectively) in aggregate principal amount of 6.50% Solar Bonds due in February 2018 for promissory notes in the same amounts and with substantially the same terms. On April 18, 2017, our Chief Executive Officer converted all of his zero-coupon convertible senior notes due in 2020, which had an aggregate principal amount of $10.0 million (see Note 12, Common Stock).”
Honi soit qui mal y pense…
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
As far as warranty costs are concerned, after 14 years of making cars, Tesla having hired production specialists like Peter Hochholdinger from Audi (OTCPK:AUDVF), one would think the car’s reliability ceasing to be a burden on the company’s finances. At the Q3 earnings conference call, Elon Musk seriously claimed “the reliability for Model S and Model X continues to improve…”. Quite the contrary is true. Inundated service centers and an incessant stream of customer complaints reveal the CEO’s debonair disconnect from reality. Due to questionable build quality, actual warranty costs incurred are increasing and it remains to be seen if current warranty provision levels will be sufficient to cover an aging fleet.
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
The steep rise in finished goods inventory is remarkable, as Bill Maurer pointed out recently, because the Model 3 is not yet a meaningful contributor, its parts rather attributable to the raw materials and work in progress portions of total inventory. Asked during the Q3 earnings conference callby John Murphy of Bank of America Merrill Lynch how much finished goods inventory can be sold in Q4, Deepak Ahuja tried to avoid the question, instead launching into a CapEx outlook. A supposedly production constrained company that amasses such levels of inventory - despite generating occasional sales peaks via discounting - is obviously demand constrained.
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
The CFO’s CapEx discussion in the call revealed that previously planned-for spending levels would not be met. Deepak Ahuja suggested that capex related to stores, service centers and charging stations will be cut, which unfortunately coincides with the Model 3 roll-out and an urgent need to build out the service center and charging station network. While the CEO says: “If we were to make those CapEx decisions right now, we'd be making them – we're kind of shooting in the dark,” the CFO says it how it is: “So all those actions will come through in terms of helping us conserve cash.” In other words: Deepak Ahuja hints that the 10,000 or even the 5,000 Model 3 per week production rate, now supposed to happen in Q1 2018 (so much for “volume production” from July 2017), is in jeopardy, to string out the cash balance. Maybe Jason Wheeler saw it coming and left?
That said, the core problem regarding the company’s long-term viability remains straightforward: If one assumes that Tesla is able to make and sell 200,000 Model 3s per year (at Elon Musk’s projected ASP of $42,000) and if one then assumes that Tesla will be able to miraculously achieve a 12% net margin per car (more than Audi does for its A4 series or BMW (OTCPK:BMWYY) for its 3er series), only $5,040 per car or around $1 billion would arrive at the bottom line. One only has to look at the company’s precarious financial situation outlined above - primarily operating costs and debt services - to realize that even in such optimistic case, Tesla cannot remain a going concern without further equity and debt sales. It is indeed a bottomless pit.
3. Perspective
Investment forums are brimming with comments comparing Tesla to Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) or Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), trying to re-frame it as a “technology company,” where, as shown just above, it is a niche automaker. Consequently, Tesla must be assessed in comparison to its industry peers - the global market for passenger vehicles in general and plug-in vehicles in particular.
To put an end to hackneyed mythology, devoid of actionable clues, one only needs to benchmark all three companies’ FCF generation ability over time to see that Apple and Amazon are in a different league.
4. Management
Recently, Tesla suffers from increasing managerial churn. Key employees left or were recycled (Deepak Ahuja) only to leave again (Ricardo Reyes), others are gone so fast after they joined that they can barely update their Linkedin page, while yet others, like high-profile hire Jim Keller, are never heard of again. Is he still there, working?
Core staff and workers that left or were laid off over the last 12 months:
- 2016 - December: 1,541 employees, operations, installations and manufacturing SolarCity
- 2016 - December: 1,506 employees, sales and marketing SolarCity
- 2016 - Mateo Jaramillo, vice president products and programs - energy (8/2009-12/2016)
- 2016 - Sterling Anderson, director of autopilot program (12/2014-12/2016)
- 2017 - Ardes Johnson, director of sales - energy (4/2016-1/2017)
- 2017 - David Nistér, vice president of autopilot vision (4/2015-3/2017)
- 2017 - Satish Jeyachandran, director of hardware engineering (6/2010-3/2017)
- 2017 - Jason Wheeler, CFO (11/2015-4/2017)
- 2017 - Arnnon Geshuri, vice president of human resources (11/2009-5/2017)
- 2017 - Chester Chipperfield, global creative director (5/2016-6/2017)
- 2017 - Chris Lattner, vice president of autopilot software (1/2017-6/2017)
- 2017 - Lyndon Rive, CEO SolarCity (7/2006-6/2017)
- 2017 - Peter Rive, CTO SolarCity (7/2006-6/2017)
- 2017 - Kurt Kelty, director of battery technology (3/2006-8/2017)
- 2017 - Diarmuid O' Connell, vice president of business development (7/2006-9/2017)
- 2017 - September: 141 SolarCity employees, customer account management and information technology
- 2017 - September: 63 Tesla employees, customer account management and information technology
- 2017 - Andrea James, investor relations consultant (9/2016 – 9/2017)
- 2017 - Jeff Evanson, head of investor relations (1/2011-9/2017)
- 2017 - October: 700 Tesla employees, various positions
- 2017 - Jon Wagner, director of battery engineering (1/2013-10/2017)
- 2017 - William Donnelly, president of Tesla finance (9/2013-10/2017)
Executive attrition and layoffs to nip worker’s rights representation in the bud leave only one conclusion. Unlike General Clausewitz, who in “On War” wrote about the role of commander: “The higher up the chain of command, the greater the need for boldness to be supported by a reflective mind, so that boldness does not degenerate into purposeless bursts of blind passion.” Tesla’s CEO appears to prefer an altogether different approach: “The beatings will continue until morale improves."
5. Market
For several years, enthusiastic energy and automotive market analysts have proclaimed that a collapse of the ICEV market and, subsequently, the oil and refinery business is imminent. However, investment decisions based on such theses have so far turned out unwise, evidenced by global passenger and commercial vehicle sales that show that EVs in their entirety (HEVs, PHEVs, BEVs and FCEVs) contribute with at best 1.4% in 2017, if the Chinese and European sales scenarios come out positive. Even under intentionally optimistic assumptions, suggested below, EVs would attain only 31% global sales share with nearly 50% of sales occurring in Asia, soon the number one global sales region. Recent record sales and profits reported by Daimler (OTCPK:DDAIF), General Motors (NYSE:GM) or Volvo (OTCPK:VOLVY) show ongoing demand domination of ICEVs.
(Source: OICA, EV Volumes, Tesla, etc.)
If Tesla continues its unprofitable markdown efforts like in March 2016, September 2016, and September 2017, it could reach this year’s finishing line at 97,000 sales - Elon Musk’s projected 100,000-200,000 Model 3 sales by the end of 2017 remaining entirely elusive. Tesla would thus have attained 0.136% global passenger vehicle sales share with rising unprofitability to boot.
(Source: OICA, EV Volumes, Tesla, etc.)
Global EV sales share is entirely dependent on massive multi-level government interventions by way of subsidies, incentives and perks. To date, Tesla’s cars remain ideologically motivated Veblen goods, financed by the common taxpayer. EV sales drop sharply, once enticements are dialed back or rescinded entirely, evidenced by Tesla’s decline in once formidable sales regions such as Denmark, Hong Kong or Norway, just as I explained in the global subsidies section of my previous article on Tesla.
In its 2018 budget, Norway is proposing taxation on overweight BEVs, hitting Tesla’s Model S and X hardest, as well as the upcoming heavyweight SUVs from Jaguar and Audi. The U.S. is contemplating a FIT-credit repeal by the end of this year. Those kinds of measures could inspire a last Q4 sales bonanza in those countries, which would be final proof of what really motivates BEV purchases - bargain hunting and the freeloading of benefits.
(Source: Norwegian, Danish and Hong Kong car registration bodies)
Soon, over 50% of the global citizenry will live in dense conurbations and cities where potential BEV buyers will find no place to charge or see the very few charging stations blocked or inconveniently located, besides being unable to shoulder the very high cost of purchase. In other places, the constantly rising cost of electricity renders tales of economic advantage moot and eventually, with higher adoption, governments would have to road-tax BEVs so their owners contribute their fair share to the upkeep of traffic infrastructure.
Having achieved 9.6% global EV sales share this year and possibly 15.4% in 2020 under most positive assumptions - 339,000 total sales with a flawless Model 3 rollout that is already in jeopardy - Tesla never was and will be no market leader, neither in total nor in the EV niche market itself. That honour goes to the EV pioneers Toyota (NYSE:TM), Nissan (OTCPK:NSANY) and Renault (OTCPK:RNLSY). Analyst reports that imagine Tesla’s global sales domination are plainly absurd, even more so in the light of existing and imminent competition:
- Chevrolet Bolt EV (on sale since December 2016)
- Renault ZOE new gen. (on sale since September 2017)
- Nissan LEAF new gen. (on sale since October 2017)
- Hyundai Kona (on sale from H1 or H2 2018)
- Jaguar I-Pace (on sale from H2 2018)
- Audi e-tron quattro (on sale from H2 2018)
- Mercedes EQ C (on sale from 2019)
- Audi e-tron sportback (on sale from 2019)
- Porsche Mission E (on sale from 2019)
BEVs from any vendor are, like their ICEV counterparts, produced, distributed and sold unsustainably with much raw material sourced and then processed unsustainably as well, in case of battery raw materials under excruciating circumstances. Declaring Tesla a “global market share winner” after first innings is, in the light of presented data, premature, if not entirely preposterous.
6. Sales
On the previous Q2 earnings conference call, Goldman Sachs analyst David Tamberrino probed Tesla’s CFO regarding Model S and X order rates. Deepak Ahuja’s illuminating answer to this rather material question was “not relevant,” in line with the company’s monthly national sales obfuscation strategy that is in stark contrast with industry peers. Tesla reports revenue for “U.S.,” “China,” “Norway” and “Other,” bizarrely omitting the UK, Germany and other large countries. (Donn Bailey’s recent article provides some color on China, which does not publish official car registrations).
Looking at the afterglow of what was said to be a disruptive explosion, stunning the global automotive sector with exponential growth, one can glean from Tesla’s automotive revenue and sales that the contrary is the case, no matter what management and supportive analysts try to make investors believe.
International official car registrations paint a clear picture: Model S sales stalled two years ago and Model X is about to. Even though the company offered enormous discounts and favourable financing terms in September (0.5% interest in Norway for a 10-year loan), Model S sales could not be pushed beyond their 2015 (Europe) and 2016 (U.S.) peaks, even though Tesla’s President of Global Sales and Service Jon McNeill was given a special incentive of $700,000 on 18th August to put quantity over margin. Form 14A from June this year revealed that Jon McNeill is the only executive with a personal cash incentive plan. Can, with the help of more CPOs coming off-lease and the Norway/U.S. “tax scares,” sales be boosted one more time?
(Source: National car registration bodies Europe/insideevs.com U.S.)
Since January 2013, Tesla produced 271,131 cars but sold only 254,206 - a delta of 16,925 cars or an astonishing 6.24% of total production. What happened to all those cars? Is Tesla building the largest finished goods inventory in the automotive sector? The world’s largest loaner fleet? Will Tesla be able to sell thousands of inventoried cars with the old exterior design without “Autopilot 2.0” or better trim levels, even with a steep markdown? Or will it write them off? A company suffering from unremitting cash burn must convert inventory into sales. If one takes the ASP of around $100,000 from Q3 as a yardstick, Tesla squandered $1.69 billion in unrealised revenue in only four years.
(Source: Tesla SEC filings)
7. Model 3
The Model 3 (wheelbase 2,880 mm, 1,610 kg) is essentially a slightly smaller version of the Model S (wheelbase 2,960 mm, 2,200 kg) and features a frugal interior with an unergonomic potentially dangerous central touch screen, away from the driver’s line of sight. Having to navigate touchscreen menus to wind down the windows is taking things too far. No FM radio is available either, and neither Apple CarPlay nor Android Auto. Steve Jurvetson’s Model 3 pictures show the drabness and non-matching black colors. Elon Musk seems having believed that Level 5 cars are just around the corner.
Tesla recently recalled 11,000 Model X vehicles for defective seats and not for the first time. Unhappy with its prior suppliers, Tesla had brought production in-house. The company is taking its quest to vertical integration to new levels of absurdity, the NYT reports: “The company had even concocted its own Tesla blend of coffee to serve near its cafeterias. 'If we cannot get exactly what we want from the world,' one executive told me, 'then we have to go do it ourselves.'” The Model X is now among the 10 most unreliable cars.
Tesla’s rushed and careless Silicon Valley “ship now, fix later” approach to hardware manufacturing that saw the company skipping proper beta testing, which could render it a frequent service centre visitor. The first batches of cars had to be recalled immediately for faulty battery pack welds, leaky light cluster seals and bad paint jobs. Consequently, Tesla did not dare entering the car to the North American Car Of The Year award 2018, claiming instead that it had not a single spare car for submission. This comes from a company that assured investors that as of 1st July 2017 “volume production” had begun. Considering Tesla’s ongoing problems with quality control, the Model 3 is prone to suffer from the same issues that see service centers inundated with repeated Model S and X repairs and customers displeased by long waiting times even for the most mundane of parts.
During the Q3 earnings conference call, Elon Musk admitted, despite supposedly growing demand (debunked above) that Model S and X production is reduced from 2,000 to 1,800 per week to concentrate on Model 3 production. However, in the Q2 2014 earnings conference call, Elon Musk had assured investors: “In the case of the new S/X Body Line, which is a line that has been designed to be capable of 2,500 units a week, maybe more than that. Conservatively 2,500 units a week. At a lower cost point.” Maybe cost-cutting is why Tesla ships cars without seats and touchscreens?
Regarding Model 3 production and automation, the recent call illuminated that Tesla’s CEO is fully out of touch with the physical reality of robotics: "And we are pushing robots to the limit in terms of the speed that they can operate at, and asking our suppliers to make robots go way faster, and they are shocked because nobody has ever asked them that question. It's like if you can see the robot move, it's too slow. We should be caring about air friction like things moving so fast. You should need a strobe light to see it." He even went as far to claim: "And obviously we're going to be designing a lot of the robotic elements and what makes the robots internally. So yes, because current suppliers are just too slow to respond in some cases."
As a long-time KUKA and Gildemeister investor (until both companies were sold), I find the underlying insinuation that no automaker and robot vendor ever contemplated higher efficiencies plainly absurd, as did the Financial Times. Automated production lines have been around for decades. Tesla’s CEO seems to be fully unaware of why industrial robots have limits, affecting actuators, speed and precision when handling heavy parts reliably and minimal downtime. Air friction is certainly no constraint, but moments, acceleration and deceleration. One SA author even asserted: "Tesla appears to be innovating in robotics and factory innovation, a potential long-term source of durable competitive advantage." Will Fanuc, KUKA or ABB bow to the boisterous demands of a niche customer? Certainly not - global automation technology leaders innovate on their own accord.
Model 3 production is substandard by any means. Deepak Ahuja hints “the goal is now to fix Grohmann,” the automation company Tesla acquired in 2016, misleading its owner and existing customers - an issue still not resolved.
Justifiably, Tesla fans wonder why the “$35,000 mass-market” car is still a mirage. Will it ever arrive?
8. Autopilot
Tesla’s “Autopilot” effort is still in disarray after numerous promises were made that were then not kept. Customers spent $5,000 plus $3,000 for “full self driving” without the chance to ever enjoy Level 5 autonomy, what essentially means a robotic car that can drive itself at any time on any road under any weather conditions and any traffic condition. The managerial churn in Tesla’s autopilot department shows the company has dropped the ball more than once, first osborning AP 1.0 customers that were promised “lifetime upgrades” to then osborn AP 2.0 and later AP 2.5 customers who purchased hardware and software incapable of delivering “full self driving” ever.
Anyone hoping to join Tesla’s “Mobility” or “Ride-sharing” services, insinuated by Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley on multiple occasions, will be disappointed. The cars are technically incapable to be used in such contexts.
David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital in its recent investor letter puts it bluntly:
"Some of TSLA’s presumed market lead in areas like autonomous driving may more likely reflect TSLA’s willingness to put inadequately tested and dangerous products on the road rather than a true technological advantage."
9. Distractions
SolarCity
Several SA authors already have extensively covered SolarCity’s product deficiencies, shady business practices and financial predicament. Please consult Montana Sceptic’s, Bill Cunningham’s or EnerTuition’s SA articles on the matter.
Any investor still buying into the “synergy story” or “PV solar dominance story” must read David Robinson’s latest article in The Buffalo News, a local journalist that over time became more critical of how the local community, job seekers and the New York taxpayer are peppered with ever changing messages.
PV solar tiles
Since June 2017, the allegedly revolutionary PV solar tiles, a product category that already was commercially unsuccessful in the European and American marketplace, are being installed on customers’ roofs… only they aren’t. To this day, not a single forum post, Instagram picture or You
Post by: K-Dog on November 11, 2017, 08:40:41 PM
(http://www.leemag.50megs.com/images/delorean_parking_lot.jpg)
Post by: RE on November 11, 2017, 09:09:07 PM
So many graphs, so little time. History repeats.
(http://www.leemag.50megs.com/images/delorean_parking_lot.jpg)
Loads fine for me.
RE
Post by: azozeo on November 14, 2017, 03:12:33 AM
Post by: RE on December 15, 2017, 09:57:10 AM
December 14 2017
'One of the bad ones': Investor sees Tesla headed for `brick wall'
72 reading now
Elon Musk's carmaker Tesla, a perennial target of short sellers, "is headed for a brick wall," investor Jim Chanos said.
"Every bull market has its poster children," the president and founder of hedge fund Kynikos Associates said at an event in Detroit. "Tesla is one of the bad ones."
FILE - This Friday, Sept. 30, 2016, file photo shows the logo of the Tesla Model S on display at the Paris Auto Show in Paris. A Minnesota man is blaming Tesla?s partially self-driving Autopilot system for a crash on Saturday, July 15, 2017, in Hawick, Minn. Motorist David Clark told deputies that when he engaged the Autopilot feature, the car suddenly accelerated, left the roadway and overturned in a marsh. Clark and his passengers sustained minor injuries. Tesla said it?s investigating and will cooperate with local authorities. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena, File) Photo: Christophe Ena
Chanos has been public about his short position in Tesla for more than a year. When Tesla was in the process of merging with SolarCity in September 2016, he said the combined company would be a "walking insolvency."
Shares of Tesla closed at $US196.05 that day and at $US339.03 on Wednesday.
Related Articles
Short king bets against Tesla, predicts Musk will leave
While Chanos has made wayward bets against US stocks and China recently, he built his reputation by wagering that US energy giant Enron would fail and was proven correct.
He said on Wednesday that the spate of executive departures Tesla has endured this year is reminiscent of Enron before its fall. Chanos also said his bet against Tesla has lost him money to this point and he doesn't know when its stock actually will decline.
Advertisement
Tesla didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Business AM Newsletter
Get the latest news and updates emailed straight to your inbox.
By submitting your email you are agreeing to Fairfax Media's terms and conditions and privacy policy.
Executive exits
Chanos predicted Musk will leave Tesla in the coming years for another one of his companies, Space Exploration Technologies.
Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas said earlier this month he could envision Tesla merging with SpaceX as the rocket company becomes a more time-consuming focus for Musk.
Tesla has been successful because it was the first company to make electric cars fun and attractive, Chanos said. As German automakers like Porsche and BMW introduce competing models, Tesla's advantage will disappear, he said.
"What Elon did was simple: He made EVs sexy," Chanos said. "Prior to that you had to compromise and get something like a Prius.
"But now he has the entire auto world that has figured that out and is coming up with aspirational cars. He's fighting a different fight."
Chanos said he also believes that Tesla is behind when it comes to self-driving vehicle technology.
General Motors last month showed off the latest version of its self-driving Chevrolet Bolt electric car to investors and reporters. Alphabet's Waymo is the leader in autonomous vehicles and Volkswagen has good technology, he said.
Autonomy leaders
"Detroit and Germany are spending billions of dollars on this," Chanos said. "Tesla is not a leader."
Musk has trolled some investors in the past for betting against Tesla, tweeting in April about "stormy weather in Shortville" as the company passed Ford Motor in market capitalisation.
Short interest has been inching higher this fall and is now about 24 per cent of Tesla's free float, IHS Markit data show. Tesla's stock price has climbed 59 per cent this year.
Tesla has been working to get its Model 3 sedan into production, burning money at a clip of about $10,500 a minute. The model's roll-out has been marred by bottlenecks at its battery factory and sole auto plant.
Tesla produced fewer than one fifth of the Model 3s it had targeted for the third quarter and delayed plans to reach weekly output of 5,000 sedans per week to March, from December.
Chanos said Tesla will need to go back to the markets to raise money in order to bring out its Semi truck and Roadster sports car.
"Tesla's biggest asset is its stock price," Chanos said. "When it falls, it will really fall."
Bloomberg
Post by: azozeo on January 25, 2018, 05:49:03 PM
Post by: RE on February 08, 2018, 01:15:30 AM
Tesla reports record loss in fourth quarter; Model 3 production still lagging
By Charles Fleming
Feb 07, 2018 | 4:10 PM
Tesla reports record loss in fourth quarter; Model 3 production still lagging
A Tesla Model 3 attracts attention on the company's Century City showroom floor. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
Another quarter, another question mark.
Tesla Inc. reported a fourth-quarter loss of $675.4 million, or $4.01 a share, on revenue of $3.29 billion, marking the Palo Alto car company's biggest quarterly loss ever.
The company partly blamed the figure, which was significantly worse than the $121 million it lost in the same quarter last year, on high costs related to the production of its long-awaited Model 3 electric sedan.
In reporting earnings Wednesday afternoon, Tesla said revenue was up 36% over the same period in 2016, largely because of growth in deliveries of the luxury electric Model S sedan and Model X crossover.
Revenue from automotive products rose to $ 2.7 billion for the final quarter of 2017, up from $1.99 billion in the year-earlier quarter.
At the same time, Tesla reported that revenue from its energy storage products — batteries and home electric storage systems — had risen by 6%. So called ZEV credits — credits the company earns for building zero-emissions vehicles, which it can then sell to companies that produce too few such cars — rose to $179 million for the quarter from $20 million during the same period in 2016.
Tesla stock, which has risen over the last year from $257 a share to as high as $383, rose $11.03, or 3.3%, to $345 on Wednesday. The stock rose slightly in after-hours trading following the earnings release.
"This was yet another awful quarter from Tesla," said analyst Mark B. Spiegel of Stanphyl Capital, expressing concern that the company's revenue is too dependent on non-sustainable ZEV credits, and on vehicle production and delivery rates that leave it vulnerable to competition from other car companies. "Tesla lost more money this quarter than any time in its history."
Other analysts were less concerned. Noting that the losses were the result of production costs on the Model 3, Efraim Levy of CFRA said, "The Model 3 production is the key to getting on a sustainable cash flow level. Once they get to correct levels, they will turn profitable."
It might be awhile.
In a shareholder letter signed by Chief Executive Elon Musk and Chief Financial Officer Deepak Ahuja, Tesla also once again applied the brakes to delivery expectations for the Model 3, the company's heralded lower-cost electric car.
The new Model 3 — see our recent review of the car here — has been touted as an affordable battery electric vehicle, with a base MSRP of $35,000. More than 450,000 hopeful consumers placed refundable $1,000 deposits to claim them when Tesla first began taking orders in early 2016.
Crucial to the company's success, the car has suffered significant delays in getting up to production speed and in getting to consumers.
Tesla on Wednesday advised that production rates of the Model 3 could be 2,500 cars a week by the end of March and 5,000 cars a week at the end of June. Last fall, the company had said it would be producing 5,000 cars a week by the end of 2017.
Analysts expressed skepticism about Tesla's ability to meet those numbers.
"Production forecasts are a moving target," said Jessica Caldwell, executive director of industry analysis at Edmunds. "They could very well change their position in a week or month from now."
"I think they'll be lucky to get 150,000 units out the door in 2018, and even that would be an incredibly impressive feat, requiring an average weekly rate of over 3,000 units for every single week left in 2018 with no breaks," said Rebecca Lindland, executive analyst at Kelley Blue Book's KBB.com. "Elon Musk needs a team of forecasters that he'll listen to so he can finally provide Wall Street and depositors with achievable targets."
Musk, for his part, doesn't seem too concerned about the delays. In an earnings call with analysts Wednesday, the co-founder pointed to his success sending a Tesla Roadster into space as a test payload for SpaceX's new Falcon Heavy rocket the day before.
"If we can send a Roadster to the asteroid belt, we can probably solve Model 3 production," said Musk, who is also CEO of SpaceX. "It's just a matter of time."
The production backlog is an increasingly urgent matter for the automaker, as more competing car companies come to market with more compelling battery electric vehicles with similar MSRPs, driving ranges and recharge times.
Chevrolet's Bolt EV and Nissan's Leaf have already stolen sales that might have gone to the Model 3. Current or proposed BEVs from other American, Japanese, Korean and European car companies are also gaining market share.
Musk also made some grand, long-term production promises on the call. The CEO said he could easily imagine a day when his Fremont, Calif., factory is producing up to 700,000 vehicles a year: 500,000 units of Model 3, a combined 100,000 units of Models S and X, and 100,000 units of the planned Model Y, a crossover vehicle to be built on the Model 3 platform.
That would just be a beginning for the Model Y, he said.
"We might aim for something like maybe 1 million units a year, just for the Model Y alone," Musk said while cautioning that ramping up to production on that car, in late 2018, would mean new capital expenditures.
Despite that, Musk repeated a promise from the shareholder letter that he believed the company could begin generating "positive quarterly income on a sustained basis" relatively soon.
He also said that the company would be able to produce something like 100,000 units a year of its Semi, the promised electric long-haul truck that the company unveiled in December.
Musk and his various companies have had a busy year already. On Tuesday, the native South African's SpaceX launched its largest Falcon Heavy rocket into space, and successfully returned rocket parts to landing pads on Earth.
It was also recently revealed that his Boring Co. is among the companies vying for the contract to build an express train linking Chicago with its O'Hare airport.
Last month Tesla reported it had reached a new salary agreement with its leader. Under the new plan, Musk's compensation will be linked to Tesla stock performance. If it rises, he is paid accordingly. If it crashes, he is paid nothing.
"Elon will receive no guaranteed compensation of any kind — no salary, no cash bonuses, and no equity that vests simply by the passage of time," Tesla announced, if the stock does not rise. "He will be compensated only if Tesla and all of its shareholders do extraordinarily well."
The pay plan posited the idea that Tesla's market value, currently at about $59 billion, could rise to as much as $650 billion over the next decade.
charles.fleming@latimes.com
@misterfleming
Post by: RE on March 10, 2018, 10:16:49 AM
RE
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/03/09/bird-scooters-santa-monica/ (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/03/09/bird-scooters-santa-monica/)
Co. Behind ‘Uber Of Scooters’ Meant To Help People Go Green Hits A Bump In The Road In Santa Monica
March 9, 2018 at 10:45 pm
Filed Under:App, Santa Monica, Uber
SANTA MONICA (CBSLA) — A transportation startup whose goal it is to help people go green on a smaller scale has hit a bump in the road.
Bird Rides’ scooter service launched in Santa Monica in September, much to the delight of people like Tyler Habit.
“I actually got rid of my car three months ago,” Habit told CBS2 News.
One of the selling points of the service is that a person can get on the scooter, then get off without having to lock up the device anywhere.
“It’s almost exactly like Uber. They’re all over the city,” said one user.
However, that feature became a liability when the City of Santa Monica filed a criminal case against Bird.
The city said a scooter was left blocking a wheelchair on the sidewalk. Additionally, they can’t be driven on sidewalks though they routinely are, and only one person can ride them at a time — no kid passengers.
“It’s very dangerous, and these are high-speed, serious transportation devices,” said Santa Monica Deputy City Manager Anuj Gupta.
Bird entered a plea deal with the city in February and paid more than $300,000 in fines and restitution.
“We’re definitely learning along the way, and we want to do it better every time,” said Patrick Studener, Vice President of Operations for Bird.
This week, the Santa Monica City Council approved temporary regulations, which would charge companies like Bird for impound fees when their devices are left in obstructive places.
Despite the company’s legal troubles, it won’t dissuade Tyler Habit from using them.
“I don’t miss parking. I don’t pay for parking. I don’t get parking tickets anymore,” said Habit.
People are encouraged to be conscious of where they leave the scooters and are warned to wear helmets on instructions placed on the scooters and in the corresponding app.
Santa Monica plans to put permanent rules in place for the scooters by the end of the year.
Bird scooters are currently located in Santa Monica, Venice, around UCLA and San Diego.
Post by: Eddie on March 10, 2018, 10:22:10 AM
I'm going to invest in Electric Scooter companies, if I can find one that is listed for trading. :icon_sunny: This problem is minor and not the fault of the company that some asshole users leave the Ewz obstructing traffic.
RE
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/03/09/bird-scooters-santa-monica/ (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/03/09/bird-scooters-santa-monica/)
Co. Behind ‘Uber Of Scooters’ Meant To Help People Go Green Hits A Bump In The Road In Santa Monica
March 9, 2018 at 10:45 pm
Filed Under:App, Santa Monica, Uber
SANTA MONICA (CBSLA) — A transportation startup whose goal it is to help people go green on a smaller scale has hit a bump in the road.
Bird Rides’ scooter service launched in Santa Monica in September, much to the delight of people like Tyler Habit.
“I actually got rid of my car three months ago,” Habit told CBS2 News.
One of the selling points of the service is that a person can get on the scooter, then get off without having to lock up the device anywhere.
“It’s almost exactly like Uber. They’re all over the city,” said one user.
However, that feature became a liability when the City of Santa Monica filed a criminal case against Bird.
The city said a scooter was left blocking a wheelchair on the sidewalk. Additionally, they can’t be driven on sidewalks though they routinely are, and only one person can ride them at a time — no kid passengers.
“It’s very dangerous, and these are high-speed, serious transportation devices,” said Santa Monica Deputy City Manager Anuj Gupta.
Bird entered a plea deal with the city in February and paid more than $300,000 in fines and restitution.
“We’re definitely learning along the way, and we want to do it better every time,” said Patrick Studener, Vice President of Operations for Bird.
This week, the Santa Monica City Council approved temporary regulations, which would charge companies like Bird for impound fees when their devices are left in obstructive places.
Despite the company’s legal troubles, it won’t dissuade Tyler Habit from using them.
“I don’t miss parking. I don’t pay for parking. I don’t get parking tickets anymore,” said Habit.
People are encouraged to be conscious of where they leave the scooters and are warned to wear helmets on instructions placed on the scooters and in the corresponding app.
Santa Monica plans to put permanent rules in place for the scooters by the end of the year.
Bird scooters are currently located in Santa Monica, Venice, around UCLA and San Diego.
300K in fines for blocking a wheel chair. And...it wasn't the company at fault, but the rider who was negligent. Typical laws aimed at raising revenue instead of solving problems. What a scam.
The ADA is such a sacred cow. I have mixed feelings on that one, anyway. We have too many handicapped parking places in my opinion.
Post by: Surly1 on March 10, 2018, 10:24:05 AM
The ADA is such a sacred cow. I have mixed feelings on that one, anyway. We have too many handicapped parking places in my opinion.
Yer nutz.
Wait until you are mobility impaired.
I now have my handicapped plates. Thus, handicapped parking places are now a sacrament.
Post by: RE on March 10, 2018, 10:30:50 AM
The ADA is such a sacred cow. I have mixed feelings on that one, anyway. We have too many handicapped parking places in my opinion.
Yer nutz.
Wait until you are mobility impaired.
I now have my handicapped plates. Thus, handicapped parking places are now a sacrament.
I haven't gone for Handicap Plates. If I do, I have to give up my cherished CDL. So I waddle my way into the store and grab the Cripple Cart there. I'm going to get my own folding cripple cart to keep in the car so if it's a long walk to the store entrance I can use that.
RE
Post by: Surly1 on March 10, 2018, 10:34:22 AM
I haven't gone for Handicap Plates. If I do, I have to give up my cherished CDL. So I waddle my way into the store and grab the Cripple Cart there. I'm going to get my own folding cripple cart to keep in the car so if it's a long walk to the store entrance I can use that.
RE
Why hold on to your CDL? Not as if you're going back on the road.
Post by: Eddie on March 10, 2018, 10:42:41 AM
Seems a little over the top, to me.
Post by: RE on March 10, 2018, 11:05:21 AM
I haven't gone for Handicap Plates. If I do, I have to give up my cherished CDL. So I waddle my way into the store and grab the Cripple Cart there. I'm going to get my own folding cripple cart to keep in the car so if it's a long walk to the store entrance I can use that.
RE
Why hold on to your CDL? Not as if you're going back on the road.
You never know. Not very likely of course, but if SS crapped out I could drive a dry box or reefer around here if I didn't have to do loads and unloads. Besides, it's a CHERISHED possesion. That license got me from poverty to having savings, and in the end SAVED me from becoming a Homeless Cripple Freezing to Death on the Streets of Palmer, Alaska.
RE
Post by: RE on March 25, 2018, 12:01:27 AM
RE
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-24/tesla-to-slow-deliveries-in-norway-on-report-of-dangerous-trucks (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-24/tesla-to-slow-deliveries-in-norway-on-report-of-dangerous-trucks)
Tesla to Slow Deliveries in Norway on Report of Dangerous Trucks
By Oshrat Carmiel
March 24, 2018, 2:38 PM AKDT
Elon Musk said Tesla Inc. will slow down deliveries in Norway, the automaker’s best market per capita, days before the electric-car maker is due to report quarterly sales that investors watch so closely.
Tesla’s CEO made the announcement in a Twitter message Saturday, in response to a report that local authorities had ordered trucks carrying Teslas off the road more than half a dozen times. One truck not stopped by authorities ended up in an accident, which crushed two Model S vehicles on the trailer, according to the blog Electrek.
“It is clear that we are exceeding the local logistics capacity due to batch build and delivery,” Musk said in the tweet Saturday. “Customer happiness & safety matter more than a few extra cars this quarter.”
The Palo Alto, California-based automaker switched the Norway ports it ships to, requiring the use of more trucks to get the cars to stores and service centers, the article said.
Norway is Tesla’s third-biggest market in the world after the U.S. and China, with revenue from the country more than doubling to $823 million last year. The country exempts electric cars from purchase taxes and road tolls and has invested heavily in charging infrastructure. About 21 percent of vehicles bought there last year were battery-electric.
Tesla is already facing difficulties in the rollout of its mass-market Model 3 vehicle, the linchpin of Musk’s plan to bring electric vehicles to the masses. Ramping up production has taken longer and been more challenging than originally anticipated. Tesla is targeting a weekly Model 3 production rate of 2,500 sedans by the end of this month and 5,000 by the end of June.
Post by: RE on March 29, 2018, 02:50:29 AM
RE
http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/28/news/companies/tesla-model-3-cash-crunch/index.html (http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/28/news/companies/tesla-model-3-cash-crunch/index.html)
Tesla has a problem. Maybe a big problem
by Chris Isidore @CNNMoney March 28, 2018: 2:15 PM ET
Your video will play in 00:16
Time is running out for Tesla's unmet promises.
The leading electric car maker's struggles to ramp up production of its first mass-market car, the Model 3, could mean a cash crunch for the upstart automaker.
Tesla (TSLA) has thousands of customers lined up ready to buy a Model 3, which has a $35,000 starting price. But it keeps badly missing its production targets, and it is burning through cash as it does so. And it faces deadlines to pay more than $1 billion in bonds due over the the next year - $230 million due in November and $920 million next March.
Powered by SmartAsset.com
SmartAsset.com
Concerns about its cash positions could grow worse when it reports actual first quarter numbers next week. Moody's downgraded its debt deeper into junk bond status on Tuesday and warned more downgrades could be coming. Standard & Poor's also has warned of the possibility of a downgrade.
Bloomberg has been tracking production by continuously monitoring the issuance of vehicle identification numbers issued by the NTSB. It estimates that production stands at 1,026 a week, a big jump from the fourth quarter but less than half the 2,500 a week target that Tesla has set for the end of the third quarter, which concludes Saturday.
"That would be a pretty significant miss," said Bruce Clark, the credit analyst at Moody's. "We're not drawing a line in the sand by any means. But part of the issue is reestablishing credibility with constituents. At the end of the day, the company's credibility will be significantly impacted by how close they are to that 2,500 run rate."
The company had originally promised it would be making 5,000 Model 3's every week by the end of last year, but delivered only 222 in the third quarter, and another 1,542 throughout the entire fourth quarter. It has now pushed the 5,000 a week target back to the end of June.
Related: Tesla stock falls after NTSB announces it will investigate fatal crash
Tesla has never made a full-year profit as its grown into a major force in the auto industry. But investors, lenders and customers have been big believers in its charismatic CEO Elon Musk, at least to this point. They've provided him with the cash he needed to challenge the established players in the industry.
They've bought additional shares sold by the company in secondary offerings. They've driven up stock price to give the company nearly the market value of established automakers like Ford (F) or General Motors (GM), which both produce billions in annual profits and sell millions of vehicles. Customers have paid deposits of $1,000 each for cars they wouldn't see for years, giving Tesla nearly $1 billion worth of deposits. And, of course, it has also been able to sell bonds to raise cash.
Clark said he doesn't believe the company is facing any imminent cash crunch, but that if it continues to struggle to ramp up production of the Model 3 its "liquidity position is going to get tight in the next several quarters. That's why we see the need for them to go back to the financial markets."
And it will become more difficult, and more expensive, to raise that money if there are further doubts about it meeting its production goals.
Related: New Tesla pay package could make Elon Musk richest man in the world
It could also cause problems with the company's supplier base. Tesla reported it owed $2.4 billion in accounts payable at the end of last year. That's not a huge number as long suppliers continue to bill for the parts and raw materials.
But the credit agency downgrade could prompt suppliers to start demanding cash at the time of delivery, according to John Thompson, CEO of hedge fund Vilas Capital Management, which has its largest position shorting Tesla shares, betting big that the stock will fall sharply in value.
"Why did Toys 'R' Us go bankrupt? Its suppliers cut it off. You can have altruistic equity holders, you can have altruistic bond holders, altruistic customers. But suppliers are cold and calculating from my experience," he said.
In an email to his clients this week he again predicted a looming cash crunch for Tesla could even lead to bankruptcy later this year.
A company spokesman would not comment on the downgrade or Thompson's commentary.
Post by: RE on April 15, 2018, 04:29:38 AM
RE
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-14/elon-knew-new-lawsuit-alleges-musk-knowingly-lied-about-model-3-production-0 (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-14/elon-knew-new-lawsuit-alleges-musk-knowingly-lied-about-model-3-production-0)
"Elon Knew": New Lawsuit Alleges Musk Knowingly Lied About Model 3 Production
Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
by Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/14/2018 - 20:52
A new securities class action lawsuit filed in late March 2018, which names Elon Musk as a defendant, alleges that the Tesla CEO knew that the Model 3 was not going to be able to be produced as the rates he claimed - and that the company was not going to be able to meet production goals due to - get this - the production lines not even being assembled. The lawsuit alleges that this didn’t prevent Elon Musk from going out and telling the investing public otherwise, hence the allegation of securities fraud.
First, the allegation that Musk was told by his own employees that the Model 3 couldn't be mass produced by the end of 2017, which was the company's stated goal:
Then, after claiming in May 2017 that the company was "on track" to meet its mass production goal, it's alleged the company hadn't even finished building its production lines, clearly meaning it wasn't "on track". The lawsuit alleges that Musk knew the line was "way behind":
The suit alleges that the company was building Model 3's by hand at a "pilot shop" at the same time Tesla claimed to be on track for "mass production"; it also claims that it was "evident to anyone who visited the facility" - including Elon Musk - that the line wasn't built and that "construction workers were spending most of their shifts sitting around with nothing to do":
We also read in the lawsuit that Tesla’s Gigafactory, at the time in question, was allegedly capable of producing only one battery pack per day - and that the production of one battery pack took “two shifts” to complete.
The suit alleges that the company's former CFO, Jason Wheeler - who is one of more than 50 key executives and VPs to have left the company over the last half decade or so - told Elon Musk personally that they wouldn't be able to mass produce by the end of 2017. The entire lawsuit is available at this link and some of the most interesting content was first shared by critics of the company on Twitter.
Trending Articles
A Map Of The Syrian War: Who Is Who (And Where)
On Thursday, just 24 hours before Trump ordered airstrikes on Syria for the second time in just over a year, we said…
Powered By
The drumbeat of accountability for Elon Musk continues to pound louder and louder as each day progresses, with some analysts calling for the SEC to investigate him if the company doesn't meet its stated cash flow positive and "no capital raise" guidance for the back end of 2018.
Yesterday we detailed how the company is cutting corners with production and suppliers, as well as with its certified preowned vehicle program. Commentators continue to suggest that Elon musk should be held accountable by regulators if the company again raises capital this year or is not free cash flow positive by the second half of this year, two claims that Musk made this week in an angry outburst where he attacked the messenger (The Economist) for pointing out a Jefferies analysis.
Then, on Friday afternoon, CNBC released an scathing report detailing that a large portion of parts supplied to Tesla to manufacture vehicles with has been substandard or defective. The article alleged that:
Tesla is struggling to manage and fix a significant volume of flawed or damaged parts from its suppliers, sending some to local machine shops for rework, according to several current and former Tesla engineers. The company said it also makes adjustments to the design of some parts after receiving them from suppliers.
It continues:
All automakers have to deal with some amount of defective or damaged parts, both from their own factories and from suppliers. But, as previously reported, current and former employees say that Tesla experiences a higher rate of defects than industry norms. A significant number of flawed parts, and parts in need of design changes, also come from Tesla's suppliers, they said.
The reason for the large number of defective parts? Spending less time to vet suppliers, according to company employees.
Current and former employees from the company's Fremont, Calif. and Sparks, Nevada factories blame Tesla for spending less time to vet suppliers than is typical in auto manufacturing. These people said the company failed to comprehensively test "variance specs" with some vendors before embarking on Model 3 production.
Ultimately, it's Tesla lack of experience and scramble to get a car to market that was leading to the pile up in defects, which will end up crushing the company's "quality control" reputation, as the following episode suggests:
Auto manufacturing expert Steve Finch, a former GM plant manager with about 40 years of industry experience, said automakers typically deal with some flawed parts from suppliers. Finch said that mass-market car companies normally will take a year or more to vet a prospective supplier. This is to ensure the supplier's factory follows ISO quality management standards and other processes that are on par with the automaker's own.
Former and current employees said Tesla took less time before signing on new suppliers. Tesla employees tasked with vetting suppliers were also not always experienced with ISO quality management standards, said these people.
We also pointed out yesterday that Tesla is starting to give other indications that it is stretched very thin - and that this leads to cutting certified pre-owned vehicle corners. Yesterday, Electrek wrote an article detailing ugly new changes to the company's certified preowned checklist procedures, including the company no longer taking care of cosmetic details, which the article refers to as "refurbishing":
Now the company has updated its policy and some new cars coming on Tesla’s list of used vehicles have this ‘Not Refurbished’ warning that reads:
“This car has passed a 70-point mechanical inspection and will be cleaned before delivery. If you would like any additional work that is not covered under your warranty, we can help arrange service after delivery for an added cost.”
Tesla salespeople have been telling buyers that the automaker is still making sure that the vehicles are up to their standards for the warranty, but they are not fixing cosmetic issues anymore.
Worst of all, these changes come a time where the company is about to receive a massive inflow of vehicle inventory from three-year leases that started in 2015:
Tesla has changed its ‘certified pre-owned’ (used) vehicle policy this week to stop “refurbishing” its used cars just ahead of them receiving a big influx of vehicles as more 3-year leases are ending. The automaker had launched the program 3 years ago and it has been tuning it over the last two years.
Previously, certified preowned Tesla vehicles not only underwent a inspection to check the mechanics and operation of the vehicle, but they also underwent a cosmetic clean up. The cosmetic cleanup always seemed like an absolute necessity, especially given the fact that Tesla buyers are actually unable to view pictures of the certified preowned vehicles that they’re purchasing:
The cars with this new warning still don’t have real pictures of the actual vehicle, but instead only renderings of the vehicle’s configuration.
Tesla told Electrek that they are soon going to make it easier to request real pictures of listed vehicles.
The change comes as Tesla is getting more and more used vehicles, especially after 3-year leases from 2015 when Tesla started ramping up production significantly and also making strides with its leasing program.
On top of that, the company is still selling these vehicles at premium prices, which the Elektrek article hilariously calls "value retention":
With the increased inventory and the lack of “refurbishing”, a decrease in price would be expected, but Tesla used vehicles have historically been very good at value retention.
Regardless, the air - and questions - of accountability continues to get thicker around Elon Musk and his band of merry brothers.
If the stock takes another dive next week, what is Mr. Musk going to come up with in order to keep a sense of being such trivial concerns as cash flow and profitability - and more importantly, how long will his lawyers let him keep talking?
Post by: RE on April 17, 2018, 08:36:43 AM
RE
Apr 17, 2018 @ 07:30 AM 33,359
The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
Tesla's Cash Crunch Will Intensify As Model 3 Production Shuts Down Again
Jim Collins , Contributor
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Tesla entered the Bizarro World after the market closed Monday with a post on its corporate blog describing those who contributed to a negative report on working conditions at the company's Fremont factory as part of "an extremist organization," and a separate report on Buzzfeed detailed a four- to five-day shutdown of Model 3 production this week. Bizarrely, Tesla issued a statement regarding this shutdown of Model 3 production that echoed word-for-word a statement given in late-February when Tesla reportedly shut the Model 3 line for five days. Tesla's statement indicated that such a shutdown "is not unusual," but, Tom Jones references aside, it really is unusual for an automaker to post two lengthy shutdowns in such a short period.
When I followed major automakers like VW, Ford, GM and Daimler, a one-week shutdown on high-volume model would be enough to merit a mention on a quarterly earnings call. At Tesla, where the Model 3 is being counted on to be both the next step in the future of automotive mobility and the model that gets Tesla over the hump from a cash flow perspective, this latest shutdown could be catastrophic.
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 26: The front headlight of Tesla's new Model 3 car on display is seen on Friday, January 26, 2018, at the Tesla store in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
The problem is that Tesla has, according to page 58 of the company's 2017 10-K filing, a whopping $5.620 billion in "contractual obligations" due in 2018. While this figure represents a worst case scenario (credit lines maxed out, etc.), what it really indicates is the temporal problem facing Tesla. They need to turn cars into cash. Now.
The only way to do that is to produce finished vehicles that can be delivered to customers. General Motors can stuff a load of identical models on a trailer and send them to a dealer's parking lot, but Tesla does not have that option. Tesla had $2.39 billion in payables on its balance sheet at year-end 2017 compared with only $515 million in receivables. While this may be a virtuous break from Detroit's decades of channel stuffing, it means that the margin of error for Tesla is razor-thin.
So, Tesla has to fix the Model 3 issues now. Forget about autonomous vehicles (and given the recent Autopilot fatality that might be a good thing for Tesla longs,) forget about world domination, TSLA needs to work out the bugs at Fremont. By my estimation, the Model 3 problems could be caused by one of two things:
The Model 3 line in Fremont was poorly designed and excessively automated and is in need of a total back-to-square-one redesign, or
Tesla’s Gigafactory in Nevada--a joint venture with Panasonic--is still unable to produce enough battery cells.
Based on recent press reports, it really seems that Option One is occurring, but as no independent analyst other than Gayle King has been in the Fremont plant lately, it is hard to find the truth. Believe it or not, however, Option Two--a company that produces battery-powered vehicles can’t make enough batteries--is actually much more favorable for Tesla than Option One.
A second glance at the Contractual Obligations section of Tesla's 10-K shows that the company has a whopping $16.34 billion of future purchase obligations to vendors "primarily relating to the purchase of lithium-ion cells to be produced by Panasonic at Gigafactory 1."
There's the rub. Tesla has to buy the batteries made at the massive facility in Sparks, Nevada, whether or not they have completed cars in which to put them. With $853.9 million of customer deposits on the books as of year-end, I had been working under the assumption that Tesla would just draw down that order book for the balance of this year and throughout 2019. As production delays mount, however, it seems that Tesla’s biggest problem is not order cancellations from frustrated customers, but the need to find a home for the battery cells produced by Panasonic.
So, Musk needs to fix the problems at Fremont quickly, or the cash flow that he tweeted would be “obv” in Tesla’s financials in the third and fourth quarters of this year will never occur. To balance near-term cash burn, as I have said many times in my Forbes columns, Tesla needs to raise at least $2 billion this year. To balance long-term cash burn--Tesla’s 10-K notes contractual obligations of $19.845 billion for the years 2019-2022--is financially impossible. Companies that can’t produce positive cash flow eventually die, and--sadly as I was one for 11 years--sell-side analysts are usually the last ones to figure this out.
Post by: RE on May 03, 2018, 01:15:45 AM
Tesla Discloses Worst Quarterly Zinger of a Loss Ever, Burns $1.1 Billion Cash
by Wolf Richter • May 2, 2018 • 38 Comments
Not The Boring Company, but The Hopeless Company.
The dizzying hype and promises emanating from Tesla can just blow you away if you don’t brace for them. But beyond them, what Tesla proudly announced today was a quarterly net loss attributable to common stockholders of $710 million. This was more than double its record loss a year ago, and its largest net loss ever in its history now spanning over a decade. It was the fifth relentlessly mind-blowing quarterly record loss in a row:
There is one rule that applies to Tesla: The more it sells, the more it loses. Not exactly an ingenious business model. Total revenues – automotive and energy combined – rose 26% to $3.41 billion in Q1. This 26% increase in revenues caused a 114% jump in net losses.
And vehicle sales, well here we go: Globally in Q1, Tesla “delivered” nearly 30,000 vehicles: 21,815 Model S and Model X vehicles and 8,182 Model 3 vehicles.
SPONSORED CONTENT
Skip the commercials and listen free for 2 months.
Skip the commercials and listen free for 2 months.
by Sirius XM
This gives Tesla a global market share of about 0.15%. If Tesla were able to multiply its deliveries by a factor of six right now – so from 30,000 vehicles a quarter to 180,000 a quarter, right now – its global market share would still be less than 1%.
In other words, in terms of overall vehicle sales, Tesla simply doesn’t matter. It’s just a niche automaker. There’s nothing wrong with being a niche automaker. Except for two things in Tesla’s case: Its ludicrous market capitalization, which is still an inexplicable $50 billion, and its mega-losses and cash-burn that investors – the true believers – are still all too willing to feed with new money.
In terms of living up to its projections, well forget it. Tesla’s projection of producing 5,000 Model 3 vehicles per week by the end of last year has long ago swirled down the toilet. The projection has been replaced with other projections that have since swirled down the toilet as well. In reality, in Q1, Model 3 production averaged about 800 per week.
For a few weeks in April – so this is Q2 – Tesla said it built a little over 2,000 Model 3 vehicles a week. But then Tesla disclosed this:
Model 3 gross margin remained negative in Q1 due to temporary underutilization of our manufacturing capacity, which was in line with our expectations.
In other words, Tesla admits that the more Model 3 vehicles it builds, the more money it loses. So at this rate, the Q2 losses are going to be an even bigger zinger.
It’s still dreaming about a 25% gross margin for the Model 3 long-term. However, “in the medium term” – eternity? – it will face continued margin pressures “due to higher labor content in certain areas of manufacturing where we have temporarily dialed back automation, as well as higher material costs from recently imposed tariffs, commodity price increases and a weaker US dollar.”
In other words, “manufacturing hell,” as CEO Elon Musk had so elegantly put it last year, will continue to reign, which is not a good thing for an amateur manufacturer in a world full of pros.
Cash flow was a horror story. In the quarter, Tesla burned $398 million in its operations and another $729 million with capital expenditures, including “Payments for the cost of solar energy systems, leased and to be leased,” and “business combinations.” This adds up to a total of $1.13 billion in cash, POOF, gone in three months.
Tesla also raised some new funds, including from borrowing and the sale of asset-backed securities. Total cash flow from these and other financing activities was $372 million.
On net, cash burn minus financing activities pulled down its total cash on hand by $721 million in three months, from $3.37 billion at the end of Q4 to $2.67 billion on March 31.
Maybe investors and perhaps even the true believers and Wall Street hype promoters are getting tired of the hype that is supposed to cover up for the broken promises, record losses, mind-blowing cash burn, and the relentless inability to mass-produce vehicles. In after-hours trading, Tesla’s shares are down nearly 5%. One of Musk’s other outfits is The Boring Company. As a perfect match, Tesla should be renamed, The Hopeless Company.
This is the end of an era in the US Auto industry. Read… Carmageddon for Cars: “Cars” Are Scheduled to Die
Post by: azozeo on May 07, 2018, 02:17:51 PM
Post by: RE on June 14, 2018, 04:34:08 AM
RE
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/13/619426602/tesla-lays-off-9-percent-of-workforce (https://www.npr.org/2018/06/13/619426602/tesla-lays-off-9-percent-of-workforce)
Tesla Lays Off 9 Percent Of Workforce
June 13, 20181:47 AM ET
Daniella Cheslow
(https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2018/06/13/ap_17187519848777-03a9ea36b959455b970465d0d76e44b1cf73f542-s400-c85.jpg)A Tesla car recharges at a shopping center in North Carolina in 2017.
Chuck Burton/AP
Tesla will lay off about 3,500 workers in an effort to boost profitability, CEO Elon Musk wrote in a company email.
"What drives us is our mission to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable, clean energy, but we will never achieve that mission unless we eventually demonstrate that we can be sustainably profitable," Musk wrote.
Musk conceded that Tesla has not made an annual profit in 15 years. The company posted its largest quarterly loss, of more than $700 million, earlier this year.
Shareholders reacted positively to the announcement, and Tesla rose more than 3 percent by the end of Tuesday, with a stock price of $342.62. The stock had foundered over the past year amid setbacks in meeting production targets for the Model 3, Tesla's first affordable electric car with a starting price of $35,000.
Musk wrote the layoffs were part of a restructuring to make the company "communicate better, eliminate bureaucracy and move faster." He noted that the cuts will not affect Tesla's ability to reach targets for producing the Model 3. He has promised to make 5,000 Model 3 cars a week by the end of June, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Article continues after sponsorship
In the company letter, Musk said Tesla would end its residential sales agreement with Home Depot and focus on selling solar power in Tesla stores and online. He said most Tesla employees working at Home Depot will be offered a chance to move to Tesla retail locations.
Post by: RE on June 28, 2018, 12:32:59 AM
RE
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/teslas-elon-musk-goldman-sachs-faces-rude-awakening-after-downbeat-model-3-forecast (https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/teslas-elon-musk-goldman-sachs-faces-rude-awakening-after-downbeat-model-3-forecast)
Tesla's Elon Musk: Goldman Sachs faces 'rude awakening' after downbeat Model 3 forecast
By Matthew RoccoPublished June 27, 2018TeslaFOXBusiness
Tesla training technicians for the future of transportation
FBN's Hillary Vaughn on Tesla's new technician recruiting and training program.
Tesla Opens a New Window. CEO Elon Musk Opens a New Window. reportedly sent an email to all employees to fire back at a Goldman Sachs analyst who said the electric car maker’s quarterly Model 3 deliveries will disappoint.
In a memo reported by Bloomberg Opens a New Window. , Musk linked to a media report detailing the Goldman Sachs report, which projected that Tesla will deliver 22,000 Model 3 vehicles in the current quarter. The analyst, David Tamberrino, said Wall Street’s consensus estimate is 28,000 units.
“They are in for a rude awakening :)” Musk wrote in an email sent on Tuesday, according to Bloomberg.
Tesla didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
More from FOX Business
Tesla's Elon Musk teases pickup truck features Opens a New Window.
Tesla to cut 9% of workforce Opens a New Window.
Elon Musk has 'secret' school at SpaceX Opens a New Window.
Please waitPlease wait
Opens a New Window.
Sponsored by Amazon Opens a New Window.
Sponsored video Opens a New Window.
Watch to learn more
Musk has taken on Tesla short-sellers and others who have downbeat views of the company. Earlier this month, he wrote on Twitter that investors betting against Tesla “have about three weeks before their short position explodes.”
Tesla is expected to release second-quarter delivery and production results in early July. The current quarter concludes at the end of June.
Ticker Security Last Change %Chg
TSLA TESLA INC. 344.50 +2.50 +0.73%
Tesla has struggled to increase production of the Model 3 sedan after facing delays. The Palo Alto, California-based automaker built about 2,020 vehicles in the final week of the first quarter, missing an internal target of 2,500 vehicles per week. Tesla’s goal is to hit a weekly production rate of 5,000 Model 3s by the end of June.
One factory in Fremont, California, is responsible for the assembly of all Tesla vehicles. The company recently built a large outdoor tent to house another Model 3 assembly line.
Post by: azozeo on July 06, 2018, 06:52:38 PM
Post by: azozeo on July 06, 2018, 06:56:52 PM
Post by: azozeo on July 06, 2018, 06:59:58 PM
Post by: Surly1 on July 07, 2018, 04:27:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/x4xJ-4piQxI&fs=1
That's a brilliant piece of marketing.
Post by: azozeo on July 07, 2018, 10:00:24 AM
The old man had a patent on an electric car back in 1901. Had electric motors at all 4 corners & juiced by nickel/iron batteries.
What caught my attention in the SUV vid was the fact that Porsche addressed the "proper sound" that should accompany the vehicle.
By the end of '19, Porsche intends on having 900 recharge units in place & operable in the U.S.
Post by: Eddie on July 07, 2018, 10:13:31 AM
Some people don't like this, and I think there might be a hack to get rid of it. Here is a video that demonstrates it. It isn't loud. Once you get used to it, you hardly notice it. This video shows the dash panel. This has now changed quite a bit over the last couple of model years.
http://www.youtube.com/v/JJ7F_3x-o4I&fs=1
My old Volt was identical to this one, but the new display is a little more advanced. All the new cars can talk to your smart phone now. I just don't happen to have a smart phone. One more reason to break down and buy another Apple product, I guess. I keep holding off, mostly because I hate tiny displays and touch screens. I do not consider them to be the best human/cyber interface.
Post by: azozeo on July 07, 2018, 10:21:00 AM
Post by: Eddie on July 07, 2018, 10:28:28 AM
Trump is so loyal to Big Business. But if he thinks they'll be loyal to him, he is sadly mistaken.
Post by: azozeo on July 07, 2018, 11:04:14 AM
The trade war could bankrupt them (again). But since the cars they sell in china are built in China, maybe it won't affect their bottom line that much.
Trump is so loyal to Big Business. But if he thinks they'll be loyal to him, he is sadly mistaken.
VW & Toyota both have plants here & in Ol' Mexico.
This trade war newz is nonsense. At some point a level playing field will need to be created across the globe.
Tariffs have been a bad idea since their inception.
There needs to be a global standard set & adhered to. Wishful thinking at this point in time. To many ego's to manage.
Post by: azozeo on July 07, 2018, 01:24:56 PM
Post by: azozeo on July 07, 2018, 01:29:19 PM
Post by: azozeo on July 07, 2018, 01:33:26 PM
You talk about full scale slot car. This is it...
Like I said. The Germans are bringing their "A" game to this dance.
http://www.youtube.com/v/kAJaGAMWjHM&fs=1
Post by: azozeo on July 11, 2018, 02:10:45 PM
Published on Jul 8, 2018
During the Industry Pool at the Nürburgring I have filmed the 2019 Porsche Taycan (Mission-E).
The production version of the electric Porsche Mission E concept is set to be named Porsche Taycan
Porsche has officially announced the name of its new electric GT car and it's Porsche Taycan. The Taycan is arguably the marque’s most radical model in its 87-year history – being its first ever all-electric production vehicle. The electric 4-door is to spearhead Porsche’s long-term electrification plans, with a range of plug-in hybrids and full EVs set to join it in the future.
According to Porsche, Taycan is a word taken from an eastern dialect and is pronounced ‘tie-can’. It translates as ‘lively young horse’ and is a reference to the horse that’s been rearing up on its hind legs on the Porsche badge since 1952.
The first signal from Porsche that it was to build a fully electric car came in 2015, when it showed off the Mission E concept at the Frankfurt Motor Show. The production model will get the new Porsche Taycan name and be unveiled fully in early 2019, with customers taking delivery later that year.
Prototypes of the Taycan electric saloon have been undergoing development testing for several months. Although the Taycan shares a similar silhouette to the Panamera saloon, the Tesla Model S rival will be more compact and cheaper; entry-level versions priced between £60,000 and £70,000 mean it will carry only a small premium over its main rival.
Previewed in our exclusive images, the Taycan will bear a close resemblance to the concept in shape and style, but the rear-hinged back doors and matrix LED headlamps will be adapted for production. Features such as the flared haunches, LED tail-light strip and coupe-like rear end will remain to echo the looks of the 911 sports car.
The Mission E concept generates nearly 600bhp via a lithium-ion battery and two electric motors, one on each axle. Porsche claims this powertrain will allow the Taycan production car to cover 0-62mph in under 3.5 seconds and 0-124mph in under 12s before hitting a top speed of 155mph. Crucially, we’re told the performance will be repeatable with the electric car able to accelerate hard ‘over and over again without losing performance’.
In terms of range, the target is for the Porsche Taycan cover upwards of 300 miles on a single charge and Porsche says the 800-volt system can take on 62 miles of charge in just 4 minutes - assuming you have access to the necessary high powered charging facilities.
This version of the Taycan is expected to be the flagship model but Porsche has invested a further 500million Euros (£437million) into its electrification strategy to develop additional versions of the car. The variants, of which there is likely to be three, will vary from around 400bhp up to 600bhp. Porsche CEO Oliver Blume told us: “We will think of different options and there will be more than one, with different levels of power.”
All-wheel drive is expected to be standard on all versions initially, but there is the possibility of Porsche launching a more affordable rear-wheel-drive edition in the future. It also plans a crossover version of the car, as previewed by the Cross Turismo concept that made its debut at March’s Geneva Motor Show.
Over-the-air updates will be possible on the Porsche Taycan, upgrading on-board infotainment systems and safety tech, but also offering to boost power if the customer wishes. The new architecture the car introduces will be used as a base for a fully electric model from Bentley.
Porsche’s commitment to Taycan variants comes as part of a wider investment in the brand’s electrification strategy. The firm will double total investment up to 6bn Euros by 2022, spending on everything from a rapid charging infrastructure to hybrid and electric versions of its existing range.
Text source: Auto Express.
http://www.youtube.com/v/iz8LxPIauGQ&fs=1
Post by: azozeo on July 18, 2018, 05:29:45 PM
Post by: Eddie on July 18, 2018, 05:56:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/0JV5zm1Sam8&fs=1
Post by: azozeo on July 22, 2018, 10:01:28 AM
One flying car seems absurd; Larry Page has three.
He started with Cora, a two-seater flying taxi, then added a sporty flying boat called Flyer, both developed by a company called Kitty Hawk. And last week, The Verge discovered a third: Opener, which just came out of stealth mode. There was no mention of the Google co-founder in the startup’s announcement, but when confronted with evidence of Page’s involvement, Opener quickly issued a press release admitting it.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/19/17586878/larry-page-flying-car-opener-kitty-hawk-cora (https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/19/17586878/larry-page-flying-car-opener-kitty-hawk-cora)
Post by: azozeo on July 23, 2018, 10:50:30 AM
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/07/how-cars-divide-america/565148/ (https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/07/how-cars-divide-america/565148/)
Post by: Eddie on July 23, 2018, 11:52:27 AM
Urbanists have long looked at cars as the scourge of great places. Jane Jacobs identified the automobile as the “chief destroyer of American communities.” Cars not only clog our roads and cost billions of dollars in time wasted commuting, they are a terrible killer. They caused more than 40,000 deaths in 2017, including of some 6,000 pedestrians and cyclists.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/07/how-cars-divide-america/565148/ (https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/07/how-cars-divide-america/565148/)
The problem with trying to compare metros areas by car commuters vs. other types of transportation, is that there are a whole lot for the former and not too many of the latter. That skews the results.
Post by: RE on August 24, 2018, 04:37:13 AM
RE
https://nypost.com/2018/08/23/tesla-insiders-say-its-a-s-tshow-under-beleaguered-elon-musk/
Tesla insiders say ‘it’s a s–t show’ under beleaguered Elon Musk
By Maureen Callahan
August 23, 2018 | 10:20pm | Updated
Modal Trigger
Elon Musk
Elon Musk AP
More from:
Maureen Callahan
Maureen Callahan
The real story behind the 'Little House on the Prairie' controversy
CBS' shameful response to Moonves
From Burt Reynolds to Johnny Depp, why do so many mega-rich celebs go broke?
Elon Musk is a total fraud
Trapped soccer team unites a deeply divided world
As Elon Musk continues to struggle — with Tesla under investigation by the SEC following his tweet that it might go private after “funding secured,” among several other self-inflicted wounds — employees tell The Post that the company is in turmoil.
“Elon talks about being a socialist and doing good for mankind — unless you work for them,” says one source. “It’s a s–t show.”
Musk is walking a razor wire, another source says, between the things he’s promising and the things he can actually deliver. Until recently, Tesla investors and employees bought into Musk’s vision, even though Musk was “saying things that don’t make sense, because he’s accomplished so much.”
That core belief may be eroding.
Last August, The Wall Street Journal published an exposé about the deep divide between the Tesla engineers working on self-driving cars and Musk’s pronouncements about deadlines and capabilities. At least 14 people had already resigned, and the electric-car maker continues to suffer a talent drain.
In March, corporate treasurer and VP of finance Susan Repo left after five years, sales chief Jon McNeill left for Lyft, and chief accounting officer Eric Branderiz left for personal reasons. Chief engineer Doug Field left in July, as did top sales executive Ganesh Srivats.
An employee who worked under Srivats says he was recruited as a sales rep — or “owner adviser” in Tesla parlance — one year ago. He couldn’t resist Tesla’s seductive pitch.
“They told me, ‘Your industry is destroying the world,’” so come to Tesla and save it. Elon himself has been the ultimate draw for many.
Staff meetings with Musk, according to another source, aren’t that far afield from the infamous Trump cabinet meeting in which members went around the table praising the president and thanking him for the privilege.
And when Musk makes promises about a car’s capabilities that aren’t realistic, he’ll double-down.
“He is very difficult to move off his stance,” says the source. “He’ll say, ‘The car can do X, Y or Z,’ And yes, that is possible — two decades from now,” the source said. “He bases his argument on the physically possible rather than the practical reality.”
More On:
tesla
Another big bank drops Tesla coverage amid buyout chatter
Tesla's four-day stock slide ends after early morning sell-off
Elon Musk: Sleep is 'not' an option
Elon Musk is not a conventional CEO -- stop expecting him to be
Musk’s sudden public unraveling has placed Tesla under more scrutiny. In May, he alarmed investors by calling their semichallenging questions “boring” and “boneheaded.” In July, after unsuccessfully inserting himself into the Thailand cave-rescue attempt, Musk took to Twitter and called one hero diver “a pedo.”
On Aug. 7, Musk shocked Tesla and its investors with the “funding secured” tweet — at $420 a share, that would put the company’s valuation at $10 billion.
In the wake of that tweet, the SEC opened an investigation, reportedly subpoenaing Tesla one week later.
This likely prompted Musk’s unhinged interview with The New York Times, published Aug. 16, in which he vacillated between tears and laughter.
Musk, 47, described the past year as “excruciating.” He said he hadn’t taken a week’s vacation since 2001. He claimed to be working 120 hours a week, with three to four days spent sleeping at the factory, never seeing daylight. Musk said he sometimes took Ambien to sleep, but according to the Times, board members know he has occasionally used recreational drugs.
Musk said much of his stress comes not from production woes or missed deadlines, nor a failure to delegate or master time-management, but from the short-sellers who, Musk said, “are desperately pushing a narrative that will possibly result in Tesla’s destruction.”
Musk said he had no intention of abandoning Twitter, despite the pleas of board members and outside observers to do so.
“You had a very big shareholder last week say they want him to focus on executing and stop with the tweets,” Gordon Johnson, managing director of investment research firm Vertical Group, told The Washington Post in July. “What’s his angle? What is he doing? … He keeps promising things, and he keeps missing, and he’s not being held to task.”
One insider vouches for this and says that when Musk tweets about a new functionality or feature, it’s often in response to a fan who has asked when such a thing might be available. Musk, says this source, will often email the tasked department, then tweet back to the fan the date it will be done, no matter how unrealistic the request.
Some of Musk’s more incendiary tweets, goes one theory, are a form of distraction — if there are a number of commitments Musk knows he’ll never fulfill, he hopes people will forget by moving their eyes off the ball.
see also
A Tesla dealership.
SEC reportedly began Tesla probe last year
Meanwhile, Tesla’s current great hope, the (relatively) affordably priced Model 3, is having its own issues, as is the sales force responsible for moving them.
On Tuesday, Business Insider reported that although Tesla hit its production goal of 5,000 Model 3s by the end of June, 4,300 of those vehicles required substantial fixes. That’s 14 percent making it through “first pass yield,” or an initial production line that requires no fixes at all.
An industry exec told the site that the standard automaker FPY is 80 percent.
This Tesla employee isn’t surprised.
“The Model 3s come in [to the showroom] scratched or damaged,” he says. “They don’t fit together properly. If you look at the panels, they’ll be mismatched. They won’t line up.”
On Thursday, Business Insider reported that Wall Street analysts tore apart a Model 3 to find multiple failures, including “inconsistent gaps & flushness throughout the car, missing bolts, loose tolerances, and uneven & misaligned spot welds … The results confirm media reports of quality issues & are disappointing for a $49k car.”
This “owner adviser” says he left a job paying $150,000 a year for a Tesla base salary of $34,000, with Tesla execs promising enough in annual commissions to match his previous salary. He soon learned that would never happen, because Tesla keeps moving the goal posts.
“I had a friend who killed it — her commission check was going to be $42,000,” he says. “They said, ‘Just kidding. You missed [your goal]. It’s going to be $4,000 for the year.’”
Last May, Tesla settled a class-action suit brought by three former salespeople who accused the company of abusive workplace practices, including the constant manipulation of sales figures and commission fees.
Yet Tesla employees are directed to feel for only one victim: Elon Musk.
Recently, the owner-adviser says, headquarters “literally sent out a picture of the couch and blanket that he sleeps on” at the Tesla factory. “They were selling it to us like his team pitched in to buy him a new couch. He’s a f–king billionaire. He can afford a couch.”
Even as doubts fester within Tesla’s factory walls, few want to believe the trajectory may be downward.
“Elon emails us directly, saying ‘We’re on top, we’re going to prove [everybody] wrong,’” this employee says. “Everyone realizes it’s f–ked up, but everyone’s afraid of losing their job before Tesla ‘hits it big.’ It’s a mess.”
Post by: Eddie on August 24, 2018, 06:32:22 AM
(https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Screen-Shot-2018-08-23-at-10.59.15-PM.png)
https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/24/kalashnikov-tesla/
Post by: RE on August 24, 2018, 07:14:37 AM
Look out. Kalashnikov is building an electric car now.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/24/kalashnikov-tesla/
Can you get it in Full Auto?
RE
Post by: azozeo on August 24, 2018, 08:42:36 AM
Post by: RE on August 27, 2018, 03:14:58 AM
RE
https://gizmodo.com/report-it-doesnt-sound-like-elon-musk-really-thought-o-1828614159
News
Report: It Doesn't Sound Like Elon Musk Really Thought Out That 'Funding Secured' Tweet
Tom McKay
Yesterday 5:05pmFiled to: Tesla
Photo: Kiichiro Sato (AP)
Earlier this month, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk added to his seemingly never-ending drama by announcing via Twitter that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private at $420 a share. The tweet quickly blew up in his face, drawing Securities and Exchange Commission attention and generating chaos for the company. When Musk finally announced he was backing off the plan late Friday evening, it was less a surprise than another affirmation of his declining credibility.
Now, per a report this weekend in the New York Times, more details about what exactly was going on in Musk’s head when he hit that tweet button have emerge. It’s long been clear that Musk viewed taking the company private as a way to quiet down its constant market volatility and focus on production, but it doesn’t really look like he contemplated all the possible consequences of that course of action. Sources familiar with the situation told the paper the CEO eventually conceded his initial assessment of the idea was, in the Times’ phrasing, “overly simplistic” and not at all the magic bullet he had believed:
In that time, according to five people close to the events, Mr. Musk came to realize that his thinking had been overly simplistic. While going private might have removed some problems, it would have introduced new ones.
Among his concerns were ceding too much control to private investors — including conventional car companies and Saudi Arabia, a symbol of big oil — and shutting out smaller investors who might be unable to retain a stake.
Specifically, one of the primary investors that Musk believed he had “secured” was Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, which the nation is using to diversify its economy in anticipation of a less oil-dependent future. But according to the Times, others had to explain to Musk that any investment would have strings attached:
By the account of people familiar with Mr. Musk’s thinking, deepening ties with new private investors presented its own challenges. By taking money from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund—something Mr. Musk said he believed was a sure thing—Tesla would have been teaming up with a country whose very foundation is fossil fuels, and one often criticized on human-rights grounds.
That cognitive dissonance—an electric-car company backed by big oil—was pointed out to Mr. Musk several times, these people said.
The Times added that discussions with the Saudi investment fund managers and others from different countries made it obvious that some wanted more out of a deal than just a cut of the company’s stock. Specifically, some of the sovereign funds wanted Tesla to open production facilities in their home countries—something that would tie the company’s image more directly to the new stockholders and risk a rerun of its production nightmares.
It doesn’t sound from the report like these issues were hammered out before Musk sent the tweet. The paper also wrote that discussions had proceeded with “several big carmakers” about financing, though some of them had “reputational baggage.” Just like with the sovereign funds, Musk also did not want to give up his control over the Tesla manufacturing process or shift production away from his U.S. facility in California, the Times wrote.
Other issues that became clear were that it would be nearly impossible to engineer a plan in which all current Tesla investors could have taken part in a buyout, the Times noted. Per the Associated Press, Musk’s “funding secured” tweet also did not contain some relevant information, such as that the Saudi fund was still doing due diligence on the possible deal. This would all seem to confirm that Musk’s initial tweet was at the very least hasty and misleading, which is the basis of the SEC inquiry. It will probably also not quiet speculation that he might have been bluffing.
Tesla shares never came near the theoretical $420 buyout price, meaning that traders had already sensed something was off and did not expect the company to complete the deal.
“The fact that he’s now backing off so quickly, within a matter of weeks, indicates the insincerity in which the first statement was made,” Duke University corporate governance and securities law expert James Cox told the AP.
“Tesla investors must realize that they have a panicky, erratic, possibly self-destructive CEO at the helm,” Yale School of Management professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld told the Times. “No CEO. is ever this confused and confusing... major enterprise should not navigate its ownership path and market valuation through the frantic, public, volatile impulses of the CEO.”
This is just the latest in a long string of bizarre incidents instigated in part or whole by Musk, including picking fights with journalists, baselessly smearing one of the men involved in a Thai cave rescue as a pedophile, weird interviews, and a sprawling beef involving rapper Azealia Banks and musician Grimes. While he has by all accounts been working to the point of exhaustion at Tesla, his frame of mind at the moment he sent the tweet is unlikely to dissuade the SEC, which the Times recently reported has several potential avenues to charge Musk and crew with violations of antifraud laws. If it does, the result could be fines or worse.
Post by: K-Dog on August 27, 2018, 08:29:08 AM
:LolLolLolLol:
That insults my intelligence but I but I bet most people pass it by. Most people stop and have their time wasted at big box stores after they pay for things to prove to a second store employee that they paid for things. Then they let a stranger mark their receipt with a felt tipped marker.
This week I bough an FM transmitter so I can broadcast pod-casts to myself while driving at Frys. On the way out I looked at the checker and said, I'm an honest man, you have a nice day. Nothing happened. I am still here feeling the pain just like you. The reaction was deadpan neutral and it made me realize I might not be the only live wire in this city. Sometimes it feels that way.
Post by: RE on August 29, 2018, 12:21:55 AM
(https://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/3b-execution-by-hulbert.jpg)
RE
https://wolfstreet.com/2018/08/27/the-7-things-that-didnt-happen-to-tesla-on-monday-after-the-friday-night-deal-massacre/
7 Things that Did Not Happen to Tesla after the Friday-Night Deal-Massacre
by Wolf Richter • Aug 27, 2018 • 62 Comments
You’ve got to hand it to Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk.
After his August 8 claim during trading hours that he’d take the company private, “funding secured” – a blatant lie that caused market cap to surge by over $6 billion – and after Musk admitted late Friday night, rather than during trading hours, that this had been a blatant lie all along, all kinds of things didn’t happen on Monday.
1. Shares neither crashed nor soared. Over the weekend, expectations ran all over the place about whether shares would plunge on Monday or – given how Musk had been able to twist things in the past – soar on new hopes of some sort or other.
But they did neither. By end of the day, shares (TSLA) were down just 1.1%, after dip buyers rescued them. They’d been down as much as 3.4% in morning trading. But that too was just a minor squiggle, after what had just passed.
At $319.27, shares ended regular trading down just $3.55. That said, they’re $100 below the $420 buyout price Musk had proffered – a sign that Wall Street had exactly zero confidence in the deal even before the Friday-night deal massacre.
2. The bonds didn’t crash. The $1.8 billion in 5.3% bonds due August 2025 that the company had issued just a year ago were essentially flat on Monday. OK, so they closed at 87.32 cents on the dollar, down just a minuscule bit from Friday, but near their record low at the end of May, and down 12.7% from the issue price. Bondholders haven’t been enthusiastic for a while.
3. Musk didn’t get fired. In their statement Friday night, six members of the nine-member board said that they had met with Musk on Thursday, and that they agreed with Musk on everything, and that they prayed to him on a daily basis as their personal demi-god – well note quite, but just about – and they added this:
“The Board and the entire company remain focused on ensuring Tesla’s operational success, and we fully support Elon as he continues to lead the company moving forward.”
They could have changed their mind on Monday and fire him anyway, but no. The three members of the board that didn’t sign off on the statement were Elon Musk, his brother Kimbal Musk, and Steve Jurvetson.
4. Musk can’t get fired because shares would collapse. That’s now the fear. Automotive News cited Tesla booster Ross Gerber, CEO of wealth management firm Gerber Kawasaki, who explained the thinking that is widespread among Tesla fans:
“Why would you invest in Tesla without Elon Musk? It doesn’t make sense.”
If Musk is gone, those fan investors would dump the shares. They’re investing in a dream and in a demi-god, and not in a real company with sustainable business model. From that point of view, it makes sense to not ever fire Musk, no matter what. If reality were allowed to take over, Tesla’s shares would just unceremoniously collapse, and the company would go bankrupt because, after the collapse of its shares, it won’t be able to raise the funds needed to feed its cash-burn machine.
5. It doesn’t matter that Musk is a loose cannon. Last week, Bob Lutz, an ancient hand in the car business with top executive jobs at Ford, GM, and Chrysler, and having served on their boards, including as vice chairman at the latter two – and having to his credit, among other things, as head of Chrysler’s Global Product Development, the Dodge Viper – said this on CNBC:
“I think Elon is tired. He’s worn out. He’s obviously got some emotional problems. He’s self-medicating. He has shown some disturbing signs of being somewhat volatile and unstable. I think the right solution for Tesla at this point is to move him aside from day-to-day operations.”
But Lutz was too merciful, and at the same time, he was wrong: Musk cannot be shuffled aside; Tesla shares would collapse. Lutz just doesn’t get that.
6. The first shareholder lawsuit failed. On Monday, US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco dismissed a securities fraud lawsuit filed by shareholders. They had alleged that Musk had misled them about the production progress of the Model 3. Yes, Musk had set fake targets, and had used those targets to push up the share price, but “federal securities laws do not punish companies for failing to achieve their targets,” Breyer said.
The aggrieved shareholders, who apparently had believed the fake targets were real promises, saw share prices crater in mid-September from $385 a share, as production problems were coming to light.
“Plaintiffs are correct that defendants’ qualifications would not have been meaningful if defendants had known that it was impossible for Tesla to meet its stated production goals, not merely highly unlikely,” Breyer wrote. “The facts plaintiffs have put forth do not tend to establish that this was the case.”
The shareholders have till September 28 to amend their complaint, the judge said. The lawsuit preceded the lawsuits filed after the “funding secured” fiasco, which are still going to hound Tesla for a while.
7. Musk hasn’t shown remorse, and it fires up the SEC, which already served Tesla with a subpoena and is looking into whether Musk violated securities laws. Former attorney in the Office of the General Counsel at the SEC Teresa Goody explained it on CNBC on Monday:
“What I think the SEC is going to find alarming – as I did when I read the New York Times article, his interview – is the fact that he says, ‘Well, I don’t regret any of my tweets. Why would I?’ Because a lot of people believed you and lost a lot of money.”
“I think it is good that we have clarity, and now this whole going private is kind of now blown out of the water. So there is clarity. And the confusion to the market has now ended. But questions from the SEC are going to continue.”
Institutional investors, which hold a large part of Tesla’s shares, have their own problems. Some of them have been holding Tesla since the beginning and have huge gains and lots of money tied up in it, and they want to hang on to those gains, and ironically, the only way they can hang on to those gains is by not selling because trying to get out of their large positions quickly would ruin the party for them, and everyone else. But perhaps jointly buying the dip a little during times of need, like on Monday after the morning-selling had abated, would make everyone happy.
But suppliers are fretting: 18 of 22 suppliers believe Tesla is now a financial risk to their companies. Read… The Hype is No Longer with Tesla: Suppliers & Creditors Start to Fret
Post by: RE on September 01, 2018, 03:35:54 AM
Elon Musk is more famous than ever, and maybe more dangerous
Published: Aug 31, 2018 5:30 p.m. ET
Here is the evidence of Musk’s skyrocketing celebrity. It could spell even more trouble for Tesla.
By
Claudia
Assis
Reporter
Jessica
Marmor Shaw
Senior Editor
Elon Musk has become the most talkative and talked-about CEO on the internet. It’s made him more famous — and possibly dangerous, to himself and to Tesla. TSLA, -0.49%
His active, sometimes frenzied, social-media commentary is unlike that of his fellow corporate titans, particularly his willingness to engage with fans and detractors alike.
While his engagement with the public helped cultivate his image as a real-life Tony Stark, Musk’s willingness to take risks with his words online, to move fast and break the internet, sometimes blows up in his face.
The fumbled tweets announcing plans to take the company private, which sparked an SEC investigation, have critics on Wall Street and elsewhere wondering if such internet fame is worth the price.
Musk’s skyrocketing internet fame
In 2018, Musk’s public persona and fame seem to have taken on a new dimension.
His activity on social media -- Twitter, in particular, though his now-shuttered Instagram account also has made news -- has gone through the roof, both in terms of the frequency and volume of his posts and the number of interactions (shares, likes, replies and comments) that those posts have generated, according to a MarketWatch analysis of his tweets.
So far in 2018, Musk has racked up 21.56 million Twitter interactions from his account, versus 7.76 million in the same period in 2017, a stark contrast even accounting for a steady growth in his following and in the number of his tweets.
Related: This timeline charts Elon Musk’s dramatic rise to internet fame (or descent into internet infamy)
Similarly, search interest in Musk has exploded, according to Google Trends data. Search interest has run so hot that he has outranked some of the most famous CEOs out there -- Amazon.com Inc.’s AMZN, +0.52% Jeff Bezos, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s BRK.B, -0.49% BRK.A, -0.38% Warren Buffett, Apple Inc.’s AAPL, +1.16% Tim Cook, Facebook Inc.’s FB, -1.08% Mark Zuckerberg -- for the past four months on Google Trends.
The biggest interest-generating event of all appears to have been a mishmash of Tesla news and a peek at outer-space possibilities — Google search interest in Musk reached its highest point of all time for a three-day period in early February.
On Feb. 6, Space X launched its new Falcon Heavy rocket, and its payload: a red Tesla Roadster and the now-iconic “Starman” dummy astronaut driver. Musk’s tweet about the launch and Starman generated 484,000 likes and 173,000 retweets, his top tweet of the year so far by interactions.
A day later, Tesla reported fourth-quarter earnings, which initially boosted the stock but eventually dragged it nearly 9% lower on the first trading day following the results, as analysts remained concerned about the Model 3 production ramp.
A few months later in July, Musk sparked controversy with a tweet calling a British diver who helped rescue a group of boys from a Thai cave a “pedo.” Musk later apologized for the tweet.
At that time, Gene Munster of Loup Ventures called for Musk to go on a “Twitter sabbatical.” Munster says that it would make sense that some of the events that generate the most Google searches and social-media interactions about Musk, the man, aren’t necessarily always Tesla-related.
“He gives people a glimpse of the future, and people cannot get enough of that,” he said.
Musk not only did not follow Munster’s advice, echoed by many, to stay off Twitter, but went on to tweet in the middle of the trading day on Aug. 7 that he was “considering” taking Tesla public at $420.
The phrase that followed — “funding secured” — irked investors and triggered a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation that seems to be moving at a faster-than-usual clip.
Recently, Musk also appeared to be doubling down on the “pedo” tweet, wondering in a heated exchange on Twitter why the diver had not sued him. More recent reports indicate that the diver is indeed preparing to sue for libel.
Other memorable Musk Twitter moments include his April Fools’ tweets about Tesla going bankrupt, which came during Tesla’s worst month in seven years and prompted a 5% stock selloff on Monday, April 2. MarketWatch has chronicled key Musk moments on Twitter going back to his first tweet in a timeline here.
Signs that Musk’s huge workload might be taking a toll on his mental health surfaced on his Twitter feed as early as 2016, when he offhandedly mentioned Ambien, a medication used to treat insomnia. Such signs have grown impossible to ignore in 2018, have led to analysts questioning his leadership style, and triggered stock declines.
On Aug. 16, not long after the “funding secured” tweet, he gave an emotional interview with the New York Times in which he described an “excruciating” year. It marked another high-water mark for Google search interest in Musk, and another big stumble for Tesla shares.
According to the Times, the Tesla board, long criticized for not being independent, has been searching for a No. 2 to relieve Musk of some of his workload.
‘He’s not going anywhere’
It would be ideal for Musk and for Tesla if the CEO took time to “take care of himself” and to find a chief operating officer for Tesla, but “the reality is that he’s not going to take a break,” Munster said.
“He’s not going anywhere. The company needs him, and he knows it,” he said. Besides, “he’s too proud of a person to let it fail.” In a year’s time, Tesla might have a COO, although it would be hard to find the ideal person, Munster said.
Elon Musk and singer Grimes made their debut at the Met Gala in May, which spiked up search interest in Musk.
Mike O’Rourke, a strategist with JonesTrading in constant touch with fund managers, traders, and other investment professionals, said that the tenor of his conversations with the pros about Tesla hasn’t changed.
Those who believe in Musk and the Tesla story continue to believe, and those who don’t, criticize both the man and the company, he said.
Currently, the bears who doubted Musk “feel a bit more emboldened,” but the divide, which is also stark in Tesla sell-side analyst coverage, hasn’t changed significantly, he said.
The best thing he could do is “take the focus off himself and put it back in the business,” O’Rourke said. One needs only to look at the different market reactions between Tesla’s first-quarter and second-quarter post-results calls with analysts to see how it would be beneficial, he said.
Tesla shares tanked after the a first-quarter conference call dubbed “bizarre” by one analyst, and rose after a more poised Musk apologized on the second-quarter call.
In the more recent call, Musk acted “like you’d expect a CEO to act,” O’Rourke said. The stock was on an upward trajectory post-results up until the going-private tweet.
For Karl Brauer, an analyst with Kelley Blue Book, it isn’t surprising 2018 is the year social-media and search interest in Musk, the man, have topped. The Model 3, a sedan aimed at least on paper at the masses, was launched in 2017, but that was a “Tesla launch,” Brauer said — an opportunity to showcase a vehicle ahead of significant production and sales.
“The Model 3 was not meaningful to most people until the start of the year,” and heightened concerns about delayed Model 3 production didn’t fully emerge until the past six to eight months, he said.
“Now you have a large swath of the U.S. population interested in Tesla,” and waiting for the cheaper $35,000 Model 3s to come along. (Only pricier versions of the sedan are readily available.)
Asked what Jeff Bezos, the richest person in the world, is up to these days, many people would draw a blank, but most would be able to say something about a recent Musk exploit, Brauer said.
“He is, to a lot of people, somewhere between heir apparent to Steve Jobs,” as a charismatic, innovative leader, “and the whole Tony Stark thing.”
-- Terrence Horan contributed to this article.
Post by: moniker on September 09, 2018, 08:36:28 PM
Post by: RE on September 10, 2018, 12:12:28 AM
There's some strange synchronicity going on here. Some time ago I posted that "carz" is a permutation of "czar". Now I realize that "tesla" is a permutation of "etsal"!
And "Musk" is a permutation of "Skum"
RE
Post by: RE on September 13, 2018, 12:22:00 AM
RE
Tesla just lost its head of global finance
Kirsten Korosec@kirstenkorosec / 2 hours ago
Tesla’s head of global finance is leaving the automaker, the latest high-level executive departure that comes just days after chief accounting officer Dave Morton resigned after barely a month on the job.
The departure was first reported by Bloomberg. Tesla confirmed to TechCrunch that Justin McAnear, whose official title was vice president of worldwide finance and operation, is leaving after three years. His last day is October 7.
“Several weeks ago, I announced to my team that I would be leaving Tesla because I had the chance to take a CFO role at another company,” McAnear said in a statement provided by Tesla. “I’ve truly loved my time at Tesla, and I have great respect for my colleagues and the work they do, but this was simply an opportunity I couldn’t pass up. Any other speculation as to why I’ve left is simply inaccurate. I’ve been working with the team to ensure a smooth transition prior to my last day on October 7th, and a number of members of the team are stepping up to fill my role.”
A string of executives have left the company since the beginning of the year, including chief people officer Gaby Toledano, Sarah O’Brien, who headed up Tesla’s communications team, and the company’s senior vice president of engineering, Doug Field.
Tesla has hired some executives in recent months, such as a global director of vehicle delivery and CFO for China operations, but gaps still remain. Some high-level positions haven’t been filled, while others have been restructured.
CEO Elon Musk announced a series of promotions and job updates earlier this month that put more responsibility on a few key people. For instance, Kevin Kassekert previously headed up infrastructure development, a job that included leading the construction and development of Tesla’s gigafactory near Reno, Nevada. His new title is vice president of people and places, a position that gives him responsibility of human resources — a job that was once filled by Toledano — as well as facilities, construction and infrastructure. Tesla has more than 37,000 employees in facilities all over the world, including its factory in Fremont, California.
Musk also promoted Jérôme Guillen to president of automotive. Guillen will oversee all automotive operations and program management, as well as coordinate Tesla’s supply chain. Guillen previously headed up Tesla’s truck program and worldwide sales and service.
Post by: RE on September 28, 2018, 01:13:41 AM
SEC Socks it to Tesla CEO Musk, Shreds his Paper Halo
by Wolf Richter • Sep 27, 2018 • 23 Comments
SEC charges him with securities fraud, seeks to oust him from Tesla.
Tesla (TSLA) plunged $39 or 12.7% in late trading after the SEC announced that it had charged CEO Elon Musk with securities fraud “for a series of false and misleading tweets about a potential transaction to take Tesla private.”
This particular blatant lie, as I’ve come to call it, commenced on August 7, when he told his 22 million Twitter followers, and the news media that jump on this stuff, and everyone that reads the news, which was the entire world, during trading hours for maximum stock-price-manipulation effect: “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.”
“This statement was false and misleading,” the SEC says in the complaint, filed in federal district court in the Southern District of New York. “Over the next three hours, Musk made a series of additional materially false and misleading statements via Twitter including”:
“My hope is *all* current investors remain with Tesla even if we’re private. Would create special purpose fund enabling anyone to stay with Tesla.”
“Shareholders could either to [sic] sell at 420 or hold shares & go private.”
“Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote.”
On that day, TSLA soared $25, or over 7%, before trading was halted. When trading resumed, shares jumped further, and closed up $37.91 or 11% for the day, before it all came gloriously unglued.
SPONSORED CONTENT
Alfa Romeo Stelvio Quadrifoglio
Alfa Romeo Stelvio Quadrifoglio
by Alfa Romeo
“In truth and in fact, Musk had not even discussed, much less confirmed, key deal terms, including price, with any potential funding source,” the complaint says.
Musk knew or was reckless in not knowing that each of these statements was false and/or misleading because he did not have an adequate basis in fact for his assertions.
When he made these statements, Musk knew that he had never discussed a going-private transaction at $420 per share with any potential funding source, had done nothing to investigate whether it would be possible for all current investors to remain with Tesla as a private company via a “special purpose fund,” and had not confirmed support of Tesla’s investors for a potential going private transaction.
He also knew that he had not satisfied numerous additional contingencies, the resolution of which was highly uncertain, when he unequivocally declared, “Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote.”
Musk’s public statements and omissions created the misleading impression that taking Tesla private was subject only to Musk choosing to do so and a shareholder vote.
And now the remedies.
“Musk violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will violate again,” antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, the complaint said. It seeks to oust Musk as CEO and chairman of Tesla and hit him financially. It seeks specifically:
A permanent injunction.
Disgorgement, with prejudgment interest, of “any ill-gotten gains received as a result of the violations alleged herein.”
Civil penalties.
“An officer and director bar against Musk,” but not just at Tesla but “of a public company,” any public company, which would force him out as CEO and chairman at Tesla and block him in his future endeavors at public companies. SpaceX is private, so OK, but it could not go public with Musk at the helm.
And such further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
The SEC announcement points out that just because it’s said on Twitter doesn’t mean it’s OK to blatantly lie to investors to manipulate up the shares. Providing “truthful and accurate information is among a CEO’s most critical obligations,” the statement said. “That standard applies with equal force when the communications are made via social media or another non-traditional form.”
And it doesn’t matter if Musk has a halo: “An officer’s celebrity status or reputation as a technological innovator does not give license to take those responsibilities lightly,” it said.
Alas, these charges apparently do not include the most recent lies, such as his absurd BS tweet three days ago that Tesla was “upgrading” its “logistics system,” and because it was “running into an extreme shortage of car carrier trailers,” it would start “building our own car carriers this weekend to alleviate load.”
Tesla building car carrier trailers over the weekend? What moron would actually believe this blatant lie?
Even if no one believes his blatant lies, he still tells them. But then on second thought, there are many true believers who believe anything he says, and plenty of fund managers that have too much money at stake with their Tesla shares that they rode all the way up into ludicrousness so that they must believe every blatant lie he tells, because they must buy the shares when they sell off because they have too much at stake, and they cannot allow the shares to drop….
And they’ll do it again. Shares are down $39 tonight, but they’re still inexplicably high, at around $270, because after each fiasco, of which Tesla has an endless series, the buying by these fund managers that are too deeply into this stuff perks the shares back up.
But already, and for all eternity, “funding secured” can no longer be used with a straight face.
Post by: azozeo on September 28, 2018, 10:15:41 AM
Earlier in the vid Brooks discusses his companies travails with the FED's. The fix was/still is ? in on electric car mfg.
Big Oil will go to their graves with every last punch they have. The gravytrain for these guys has been toooo rich. too long.
http://www.youtube.com/v/u4dcv36nfQw&fs=1
Post by: Eddie on September 28, 2018, 10:25:19 AM
Please go to the 8:30 mark of the vid to hear what NHTSA has done to TESLA motors.
Earlier in the vid Brooks discusses his companies travails with the FED's. The fix was/still is ? in on electric car mfg.
Big Oil will go to their graves with every last punch they have. The gravytrain for these guys has been toooo rich. too long.
http://www.youtube.com/v/u4dcv36nfQw&fs=1
The Car Mafia is still large and in charge. One of the more obvious monopolies killing off innovation and progress for our entire lifetimes (and before).
Remember the movie The Betsy?
Post by: azozeo on September 28, 2018, 10:30:00 AM
Please go to the 8:30 mark of the vid to hear what NHTSA has done to TESLA motors.
Earlier in the vid Brooks discusses his companies travails with the FED's. The fix was/still is ? in on electric car mfg.
Big Oil will go to their graves with every last punch they have. The gravytrain for these guys has been toooo rich. too long.
http://www.youtube.com/v/u4dcv36nfQw&fs=1
The Car Mafia is still large and in charge. One of the more obvious monopolies killing off innovation and progress for our entire lifetimes (and before).
Remember the movie The Betsy?
No, I'll look it up, thanks.
Post by: Eddie on September 28, 2018, 10:34:16 AM
Probably a little dated now. I saw it when I was in college.
Post by: azozeo on September 28, 2018, 12:08:51 PM
When I'm up for an 80's throwback moment I'll play it at 2X speed, what a hoot.
Anyway,
Here's a photo from 1901 with the old man & his new ride in Germany.
Ferdinand was with Lohner.
Notice the electrics within the wheel/rim. WoW...
Post by: RE on September 29, 2018, 12:08:14 AM
RE
https://wolfstreet.com/2018/09/27/tesla-ceo-musk-gets-socked-by-the-sec/
SEC Socks it to Tesla CEO Musk, Shreds his Paper Halo
by Wolf Richter • Sep 27, 2018 • 81 Comments
SEC charges him with securities fraud, seeks to oust him from Tesla.
Tesla (TSLA) plunged $39 or 12.7% in late trading after the SEC announced that it had charged CEO Elon Musk with securities fraud “for a series of false and misleading tweets about a potential transaction to take Tesla private.”
This particular blatant lie, as I’ve come to call it, commenced on August 7, when he told his 22 million Twitter followers, and the news media that jump on this stuff, and everyone that reads the news, which was the entire world, during trading hours for maximum stock-price-manipulation effect: “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.”
“This statement was false and misleading,” the SEC says in the complaint, filed in federal district court in the Southern District of New York. “Over the next three hours, Musk made a series of additional materially false and misleading statements via Twitter including”:
“My hope is *all* current investors remain with Tesla even if we’re private. Would create special purpose fund enabling anyone to stay with Tesla.”
“Shareholders could either to [sic] sell at 420 or hold shares & go private.”
“Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote.”
On that day, TSLA soared $25, or over 7%, before trading was halted. When trading resumed, shares jumped further, and closed up $37.91 or 11% for the day, before it all came gloriously unglued.
SPONSORED CONTENT
Alfa Romeo Stelvio Quadrifoglio
Alfa Romeo Stelvio Quadrifoglio
by Alfa Romeo
“In truth and in fact, Musk had not even discussed, much less confirmed, key deal terms, including price, with any potential funding source,” the complaint says.
Musk knew or was reckless in not knowing that each of these statements was false and/or misleading because he did not have an adequate basis in fact for his assertions.
When he made these statements, Musk knew that he had never discussed a going-private transaction at $420 per share with any potential funding source, had done nothing to investigate whether it would be possible for all current investors to remain with Tesla as a private company via a “special purpose fund,” and had not confirmed support of Tesla’s investors for a potential going private transaction.
He also knew that he had not satisfied numerous additional contingencies, the resolution of which was highly uncertain, when he unequivocally declared, “Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote.”
Musk’s public statements and omissions created the misleading impression that taking Tesla private was subject only to Musk choosing to do so and a shareholder vote.
And now the remedies.
“Musk violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will violate again,” antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, the complaint said. It seeks to oust Musk as CEO and chairman of Tesla and hit him financially. It seeks specifically:
A permanent injunction.
Disgorgement, with prejudgment interest, of “any ill-gotten gains received as a result of the violations alleged herein.”
Civil penalties.
“An officer and director bar against Musk,” but not just at Tesla but “of a public company,” any public company, which would force him out as CEO and chairman at Tesla and block him in his future endeavors at public companies. SpaceX is private, so OK, but it could not go public with Musk at the helm.
And such further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
The SEC announcement points out that just because it’s said on Twitter doesn’t mean it’s OK to blatantly lie to investors to manipulate up the shares. Providing “truthful and accurate information is among a CEO’s most critical obligations,” the statement said. “That standard applies with equal force when the communications are made via social media or another non-traditional form.”
And it doesn’t matter if Musk has a halo: “An officer’s celebrity status or reputation as a technological innovator does not give license to take those responsibilities lightly,” it said.
Alas, these charges apparently do not include the most recent lies, such as his absurd BS tweet three days ago that Tesla was “upgrading” its “logistics system,” and because it was “running into an extreme shortage of car carrier trailers,” it would start “building our own car carriers this weekend to alleviate load.”
Tesla building car carrier trailers over the weekend? What moron would actually believe this blatant lie?
Even if no one believes his blatant lies, he still tells them. But then on second thought, there are many true believers who believe anything he says, and plenty of fund managers that have too much money at stake with their Tesla shares that they rode all the way up into ludicrousness so that they must believe every blatant lie he tells, because they must buy the shares when they sell off because they have too much at stake, and they cannot allow the shares to drop….
And they’ll do it again. Shares are down $39 tonight, but they’re still inexplicably high, at around $270, because after each fiasco, of which Tesla has an endless series, the buying by these fund managers that are too deeply into this stuff perks the shares back up.
But already, and for all eternity, “funding secured” can no longer be used with a straight face.
Post by: K-Dog on September 29, 2018, 02:08:02 AM
So cool! I exhaled on this page and gently made a big smoke cloud between me and the screen while scrolling. I stopped scrolling and then the smoke cleared and there was Musk with his cloud.
Sallsright!
Post by: RE on September 30, 2018, 02:49:24 AM
Musk Settles with SEC, Booted as Tesla Chairman. SEC Forces Tesla to Control his Lie-Tweets
by Wolf Richter • Sep 29, 2018 • 24 Comments
Not a slap on the wrist, but not a summary execution either.
Tesla CEO and Chairman Elon Musk settled the fraud charges that the SEC had brought against him over his blatant lies he tweeted in early August about taking Tesla private at $420 a share, “Funding secured,” only to recant a couple of weeks later. As part of the deal, which the SEC announced today and which is still subject to court approval, Musk has to – I almost wrote “quit tweeting while high” – do the following:
Step down as Chairman of Tesla, to be replaced by an independent chairman. Musk will be ineligible to be chairman for three years;
Pay $20 million penalty.
But he gets to stay on as CEO and as board member – and apparently, he gets to keep his Twitter account, but with some board oversight (see below).
Today, the SEC also sued Tesla, and this being a busy Saturday, settled with Tesla all in one fell swoop.
The SEC charged in the complaint, filed in Federal Court today, that Tesla failed “to implement disclosure controls or procedures” over Musk’s off-the-wall tweets about Tesla:
“Musk has used his Twitter account to distribute material information about Tesla, including company financial projections and key non-financial metrics.”
“Tesla, however, did not have disclosure controls or procedures in place to assess whether the information Musk disseminated via his Twitter account was required to be disclosed in reports Tesla files pursuant to the Exchange Act….”
“Nor did it have sufficient processes in place to ensure the information Musk published via his Twitter account was accurate or complete.”
“By engaging in the conduct, Tesla violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will violate again, Rule 13a-15 [17 C.F.R. § 240.13a-15] of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78a, et seq.].
Both Musk and Tesla are settling the charges against them “without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations.” In addition to what Musk has to do and pay, Tesla has to:
Replace Musk with an “independent Chairman;”
Appoint a total of “two new independent directors to its board;”
“Establish a new committee of independent directors and put in place additional controls and procedures to oversee Musk’s communications.”
The $40 million in penalties that Musk and Tesla have to pay combined will be “distributed to harmed investors under a court-approved process.” Would those be the short sellers? Probably not.
The SEC announcement added:
As a result of the settlement, Elon Musk will no longer be Chairman of Tesla, Tesla’s board will adopt important reforms —including an obligation to oversee Musk’s communications with investors—and both will pay financial penalties. The resolution is intended to prevent further market disruption and harm to Tesla’s shareholders.
This settlement with Tesla is more than a slap on the wrist – particularly having to bring in two independent directors that will start nosing around some things – but it’s not exactly a summary execution. The company will now get a modicum of corporate oversight, and it might even try to tamp down on the blatant lies that Musk spews forth via his tweets in order to manipulate up the share price.
In terms of the penalty for Tesla, well, its $20 million penalty is a fly speck. It represents just two business days of net losses for Tesla, based on its Q2 net loss, its largest net loss ever. So this part won’t add much to the cash-burn machine.
Post by: azozeo on October 02, 2018, 04:27:46 PM
John Goodenough has defied the American tech industry’s prejudice that says old people can’t innovate.
A man old enough to be Mark Zuckerberg’s great-grandfather just unveiled energy storage technology that might save the planet.
John Goodenough is 94, and his current work could be the key to Tesla’s future—much as, decades ago, his efforts were an important part of Sony’s era of dominance in portable gadgets. Over the years, Goodenough has scuffled with Warren Buffett, wound up screwed by global patent wars, never got rich off a headline-grabbing initial public offering and defied the American tech industry’s prejudice that says old people can’t innovate.
https://www.jbbardot.com/year-genius-planet/ (https://www.jbbardot.com/year-genius-planet/)
Post by: RE on October 09, 2018, 02:04:39 AM
RE
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-08/tesla-s-value-sinks-by-10-billion-in-a-week-as-rout-deepens (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-08/tesla-s-value-sinks-by-10-billion-in-a-week-as-rout-deepens)
Tesla's Value Sinks by $10 Billion in a Week as Rout Deepens
By Tatiana Darie
October 8, 2018, 11:40 AM AKDT Updated on October 8, 2018, 1:22 PM AKDT
Mute
Current Time 0:11
Duration Time 3:00
Captions
Tesla in Hunt for Chairman to Replace Musk
China's RRR Cut Helps Chinese Banks, Says Eastspring's Wong
BofA Sees `Modest' Equities Pullback Until Bond Yields Stop Rising
Tesla in Hunt for Chairman to Replace Musk
LISTEN TO ARTICLE
1:10
In this article
TSLA
TESLA INC
250.56
USD
-11.39-4.35%
LEHMQ
LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC
Private Company
JPM
JPMORGAN CHASE
115.32
USD
0.70 0.61%
Tesla Inc. just can’t seem to catch a break.
If the rout sparked by an SEC investigation into CEO Elon Musk’s tweets on taking the carmaker private wasn’t enough, a subsequent tweet storm mocking the agency and an unflattering comparison to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. slewed off even more value. Shares extended losses for a fifth straight session Monday, falling 4.3 percent to the lowest in more than 18 months.
The stock rebounded in after-hours trading, recovering about 1 percent, after Macquarie initiated coverage of Tesla with an outperform rating.
Investors continue to punish Tesla even as its Model 3 is becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America. The company managed to deliver on its third-quarter projections for the electric car, leading JPMorgan to boost its estimates.
The stock closed at its lowest level since March 2017 on Monday, shaving more than $10 billion off its market capitalization in one week.
“The auto industry is on the precipice of a multi-decade transformation” driven by disruptive innovation and technology, which Tesla is “uniquely positioned” to lead, Macquarie analyst Maynard Um said in a note.
— With assistance by William Maloney
Post by: azozeo on November 04, 2018, 12:01:53 PM
This week, in a classic Muskian publicity stunt, Elon Musk, founder and CEO of Tesla, announced that he no longer had a job title at the electric-car manufacturer.
He had deleted his honorifics from his Tesla bio page, where he previously had been listed as chairman, product architect, and CEO, he said in a tweet. “I’m now the Nothing of Tesla. Seems fine so far,” he wrote.
https://qz.com/work/1443954/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-is-raising-an-important-question-about-job-titles/
Post by: azozeo on November 04, 2018, 12:05:00 PM
Hong Kong (CNN Business)Europe gave the world some of its top automakers, but it's losing out to China in the race to define the industry's future.
China is the driving force in the business of electric vehicle batteries, which European leaders see as vital to the future of the auto industry that employs millions of people across the continent.
It may be too late to catch up.
"Europe might well see its carmakers massively moving production to China in the future," said Simone Tagliapietra, an energy analyst at Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, a Milan-based think tank. "This is a huge risk" for the region that's home to companies like Volkswagen (VLKAF), BMW (BMWYY), Mercedes-Benz and Renault (RNSDF), he added.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/business/europe-lithium-electric-batteries/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/business/europe-lithium-electric-batteries/index.html)
Post by: RE on November 04, 2018, 12:07:37 PM
This week, in a classic Muskian publicity stunt, Elon Musk, founder and CEO of Tesla, announced that he no longer had a job title at the electric-car manufacturer.
He had deleted his honorifics from his Tesla bio page, where he previously had been listed as chairman, product architect, and CEO, he said in a tweet. “I’m now the Nothing of Tesla. Seems fine so far,” he wrote.
https://qz.com/work/1443954/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-is-raising-an-important-question-about-job-titles/
He was always "unhinged". Just he used to be a well funded insaniac by Wall Street.
RE
Post by: azozeo on November 04, 2018, 12:10:08 PM
This week, in a classic Muskian publicity stunt, Elon Musk, founder and CEO of Tesla, announced that he no longer had a job title at the electric-car manufacturer.
He had deleted his honorifics from his Tesla bio page, where he previously had been listed as chairman, product architect, and CEO, he said in a tweet. “I’m now the Nothing of Tesla. Seems fine so far,” he wrote.
https://qz.com/work/1443954/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-is-raising-an-important-question-about-job-titles/
He was always "unhinged". Just he used to be a well funded insaniac by Wall Street.
RE
Elon's unhinged-ness is well out of the closet :coffee:
Post by: RE on November 11, 2018, 01:35:23 PM
Harley-Davidson's electric motorcycle signals a big change for the legendary, but troubled, company
Harley-Davidson has been previewing its LiveWire electric motorcycle in the United States and Europe.
The motorcycle maker is in the process of remaking its business to meet its ambitious goal of attracting 2 million new riders in less than 10 years.
Robert Ferris | @RobertoFerris
Published 2 Hours Ago CNBC.com
The Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle
Source: Harley Davidson
Legendary but struggling American motorcycle maker Harley-Davidson is taking a big step toward its ambitious goal of getting milions of people excited about riding motorcycles again.
The company gave Europeans their first look at its LiveWire electric motorcycle at the influential EICMA motorcycle show in Milan, Italy on Tuesday. The move is part of a drive to become a world leader in electric and hybrid motorcycles, and to attract a new kind of customer to the storied American brand.
It is also a radical departure for Haley-Davidson, which has mostly been known for more than a century for its loud, brash motorcycles known as "hogs." The image has become so much a part of the brand that the company's ticker symbol is HOG.
Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle
Source: Harley-Davidson
Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle
But the company has signaled it is time for a a change as the market for bikes continues to age, literally. Almost half of all motorcycle riders are 50 or older.
Harley-Davidson has especially struggled. Most recently, the motorcycle maker released third quarter earnings that beat expectations, but showed the company actually lost market share.
"Harley is in a tough spot here, where their core constituency is getting older and they are having a tough time attracting new people to the sport," said Raymond James analyst Joe Altobello. Many view motorcycles as dangerous and difficult to operate, for example.
In recent years, the company has made an all out effort to attract more riders overall, including younger ones. The company unveiled a 10-year plan in 2017 to attract 2 million new riders by 2027. In addition to investing in electric bikes, the company has set up schools around the country to teach neophytes how to ride.
Electric motorcycles are expected to be a significant part of this strategy, but the company has also indicated it may expand into scooters and even bicycles, Argus Research analyst David Coleman said in an Oct. 26 research note.
"The expanded lineup may have greater appeal for women customers than the company's traditional motorcycles," Coleman said. "We also believe that this wider range of models will help to attract customers who might otherwise prefer to purchase a 'fully custom' motorcycle."
Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle
Source: Harley-Davidson
Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle
Electric bikes have a few technical advantages over gas-powered motorcycles. There are no gears to shift, which could make them more palatable to beginners intimidated by the idea of having to change gears while in motion on a motorcycle.
Electric motors offer peak torque immediately from a standstill. That means all the motor's power is available immediately, giving the bike extremely rapid acceleration. In contrast, internal combustion engines need to shift gears as a car or motorcycle increases speed, slowing acceleration. This is why an electric car such as the Tesla Model S P100D can go from 0-60 miles-per-hour in a lightning fast 2.5 seconds, making it one of the quickest accelerating vehicles on the planet.
That said, Harley has acknowledged its new direction may raise some eyebrows, particularly among enthusiasts used to the low-end growl of its classic internal combustion motorcycles.
The LiveWire does create a sound, but it is an entirely different one, more futuristic an emblematic of the bike's electric powertrain.
Here is what it sounds like:
The LiveWire is the first of several motorcycles Harley plans to introduce to refresh its lineup over the next several years.
The LiveWire model is expected to debut in 2019 and will be sold at select dealerships in the United States and Europe through the end of the year. The company will release the bike's price in January.
it will be a new avenue for Harley-Davidson, but the company will already have some competition. Several manufacturers are at work on electric bikes. One that has received a large amount of attention is California-based Zero Motorcycles.
2019 Zereo Motorcycle
Source: Zero
2019 Zereo Motorcycle
That company debuted its 2019 lineup at the end of October. Founded in 2006, the company already sells 4 different models.
Of course, even without competitors it remains to be seen whether any company can make money on electric motorcycles, given the high costs of developing electric powertrains for cars, Raymond James analyst Joe Altobello told CNBC. He also wonders whether marketing a motorcycle that is easier to ride will be enough to attract the ridership Harley-Davidson is hoping for.
"I think Harley is doing what they need to do: trying new things," Altobello said. "Just continuing on the same path is not smart, given what has transpired in the last fours year. The industry has declined year over year, at least in the United States. I am just skeptical that it is going to be enough to really reverse course."
Post by: azozeo on November 11, 2018, 02:51:57 PM
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/09/harley-davidsons-electric-motorcycle-is-a-big-change-for-the-company.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/09/harley-davidsons-electric-motorcycle-is-a-big-change-for-the-company.html)
Harley-Davidson's electric motorcycle signals a big change for the legendary, but troubled, company
Harley-Davidson has been previewing its LiveWire electric motorcycle in the United States and Europe.
The motorcycle maker is in the process of remaking its business to meet its ambitious goal of attracting 2 million new riders in less than 10 years.
Robert Ferris | @RobertoFerris
Published 2 Hours Ago CNBC.com
The Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle
Source: Harley Davidson
Legendary but struggling American motorcycle maker Harley-Davidson is taking a big step toward its ambitious goal of getting milions of people excited about riding motorcycles again.
The company gave Europeans their first look at its LiveWire electric motorcycle at the influential EICMA motorcycle show in Milan, Italy on Tuesday. The move is part of a drive to become a world leader in electric and hybrid motorcycles, and to attract a new kind of customer to the storied American brand.
It is also a radical departure for Haley-Davidson, which has mostly been known for more than a century for its loud, brash motorcycles known as "hogs." The image has become so much a part of the brand that the company's ticker symbol is HOG.
Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle
Source: Harley-Davidson
Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle
But the company has signaled it is time for a a change as the market for bikes continues to age, literally. Almost half of all motorcycle riders are 50 or older.
Harley-Davidson has especially struggled. Most recently, the motorcycle maker released third quarter earnings that beat expectations, but showed the company actually lost market share.
"Harley is in a tough spot here, where their core constituency is getting older and they are having a tough time attracting new people to the sport," said Raymond James analyst Joe Altobello. Many view motorcycles as dangerous and difficult to operate, for example.
In recent years, the company has made an all out effort to attract more riders overall, including younger ones. The company unveiled a 10-year plan in 2017 to attract 2 million new riders by 2027. In addition to investing in electric bikes, the company has set up schools around the country to teach neophytes how to ride.
Electric motorcycles are expected to be a significant part of this strategy, but the company has also indicated it may expand into scooters and even bicycles, Argus Research analyst David Coleman said in an Oct. 26 research note.
"The expanded lineup may have greater appeal for women customers than the company's traditional motorcycles," Coleman said. "We also believe that this wider range of models will help to attract customers who might otherwise prefer to purchase a 'fully custom' motorcycle."
Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle
Source: Harley-Davidson
Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle
Electric bikes have a few technical advantages over gas-powered motorcycles. There are no gears to shift, which could make them more palatable to beginners intimidated by the idea of having to change gears while in motion on a motorcycle.
Electric motors offer peak torque immediately from a standstill. That means all the motor's power is available immediately, giving the bike extremely rapid acceleration. In contrast, internal combustion engines need to shift gears as a car or motorcycle increases speed, slowing acceleration. This is why an electric car such as the Tesla Model S P100D can go from 0-60 miles-per-hour in a lightning fast 2.5 seconds, making it one of the quickest accelerating vehicles on the planet.
That said, Harley has acknowledged its new direction may raise some eyebrows, particularly among enthusiasts used to the low-end growl of its classic internal combustion motorcycles.
The LiveWire does create a sound, but it is an entirely different one, more futuristic an emblematic of the bike's electric powertrain.
Here is what it sounds like:
The LiveWire is the first of several motorcycles Harley plans to introduce to refresh its lineup over the next several years.
The LiveWire model is expected to debut in 2019 and will be sold at select dealerships in the United States and Europe through the end of the year. The company will release the bike's price in January.
it will be a new avenue for Harley-Davidson, but the company will already have some competition. Several manufacturers are at work on electric bikes. One that has received a large amount of attention is California-based Zero Motorcycles.
2019 Zereo Motorcycle
Source: Zero
2019 Zereo Motorcycle
That company debuted its 2019 lineup at the end of October. Founded in 2006, the company already sells 4 different models.
Of course, even without competitors it remains to be seen whether any company can make money on electric motorcycles, given the high costs of developing electric powertrains for cars, Raymond James analyst Joe Altobello told CNBC. He also wonders whether marketing a motorcycle that is easier to ride will be enough to attract the ridership Harley-Davidson is hoping for.
"I think Harley is doing what they need to do: trying new things," Altobello said. "Just continuing on the same path is not smart, given what has transpired in the last fours year. The industry has declined year over year, at least in the United States. I am just skeptical that it is going to be enough to really reverse course."
And what of that patented exhaust sound. The buggy whip strikes again.
The pit of misery for H-D.... dilly, dilly :evil4:
Post by: Eddie on November 11, 2018, 04:34:57 PM
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/09/harley-davidsons-electric-motorcycle-is-a-big-change-for-the-company.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/09/harley-davidsons-electric-motorcycle-is-a-big-change-for-the-company.html)
Harley-Davidson's electric motorcycle signals a big change for the legendary, but troubled, company
Harley-Davidson has been previewing its LiveWire electric motorcycle in the United States and Europe.
The motorcycle maker is in the process of remaking its business to meet its ambitious goal of attracting 2 million new riders in less than 10 years.
Robert Ferris | @RobertoFerris
Published 2 Hours Ago CNBC.com
The Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle
Source: Harley Davidson
Legendary but struggling American motorcycle maker Harley-Davidson is taking a big step toward its ambitious goal of getting milions of people excited about riding motorcycles again.
The company gave Europeans their first look at its LiveWire electric motorcycle at the influential EICMA motorcycle show in Milan, Italy on Tuesday. The move is part of a drive to become a world leader in electric and hybrid motorcycles, and to attract a new kind of customer to the storied American brand.
It is also a radical departure for Haley-Davidson, which has mostly been known for more than a century for its loud, brash motorcycles known as "hogs." The image has become so much a part of the brand that the company's ticker symbol is HOG.
Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle
Source: Harley-Davidson
Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle
But the company has signaled it is time for a a change as the market for bikes continues to age, literally. Almost half of all motorcycle riders are 50 or older.
Harley-Davidson has especially struggled. Most recently, the motorcycle maker released third quarter earnings that beat expectations, but showed the company actually lost market share.
"Harley is in a tough spot here, where their core constituency is getting older and they are having a tough time attracting new people to the sport," said Raymond James analyst Joe Altobello. Many view motorcycles as dangerous and difficult to operate, for example.
In recent years, the company has made an all out effort to attract more riders overall, including younger ones. The company unveiled a 10-year plan in 2017 to attract 2 million new riders by 2027. In addition to investing in electric bikes, the company has set up schools around the country to teach neophytes how to ride.
Electric motorcycles are expected to be a significant part of this strategy, but the company has also indicated it may expand into scooters and even bicycles, Argus Research analyst David Coleman said in an Oct. 26 research note.
"The expanded lineup may have greater appeal for women customers than the company's traditional motorcycles," Coleman said. "We also believe that this wider range of models will help to attract customers who might otherwise prefer to purchase a 'fully custom' motorcycle."
Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle
Source: Harley-Davidson
Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle
Electric bikes have a few technical advantages over gas-powered motorcycles. There are no gears to shift, which could make them more palatable to beginners intimidated by the idea of having to change gears while in motion on a motorcycle.
Electric motors offer peak torque immediately from a standstill. That means all the motor's power is available immediately, giving the bike extremely rapid acceleration. In contrast, internal combustion engines need to shift gears as a car or motorcycle increases speed, slowing acceleration. This is why an electric car such as the Tesla Model S P100D can go from 0-60 miles-per-hour in a lightning fast 2.5 seconds, making it one of the quickest accelerating vehicles on the planet.
That said, Harley has acknowledged its new direction may raise some eyebrows, particularly among enthusiasts used to the low-end growl of its classic internal combustion motorcycles.
The LiveWire does create a sound, but it is an entirely different one, more futuristic an emblematic of the bike's electric powertrain.
Here is what it sounds like:
The LiveWire is the first of several motorcycles Harley plans to introduce to refresh its lineup over the next several years.
The LiveWire model is expected to debut in 2019 and will be sold at select dealerships in the United States and Europe through the end of the year. The company will release the bike's price in January.
it will be a new avenue for Harley-Davidson, but the company will already have some competition. Several manufacturers are at work on electric bikes. One that has received a large amount of attention is California-based Zero Motorcycles.
2019 Zereo Motorcycle
Source: Zero
2019 Zereo Motorcycle
That company debuted its 2019 lineup at the end of October. Founded in 2006, the company already sells 4 different models.
Of course, even without competitors it remains to be seen whether any company can make money on electric motorcycles, given the high costs of developing electric powertrains for cars, Raymond James analyst Joe Altobello told CNBC. He also wonders whether marketing a motorcycle that is easier to ride will be enough to attract the ridership Harley-Davidson is hoping for.
"I think Harley is doing what they need to do: trying new things," Altobello said. "Just continuing on the same path is not smart, given what has transpired in the last fours year. The industry has declined year over year, at least in the United States. I am just skeptical that it is going to be enough to really reverse course."
I expect that instead of the Tesla of motorcycles, it's more likely to be the Edsel of motorcycles. I don't see Harley riders making the switch, just because they DO like that patented exhaust note.
Post by: RE on November 11, 2018, 04:37:57 PM
And what of that patented exhaust sound. The buggy whip strikes again.
The pit of misery for H-D.... dilly, dilly :evil4:
The old Harley commercials just wouldn't be the same without the engine roar. :(
http://www.youtube.com/v/wetkK-IoxTQ
http://www.youtube.com/v/Om41NoYTVnk
RE
Post by: azozeo on December 06, 2018, 11:27:23 AM
(https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/20181201_WBP505.jpg)
THE ONLY thing that can accelerate as fast as an electric car is the price of the most expensive metal in its batteries. Once a niche input used to strengthen turbine blades, cobalt’s value has soared since it started to feature in modern electronics. Most phones need a few grams’ worth, and every car requires 5-10kg. That adds up. Many business models are based on ample reservoirs of cobalt that experts warn do not exist.
At $4000 an Oz. roughly, how much of that price do these hard workin' miners make ?
https://www.economist.com/business/2018/12/01/can-the-world-produce-enough-cobalt-for-electric-vehicles (https://www.economist.com/business/2018/12/01/can-the-world-produce-enough-cobalt-for-electric-vehicles)
Post by: RE on December 08, 2018, 09:40:01 AM
Brand new 2019 model going for $12K.
I am sorely tempted.
RE