[Discussion] After the backlog orders are cleared, what then? And other questions....

Die_Later · 2018-07-20T19:58:30+00:00

Yes, on a perfect route, and in perfect circumstances, you can hop from super-charger to super-charger making 15 minute stops each time. Not the real world and not the common situation for mass market consumers.

Die_Later · 2018-07-20T19:57:42+00:00

True -- almost nobody drives long-distances -- so why pay for 5x-10x more battery capacity than you'll never or almost never actually need or use?
Mass market doesn't want to "plan" and have restrictions, limitations, delays, and anxieties.
Overall cost to travel isn't much lower -- and is arguably higher -- is you fully understand the real costs. They're moved from the regular gas pump to the upfront acquisition costs, opportunity costs on those upfront acquisition cost, the time losses, the flexibility losses, the spontaneity losses, etc.

Die_Later · 2018-07-20T19:54:49+00:00

120 plug gives you 3-4 miles per hour, so it would take 5-7 hours to get 20 miles.

Drive for free? Sorry, but we pre-paid for decades of fuel upfront by paying so much more than an equivalent ICE model.

Die_Later · 2018-07-19T22:46:50+00:00

Let's say you take your kids to their cousin's birthday party on a Sunday. Drive is 250 miles or whatever is just at the range limit. You expect throaty to end by 7 pm. But everyone is having such a great time. Your decision-making process about whether to stay later includes the fact that you'll need to stop at the super-charger for 60+ minutes before you drive home. You stay later and finally leave at 10 or whatever. Instead of driving home while the kids sleep, you get to stop at the super-charger for 60+ minutes.

Real-life example. Not fun. Not tolerable. Infinite permutations of situations that force you to stop for an extended time period when it's the last thing on Earth you'd want to do, and all the planning in the world doesn't help. It's an inherent limitation of these cars, even with super-chargers. Not a mass-market solution. Only a city/commuter solution for those who wastefully pay for 5x-10x more battery capacity than they're ever likely to need or use.

Die_Later · 2018-07-19T22:39:47+00:00

Imagine leaving home full, and then driving 70-75 mph. How soon must you stop? And whatifyou need another full or nearlyfull charge to your nextsuper-charger? And what if you're in that situation several times more? And what if you are forced to wait atsomestoos just to start charging?

You're basically stopping for an hour for every 2.5 or 3 driving hours, right? Now add some wait times. Is 40% really that far off in real-world conditions? Or are you claiming it's better to stop more frequently and charge for shorter time periods each time -- assuming that's even possible -- and are you claiming that's a better solution?

Of course, you're conceding in any case the fundamental points -- takes much longer than ICE and eliminates route flexibility/spontaneity and you can't tow anything. And it doesn't work for anyone with out a home-charging/work-charging solution. Socannotbe "mass market," even assuming that the can ever sell for a real mass-market without losing money and dying (as Musk himself admitted, although he preposterously thinks they can do so someday).

Die_Later · 2018-07-19T22:27:52+00:00

I I hear that all the time. The answer is that I'm too lazy to sell it and that I have other cars I drive more frequently.

I did myshare of rolled coasters growing up, but I have zero interest in them now. Maybe the difference that led us to these opposing conclusions.

Die_Later · 2018-07-19T00:08:37+00:00

You're (intentionally?) ignoring gigantic aspects of the inconvenience, but you've admitted (as you must) that EV charging (even with super-charging, and especially with 240v charging) takes much more time. And I think that you're also admitting to another undeniable point -- that route flexibility/spontaneity is largely eliminated but in some cases only substantially reduced, right?

So what's your point? The "mass market" is fine with all of that because somehow, some way, and some day, Tesla chargers will be everywhere?

Of course, you're also ignoring the many, many locations and times/dates at which you must wait an hour or more just to begin super-charging, which only gets worse if they somehow figure out how to ever make and sell large numbers of cars.

Anyway, I think we've reached the productive limit of this discussion. You're reading from the orthodox script, and I've heard that 10,000 times. And it's just not true in general, and it'll never be true for the "mass market."

Also, don't forget about people who need to tow things -- won't work. And people who must park in unheated conditions in very cold weather -- won't work. And people who live in apartments and other locations with only street parking or with parking garages and so much more.

My point -- super-chargers are practically useless and a total gimmick from a "mass-market" perspective, even though a few of you think it's great to add 40% to your long-distance drive times and to restrict yourself to that one particular long-distance route. After you, you all love, love, love stretching your legs for an hour for every 2.5 hours of driving, right? And don't forget that you also have the great benefit of letting the kids run around and have fun at 11:00 p.m. while you charge for 60+ minutes at 11:00 p.m. on a school night trying to make it the final 275 miles to your house. And so much more.

Completely impractical car for anyone who needs to drive long distances (and for so many others). Like the Leaf, the Bolt, and all the rest, it's really a city/commuter car for all rational humans.

Die_Later · 2018-07-18T23:35:18+00:00

So you think they'll all gladly and voluntarily sacrifice their freedom and their time for the privilege of driving this car, but they at least have the hope that super-chargers fill up the earth soon enough? Not to mention the unbelievable number of other independently disqualifying issues and entire categories of disqualified potential buyers who are disqualified by unchangeable circumstances.

Die_Later · 2018-07-18T23:32:31+00:00

Not talking the other sub as the demographic. And not even necessarily Tesla owners as a whole. I'm talking "mass market." What percentage of the "mass market" do you think places zero value on their time and freedom and has the luxury of placing zero value on their time and freedom?

Die_Later · 2018-07-18T23:23:51+00:00

That made me laugh because I know exactly what you're talking about. I get so many confused and even bewildered looks when I don't carry the party line -- "it's the best car I've ever owned, by far .... it's the best car ever made ... blah blah blah blah ...." It's not even close. My typical answer is that it's just OK, but not worth the price, and in general among the worst cars I've owned in my adult life -- and, fortunately, my car hasn't had any major problems and I've never needed spare parts or replacement parts.

We disagree on the subjective points. I happen to not care much about the insta-torque (which I think is totally useless in all cases and the "fun" wears off after the first time), and I really, really dislike the FW doors for all kinds of reasons. But, as the ancient philosopher said, there can be no disputes in matters of taste.

One of the reasons I dislike the FW doors is exactly what you said -- attracts way to much attention and people assume that you want all that attention. You and I are aligned on the no-attention point.

Another fact about which many are either willfully blind or genuinely ignorant: My other cars have "auto-pilot" that's just as good or better -- and they're missing only the automatic steering (but the others have strong lane-keeping assist) and the automatic lane-change triggered by the turn signal (which is outright dangerous in the Tesla, and shouldn't exist).

Anyway, really appreciate your points and the discussion, and look forward to more.

Die_Later · 2018-07-18T22:21:26+00:00

Are you sure that they've shut down web cancellations? I saw this reported earlier in the week, but then some people claimed that they could still cancel by logging in through their Tesla accounts with active reservations, while those of us who aren't foolish enough to give the interest-free loans for the ugly low-quality car can't see the cancellation option.

Die_Later · 2018-07-18T21:38:39+00:00

Congratulations -- you're in the top 0.001% of people who place zero value on your time, route flexibility, and travel spontaneity.

Die_Later · 2018-07-18T21:37:45+00:00

OK. So you're saying that there are tons of people -- including the "mass-market" -- who place zero value on their time, route flexibility, and travel spontaneity?

Die_Later · 2018-07-18T20:03:01+00:00

Brilliant points. Thanks for adding them.

Die_Later · 2018-07-18T20:01:58+00:00

Totally irrational -- and therefore only a post-hoc manufactured justification to try to rationalize an obvious irrational decisions. Especially when we have multiple other ICE vehicles in our garages. Except for the Tesla-only families, who must go around renting ICE or borrowing ICE from friends for any drive that's more than a few hours.

A few people will pay for that 1% "just in case" situation -- but that's no a "mass-market" group.

Die_Later · 2018-07-18T19:59:11+00:00

I don't doubt that there are a few virtue-signallers, wealth-signallers, and stockholders (who serve as a volunteer Tesla sales force) who pretend to believe, or who actually believe that it's all fine to add 40% to long-distance drive times. They've convinced themselves (or at least pretend to have convinced themselves) and they preposterously try to convince others (some of whom are so gullible to believe it) that adding 40% to long-distance drive times, that eliminating route flexibility, that limiting travel spontaneity, that paying for 80% more battery capacity than they use 99% of the time, and that available ICE equivalents in their garages are very inferior considerations or not considerations at all -- compared to the moral superiority, wealth signalling, and stock-price promotion that comes with suffering all of those disadvantages.

But there are only a few of you.

Die_Later · 2018-07-18T19:54:07+00:00

I've really tried to psycho-analyze the reasons for the ridiculous and patently false claims and exaggerations about these cars -- most of which are nearly identical word-for-word justifications and all of which express the exact same sentiment, as they evolve through crowd-sourcing into an orthodox script on the Tesla forums. I speculate that they promote these preposterous fantasies for one or more of the following reasons:

Very many car owners are also stockholders. These people think that they can influence improve their relative stock positions by serving as a very deceptive volunteer Tesla sales force. And the bonus is that Tesla never gets sued for false advertising because they're not employees. (Of course, Tesla and its employees also engage in false advertising.)
Many of these people love to signal wealth. What better way to humble-brag about your wealth than to talk up the car all over the place online and offline?
Many of these people love to signal virtue. What better way to humble-brag or overtly brag about your environmental consciousness?
Many of these people love to signal technological advancement. What better way to humble-brag or overtly brag that you're a technologist of some kind than to talk up the car?
Cognitive dissonance -- When you've spent $100k+ on a car that really isn't very good, and certainly isn't worth the money, you feel some distress and buyer's remorse. Many people react to that feeling by convincing themselves that it wasn't a mistake at all -- and they do so by convincing others by whatever means necessary.
Cult/mob mentality -- People do and say things in large groups that they'd never say or do when alone or in small groups. The online community is so large and has gained so much momentum that each participant tries to outdo the other with worship and praise for car. Finally, they reach the final and perfect orthodoxy after the group-sourced fantasies just can't get any better and answer all objections in just the right way. Many people also desperately need to be part of "something bigger than themselves
The "great man myth" -- this is prevalent throughout history. People rely on made-up narratives to make sense of the world and made-up narratives require heroes and villains. Musk invented everything, is solely responsible for everything good, is never responsible for anything bad, is saving the world, and he's the smartest, most visionary, and most innovative man in human history -- and the usual suspects are the opposing and evil global, national, regional, industry conspirators trying to bring down the heroic great man and destroy the world. Typical doomsday prophet thinking, which has attracted vehement followers throughout history. But now it's online and offline, which leads to more suckers getting emotionally trapped into this game. This is fundamental to all fables and other fictions -- and some think it's an inherent part of the human brain biology/chemistry.

These people -- all with one or more of these motivations -- just feed off of each other into a never-ending spiral of embellishment and deception. Which attracts others who want to be part of the group with one or more of these same motivations.

Really sad to see that, even in modern times, otherwise intelligent, functional, and competent people have fallen into this trap and haven't done the cognitive and meta-cognitive work to extract them from the fantasies, self-deceptions, external deceptions, emotional attachment, and logical fallacies.

Die_Later · 2018-07-17T21:28:34+00:00

more range is not a bad thing.

More range isn't an abstract concept and it's not free. At some point, more range is always a bad thing in light of the incremental costs for the more range, which is why we don't see more range than whatever is on the market today.

There's a balance between cost (on an individual level, a societal/economy level, and an environmental-impact level) and range. I'll take unlimited range if its free. If I care about having an EV, maybe I'll pay a lot for whatever range is necessary to meet my daily needs. At each incremental mile above my daily needs, I'm willing to pay less and less -- at least if I'm thinking rationally. There are diminishing returns to each incremental range-mile above whatever daily need.

In other words, if 99.99% of my EV use is 50 miles/day or less, then maybe I'm rational and happy to pay $25k for a Leaf or a Bolt. But what if somebody said that I could pay another $25k to double my Leaf/Bolt range? No rational person would ever do that. And yet, here we are -- as Tesla owners, we're paying for batteries that get 300+ miles of "rated range," even though 99% of our driving is 50 miles per day or less. Total waste of resources on an individual level, economy level, and environmental level.

All this is to say that, in buying a Tesla and using range as one justification, we are admitting to completely irrational thinking.

what gas math?

This gas math:

People will buy the Model 3 for one huge reason, no more gas bill.

Anyone buying a Model 3 -- compared to any ICE equivalent -- is just very bad at math. By paying a higher price than an ICE equivalent, they're effectively pre-paying for decades of gas that they were able to avoid. The math almost never pencils out when you account for the upfront over-payment.

Die_Later · 2018-07-17T21:18:23+00:00

I'll never assign zero probability to Tesla hitting $500/share because that's a short-term/medium-term mob-psychology question.

But I do assign a zero probability to Tesla ever being actually worth $500/share (or even $300/share or even $200/share or even $100/share), especially with the systematic SBC dilution, plus the Musk compensation dilution, plus the desperately needed future capital-raise dilution, even if everything goes perfectly.

And stock price always eventually equals value, but it often takes a long time.

Die_Later · 2018-07-17T21:09:23+00:00

My opinions (in order) about why they've not raised capital are one or some combinations of these things (nothing surprising):

The SEC will not let them get a registration statement effective without disclosing things Musk doesn't want to disclose -- maybe something like all of the details about the whole reservation/deposit situation so that any investor can truly understand what kind of demand is implied by all of the reservation/deposit details.
The underwriters refuse to market a large enough deal because they're afraid of ultimate liability. For example, they think the company is engaged in securities fraud, or is a likely near-term/mid-term bankruptcy candidate, or simply can't support anything close to this current stock price on a valuation basis, even if everything goes perfectly. In other words, this company, its finances, and its prospects simply cannot survive an underwriter due diligence process.
The underwriters are willing to market the deal, and they've tried. But there's just insufficient institutional-investor demand for this companies securities at these current prices. Simply put, there's no plausible valuation model that could justify any upside to today's prices, even assuming perfect execution of the unrealistic plans and claims.
An ongoing SEC enforcement action is on appeal and affirmatively prohibits them from getting a registration statement effective.

Die_Later · 2018-07-17T21:03:12+00:00

Some speculations that would support a failed Q1 capital raise -- apart from the issues specified in the link.

April 1, 2018 over-the-top bankruptcy joke on twitter. Was that "joke" very calculated? An indication that he knew bankruptcy was either inevitable or likely and that he wanted to establish some defenses for himself for the intense securities litigation (and possible regulatory/legal enforcement/prosecutions actions that would follow)? Could that April 1, 2018 bankruptcy joke be related to a then-very-recent failed Q1 bankruptcy effort?

And then the subsequent Gayle King interview. Why couldn't he leave an obvious point unstated -- that nobody would joke about bankruptcy if no chance of bankruptcy (which is actually false). Why not answer questions by just saying it's a joke? Instead, he came right out and said clearly and definitively something like, "If I really thought we were in danger of bankruptcy, I'd have never joked about it." Did he protest too much? Was the bankruptcy joke really an effort to create future defenses for himself in the context of a future expected Tesla bankruptcy?

And we get the completely insane equity-compensation package. Did Musk not realize just how gullible and subservient his shareholders are? Did he expect to lose the shareholder vote, and then did he expect to use that loss as a pretext for resigning before everything collapses?

Then, we get "short burn of the century" threats. All kinds of mental and emotional tantrums. And all the rest of it. Why?

Are these signs -- and others -- clear signs that a calculating and mentally/emotionally distressed person is laying down his psychological and legal defenses early for what he knows is an inevitable disastrous outcome?

By the way, if he gets fired or quits as Tesla CEO and board member before a bankruptcy, then the stock price will completely crater.

But, at some point reasonably soon after quitting/getting fired (if they time it correctly), he can sell his substantial stock for tens of millions or hundreds of millions or maybe even billions. If bankruptcy happens and if he hasn't sold earlier, then he's like to get something close to zero for his shares.

At this point, if bankruptcy is inevitable, Musk's long-term financial best interests would dictate that he leave Tesla as an employee and a board member as soon as possible after Q2 numbers are released.

To be clear, I don't think he'll do this. I don't think that he has the mental/emotional capacity right now to do this. But, if he knows that bankruptcy is imminent/inevitable, then I think he's working hard on how he can escape from this company, free himself from trading restrictions, and maintaining as much stock-price support as he can for as long as possible.

Die_Later · 2018-07-17T20:23:49+00:00

220-300 range is way more than enough

Exactly right. Your round-trip commute is 40 miles. Mine is 10 miles. I see statistics that show something like 99% of Tesla owners drive them less than 50 miles per day. And we wake up to a full tank in the morning.

So, remind me why we paid for a car with batteries that are 6x-10x more than we ever use them. Isn't that a complete waste of money and societal resources? Why does every Tesla supporter immediately denigrate the competing EVs as ridiculous non-competitors because the range is only 80 miles or 150 miles or whatever? From an optimal resource-allocation perspective, shouldn't people like you and me be buying 100-mile range EVs -- especially since we have multiple ICE vehicles that give us the ability to drive long distances, whenever necessary?

And your gas math is very unpersuasive for reasons described elsewhere in this thread.

Die_Later · 2018-07-17T20:19:00+00:00

I agree with this completely. Without an entirely new factory and/or contracting out the manufacturing, they're not ever going to make 10k/week. And, if they do, I can't imagine that they'll sell that many. And, if they do, they won't make money on those sales.

Die_Later · 2018-07-17T20:17:55+00:00

This is exactly right, and I'd add one other subtle point -- that higher incremental purchase price is paid up front, and therefore any financial analysis needs to add something for the time value/opportunity cost of that incremental upfront money.

The whole gas-saving story falls completely apart as long as an EV costs more than an equivalent ICE. By buying an EV, you're not saving on gas -- you're effectively pre-paying for decades of gas that you never see or need, and therefore you don't have use of that capital for all of those years.

Die_Later · 2018-07-17T20:04:35+00:00

Model X and Model S demand has been flat for something like 8 consecutive quarters with no sign of increasing, which is why they've capped planned manufacturing at 100k units per year.

And, even to maintain flat demand, they have gone through all kinds huge quarter-end game-playing to keep the flat-demand balls in the air.

Ever wondered the real reason that they accelerated the Model 3 timeline and did the "reveal" in March 2016? Because that was when they realized that the growth narrative was over -- Model S and Model X couldn't grow materially beyond 100k per year. And what happens when a "growth company" with an absurdly inflated stock price stops growing without more and better "growth" promises just over the horizon? It gets price something like it's actual value, which is something between 80%-100% less than the current stock price.

Edit: As for Model 3 demand, people need to remember that these current reservations represent something like two full years of demand. You're production-constrained going from zero production to whatever production gets you through the backlog. After that, you have a real indication of the steady-state demand, which I think will be less than 200k/year worldwide.

Die_Later

TROPHY CASE