Hacker News Reader

Comment by compcoffee | Hacker News Reader

>The $35k base model made at scale later this year will be profitable."

We've been hearing about it forever. Let's see it. It's always "coming".

>"Musk is a fraudster/bullshit artist" wave that's hit HN and most online forums recently"

Give me a break. You're "wave" is my, finally, balance. Tesla, or more specifically Musk, has got far more postive press than they deserve. I never see any Nissan, Porsche, Audi, or rarely, GM articles on this site. Meanwhile, every time the Tesla blog/Electrek make a post, it's upvoted here.

View on HN

I just saw a Nissan article on here a few days ago. It was about how they cheated their emissions tests.

They didn't "cheat their" emissions test unless you're lowering the standards for "cheating" because you're running out of witches to burn.

Workers at a factory falsified test data to make it look like cars that didn't pass their internal tests passed. The cars were still complaint with the relevant regulations and the tests are not advertised to customers. Nobody got cheated except Nissan itself. It's like promising your customers 99.99% up-time, considering 99.999% up-time the bar for success internally, delivering 99.99% and then fudging the numbers so that it says 99.999% internally.

I love getting triggered by corporate misconduct as much as the next guy but the Nissan thing was a nothing-burger with a catchy headline.

Edit: Since apparently I'mWrong(TM) can explain to me how the Nissan thing is anything worth paying attention to?

>falsified test data to make it look like cars that didn't pass their internal tests passed

Sounds an awful lot like cheating to me, but OK.

"Still met emissions requirements, but failed internal QA".

>I just saw a Nissan article on here a few days ago. It was about how they cheated their emissions tests.

Exactly. Some stupid story that wasn't true. I rest my case.

It will come as soon as the company exhausts demand for the higher-ASP variants. In what world does it make business sense for a production-constrained company to prioritize its least expensive products?

When the least expensive products have higher margins than the most expensive ones?

I haven't researched specifics on Tesla, but typically bigger => larger margins in the automotive world. Manufacturers weren't thrilled when the Obama administration pushed for higher fuel economy after the bailouts. The margins on the small cars were much lower than on trucks and SUV's.

For example, Ford's F-150 line is worth an incredible amount of money.

"Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas has estimated that the F-Series, which includes F-150 and Super Duty trucks and remains the best-selling lineup in America, is responsible for 90% of the automaker’s global profits."

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/why-the-ford-f-150-is-a-...

And even then only margins in $, not as a %. With a price difference of $49k vs $35k I don't see that as being likely, unless it is something in the upgrade package that is an assembly line bottleneck.

Nissan, Porsche, Audi, GM are all behemoths. Tesla, by comparison, is an underdog (hence the widespread emotional appeal), has framed themselves as being principally for "changing how humans use energy" rather than "just a little better than the next car", and has a CEO+chairman who says outlandish things... and delivers on some of them.

I would argue Musk gets press for nearly the same reasons Trump does. And it works.

Tesla also makes really, really nice cars that appeal strongly to the HN demographic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com