Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewtbham | Hacker News Reader

This narrative doesn't resonate with me. Forward looking statements are speculative, especially when you're innovating new technologies.

I personally trust Elon Musk and I am a large investor. I don't expect him to hit all his targets, but I trust him to only raise money on the heels of good news.

View on HN

Characterizing lying to the SEC and calling a Thai cave rescuer a "pedo" as such is stretching the definition of "forward-looking statement."

Musk has always been largely bluster, but now the bluster is hurting people, and his companies as well. He's the biggest liability Tesla has.

I don't know what he's done to earn my trust, or any investor's.

If bluster results in the first truly desirable EV cars and the first autonomous reusable rocket then more bluster please. The rage machine against Elon here is preposterous. At the end of the day , is he making the world a better place ?. No amount of contrived answers involving Twitter can change the vehement "Yes" to that question.

> At the end of the day, is he making the world a better place?

With rare exception, I don't subscribe to the idea of "key men" in general, and especially not in this case. Even if I did, I don't think that Musk is acting in a way that makes him an asset.

I agree that Tesla, for instance, is doing good and important work. However, I think attributing Tesla's success, and net impact on the world to Musk alone is unsupported by evidence. That's because aside from initial investment/PR, and sufficient cult of personality to inspire people to work for him at the start, I don't see what Elon Musk is contributing to the company's work at this point. In fact, I see him as a liability and I think Tesla would be better off without him.

Candidly, I also believe that if Musk was less driven by his own ego, as he appears to be, he'd see that and step aside.

Of course, the success of Tesla isn't based on Musk alone. There are thousands of Tesla employees contributing to it. Be it in engineering or production. However, Musk is the glue which ties all of this together. He set the direction, contributed quite a lot of his personal money in the beginning and is at the steering wheel.

I would say that his contribution to Tesla is mostly a sense of urgency and direction. Certainly some more “normal” CEO could come in and make the company more profitable, but it’d come with steep cost: the company would also become very stagnant and very boring. That’d be great for Wall Street but it’d bum me out pretty badly.

I think there is another way to make this comparison:

If Musk did not exist, and Tesla as a company did not exist, then all the engineers, expertise, effort, and capital that is currently with Tesla would be placed elsewhere.

Would all those people and resources do more good with all the other companies?

Tesla is one of many companies making mass market electric cars. Piling on luxury touches isn't making the world a better place. Tesla's $35K car (when if ever shows shows up) isn't better than anyone else's. He's just coming down from higher price points on fancier cars while others are improving at the same price point.

Have you driven or been in a Tesla? These are manifestly not the same cars as anyone else's.

Model 3's are everywhere, especially in the Bay Area. But sure say false things to suit your narrative.

> I don't know what he's done to earn my trust, or any investor's.

The ~20x ROI since IPO has made many people trust him. Tesla itself is a marvelous success, with no established car maker able to match them yet. It is far more likely that your personal dislike of him is making you see a distorted reality.

> It is far more likely that your personal dislike of him is making you see a distorted reality.

Certainly possible. I personally think he's acting like a buffoon and I haven't been shy about stating it.

However, as I told another commenter in this thread, I think the relatively objective argument is that while Musk was necessary initially to get Tesla into existence and functioning, he's now more of a liability than an asset. It's not that he was never valuable or never deserved any trust - rather that he doesn't deserve it now.

Put another way: At what point does the goodwill he's earned expire?

> I think the relatively objective argument is that while Musk was necessary initially to get Tesla into existence and functioning

Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpennin initially got Tesla into existence.

True, but Elon Musk led their series A, which is also when he joined the company along with J.B. Yes Martin and Marc created the company, but it would not be where it is today without Elon Musk.

It doesn't always matter who initially created the company. For example one of the co-founders of Apple was Ronald Wayne, whom the vast majority of people have never heard of. He left Apple very early and sold all his shares back to Jobs and Wozniak for $800.

I have always seen him as a bit like William Durant. His use expires when the company is no longer trying to grow at 2x every 3 years.

Alternatively, he could dramatically change his approach as the business matures.

Match them at what?

> with no established car maker able to match them yet.

The Hyundai Kona EV is cheaper, has good range, and outperforms new model Teslas in 24-hour efficiency (interestingly finishing second to the original Tesla Roadster):

https://insideevs.com/hyundai-kona-electric-gets-shockingly-...

https://electrek.co/2018/12/23/tesla-roadster-24-hour-electr...

Teslas are among the least reliable cars you can buy. If you want high reliability and low maintenance costs, you're best off with a sensible Toyota today:

https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/20...

Here are some currently available and soon to be available EVs from established car makers:

https://www.hyundai.co.uk/new-cars/kona-electric

https://www.kia.com/uk/new-cars/all-new-e-niro/

https://www.jaguarusa.com/all-models/i-pace/index.html

https://www.e-tron.audi/en

VW has to sell electrics to meet the new fleet emissions targets set by the EU and they're going to do it with their MEB platform:

http://fortune.com/2018/12/20/volkswagen-electric-cars-emiss...

https://electrek.co/2018/09/18/vw-meb-platform-electric-for-...

Right now the primary reason to buy a Tesla is the novelty of buying a battery electric. But when all manufacturers are producing battery electrics, why am I buying a Tesla?

Do you have a list of EV direct to consumer VS Dealership / franchise model distribution? Tesla the only player in this space?

Tesla just sold 63K Model 3s in a single quarter. Despite availability of Leaf and Bolt [both are cheaper]. None of the vehicles you have listed are true competitors to Tesla at this time. True competition will be something like an electric 3 series or C-class

The Jag and Audi are _absolutely_ competitors.

Jag IPace sold less than 200 vehicles in the US in November 2018[1]. Comparably Model X sold ~1875 in Nov 2017. [2]

[1] https://insideevs.com/november-jaguar-i-pace-sales-u-s/ [2] http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/tesla/tesla-model-...

I live in the most EV friendly region in the US and I hardly see I-Paces. Meanwhile Tesla is just crushing it here.

They are priced higher than the long range dual motor model of the Tesla Model 3, yet they have significantly lower range and the Audi has inferior performance where the expensive Jaguar barely matches the 3. But unlike Tesla, both lack the supercharger network so good luck traveling with them. Competitors? Maybe, but not really all that competitive.

The last time this came up, many people said that the primary reason to buy a Tesla was for Autopilot, which I have not yet heard of another manufacturer with an equivalent product.

I think another advantage Tesla has is the Supercharger station access.

Agreed, these are both killer apps for Tesla. I've got a 3 and have driven my car with Autopilot and a few Model S with autopilot, and it's crazy tech. To me, it's not worth the money, so I didn't order it, but to others, it's the entire reason to buy the car.

Even though I've only used superchargers 4 times in 6 months, it absolutely solves the EV roadtrip FUD in a way that nobody else has figured out yet.

I'd agree with you on autopilot. Though, I think all that most people want is good crash avoidance plus lane keeping and traffic-aware cruise on the freeway. A lot of other car companies are there as well, and I'm starting to believe that true level 5 is a decade off or totally impossible.

Supercharger access is becoming less of an exclusive as well. Electrify America is putting in a lot of stations (there's a couple near me right now, with about a dozen more planned) that support 150kW now (30 more than a Supercharger), and 350kW as soon as there's a car that can take it.

> 350kW as soon as there's a car that can take it

Like the Porsche Taycan:

https://electrek.co/2018/07/30/porsche-taycan-all-electric-p...

Cadillac super cruise is supposed to be fantastic. I've never used either and will not comment on which is better, but it's certainly competitive.

Kona will only be available in a small number of U.S. states and global regions, in limited quantities.

It is a compliance car, to reduce the emissions overall of the fleet they sell allowing them to sell more high profit ICE cars. They are likely losing money on each sale as well.

I think the Kona is a great start and wish it would have a better chance, but it is crippled from the beginning.

So you're arguing that Hyundai beats Tesla on price and efficiency even when Hyundai's not really trying? What will happen to Tesla when Hyundai really tries?

No, I'm arguing that they have to sell a certain number, otherwise face stiff penalties in the U.S. and Europe. Discounting the car and taking a loss is better than paying the fine.

On a positive note, it is a step in the right direction to rev up that part of the company, as they will need the experience for future success when they can no longer rely on ICE sales

The quality also comes nowhere close to a Tesla. While it makes a good commuter car, it is strictly not on the same playing field as a model 3, other than price and propulsion method.

It's not nearly on the same playing field as the model 3 in regards to price.

The quality also comes nowhere close to a Tesla. While it makes a good commuter car, it is strictly not on the same playing field as a model 3, other than price and propulsion method.

Agreed. The Kona's fit and finish is miles ahead of the Model 3, and the interior comfort is the same for...1/4 the cost of the Model 3? Tesla's got quite a bit of work cut out for it if it hopes for the $35k Model 3 to stand a chance in the marketplace, since it'll being facing a ton of competition by the time it comes out (if ever).

> The quality also comes nowhere close to a Tesla.

Yes, I agree. Hyundai has better quality control than Tesla:

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1115659_tesla-model-3-q...

You didn't happen to have a short position on Tesla when the infamous 420 tweet happened?

Elon has not lied to the SEC. Please provide link or other evidence. He settled a claim that he manipulated the stock without admitting guilt, in order to avoid damaging the company, but that is completely different.

he said "funding secured" and didn't have any funding secured. The SEC was lenient in allowing the settlement without an admission of guilt, but that does not mean he was not guilty. I'm a huge fan of most of the things he has done, but this was a boneheaded move only surpassed by his embarrassing pedophilia comments.

Technically he was lying to his investors, not the SEC.

Of course then in that 60 Minutes interview he all but declared he wouldn't honor his side of the settlement, but we'll see if he follows through on that.

You are ignoring a decade plus of very impressive results. Sure, the man has significant flaws. That is not justification for an inaccurate portrayal.

What results? Give me $30 billion dollars to waste and I can easily show you $28 billion dollars of progress.

Landing rockets on autonomous drone barges, coming out with a sedan that beats a Lamborghini Aventador in 0-60 acceleration at 1/6th the cost, thereby pushing the state of the art across the entire car industry. Seems like a guy I would trust.

My model rockets do 0 to 60 in well under a second, and I'm totally not a guy you should trust.

His pitch on the solar tiles that would cost* at or less a typical shingled roof had me incredibly sold, but it seems that has taken a back seat as of late in his endeavors. Yeah, would love an electric car, but until they hit the $35k price point, it isn't happening anytime soon for me. But a fairly priced solar setup for home? Sign me up.

* not sure if it was initial cost or cost over the life of plus the energy savings, I don't remember nor really care. Either is fine by me.

It is over the life of shingles plus energy. That won't be true of the first few years of sales.

As an upside, I think the comparison is with one roof replacement, which is supposed to be done every 8-20 years. Tesla tiles should last 100 years.

When I can buy a reliable $5k ICE car (which are the kind of cars I drive) I don't see an EV ever really making sense.

They have them in China:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kILXXaqspcI

> Forward looking statements are speculative, especially when you're innovating new technologies

The innovation comes purely from the battery and associated electronics. The rest of the car is pretty standard and it's in this area where they are having problems.

There are plenty of car companies with electric cars today e.g. Jaguar, BMW, Nissan, GM and in 2019/2020 everyone else is jumping onboard e.g. Audi, Landrover etc. And they have managed to hit their targets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com