> it got way bigger.
It's still unclear whether this is due to fundamentals like the ones you mention, or just an irrational stock market.
Now that more and more companies are coming out with their EVs, the truth might become clearer.
It's still unclear whether this is due to fundamentals like the ones you mention, or just an irrational stock market.
Now that more and more companies are coming out with their EVs, the truth might become clearer.
- If literally anyone else were CEO.
- If Musk hadn’t used twitter to gather a cult-like following of people who idolize him, think the tech is cool, and can’t afford a Tesla but can afford a few shares of the stock.
- If Musk hadn’t repeatedly inserted himself into the WSB “meme stock” & crypto counter-culture to cultivate fans within that group of risk-taking investors who are known for ignoring fundamentals and buying stock on their intuition (or even the internet’s intuition!) alone.
I’m not saying Tesla is worthless and I even have to give Musk credit for creating an internet persona where he’s helping middle class millennials “stick it to the man” while _being_ the billionaire man. But IMO its very obvious that at least some substantial portion of Tesla’s valuation comes from Musk and his internet antics/persona and is completely detached from the underlying value of Tesla itself.
I wouldn’t work for Musk (to protect quality of life and mental health), but absolutely would sink all of my high risk allocated capital directly into him as a person. Obsessed people get shit done.
VC funds are (1) diversified, so it’s less risky — their success or failure isn’t tied to any one persona or even any one company, (2) fund investors have a lot of money so they can afford it if their entire investment goes to zero, and (3) the investors are well-versed in assessing the likelihood of that risk when they make the investment. The same cannot be said for the average Joe who’s a fan of Musk and has $2,500 in their Robinhood account.
Don't invest (or gamble) what you can't afford to lose on high risk investments. Index funds are your friend.
All that is to say, I don't think there needs to be any additional restrictions or regulations on investors to deal with meme stocks because I think the problem will eventually be addressed via the existing system. Whether it's Musk or (more likely) some other enterprising social media personality I think we'll eventually see a meme stock that's so egregiously ridiculous and loses a lot of people a lot of money that the SEC, and perhaps the DOJ, will be forced take action. Maybe even multiple egregious meme stocks will be used in quick succession in order signal where the SEC's "hard line" will be.
And I eagerly await Matt Levin's "Memes are Securities Fraud" column when it happens!
100% truth, but many people don't listen to that. Too boring. I'd rather have Joe Robinhood Investor sink $2,500 into Musk and his mission with Tesla instead of sinking $2,500 into GME or casinos.
The non-Tesla chargers near me in Colorado are just plain garbage. Sometimes, they work great, but other days I go back and the terminal won't function. And currently, these chargers are all the owners of non-Tesla EVs have.
I'm actually surprised there isn't a legal push by Congress to force Tesla to open up their charging infrastructure to others.
Tesla is easily 10-15 years ahead of all other manufacturers.
Well the majority view is that the Porsche Tycan is a better car, but at a different price point - considering the (im)maturity of the market 10-15 years seems a stretch, particularly considering there are some great cars coming out like the mini electric.
Battery tech, motor tech, vertical integration, and (arguably most importantly) overall efficiency, Tesla is ahead, and probably by many years.
Tesla also far ahead in effort/time out into developing self-driving, though the jury is obviously still out on how meaningful their approach finally turns out to be.
Sorry but pretty much no one cares about efficiency after you break 300-400km range
Here is an example: recently the Audi app which you use to control the car from your phone was down for two weeks for server upgrades. I have worked in IT and software for almost 20 years now and a 2 week outage is unimaginable.
How about the charge range or stability control? Any idea about the battery's expected life span? What technology do you think Audi is behind on?
My impression has been that Tesla nailed the charging network, charge range and raw straight line performance. Everything else they half-assed, i.e. the stuff I care about on a daily basis feels cheap.
* Rear hatch will occasionally just open by itself. There was a TSB from the dealer to resolve this where they reprogram your keys and adjust the sensitivity of the kick sensor but I'm still skeptical. The audi app should alert me if the hatch has been left open for more than X minutes with the car off.
* Audi App in general is very slow and unresponsive. Sometimes I'll try to precondition the car and the app just spins for minutes and then silently fails.
* The onboard charger can run with either 50% of 100% of a circuit, nothing else. If you are at a shared 240 or 120v system where there is a lot of load (RV camp ground for example) your car simply won't charge.
* Electrify America is a mess. You can google this and see thousands of examples.
* There is no regen or one pedal driving. You can manually activate regen by pulling the levers on the steering wheel but the behavior isn't consistent and the regen isn't strong.
* There is no way to enable "creep" mode like how a traditional automatic ICE car behaves.
* There is a feature to schedule charging for those who have off-peak rates. You have to set this every single time you use the car.
* The virtual cockpit and 360 camera occasionally fail to initialize so you just have blank screens.
* Consumption is extremely high. For reference for Tesla people a good day in an etron is 400wh/mi.
* Vehicle nav map shows me gas stations, no way to search for charge stations.
* Vehicle still has ICE based service reminders built in.
---
Now for things that are going to get someone killed:
* The vehicle rolls backwards on hills. This + lack of creep means that you have to feather the gas. There is a "hill hold assist" which will randomly kick on but it's not reliable. Stop and go traffic in a hilly area is very annoying.
* When parking the vehicle will roll backwards or forwards for about a foot until the brake catches. This could easily entrap someone in an enclosed space.
* If the vehicle is "on" or "off" isn't completely clear as a user. If you put it into accessory mode it looks exactly the same as the vehicle being on sans one small green line. I've accidentally put the vehicle into neutral with the vehicle in accessory mode while parked on an incline and it began rapidly rolling away (the thing weighs almost 7000lbs) while I tried to pump the non operational brakes.
* Vehicle automatically shuts off climate control after 30 minutes of idle. I'm glad I learned about this while waiting for someone instead of when I had left my dog in the car.
* Getting out of the driver seat shuts off the car completely when in park. See prior points about climate control and rollback.
I could go on. This is just what came to me off the top of my head.
That's INSANE. No wonder why they need chunky batteries!
Our Model 3 cruises at around 200 Wh/mi.
Also, the Model 3's climate control times out after four hours. But you'll get a notification when that happens and can re-enable climate immediately thereafter.
It's unfortunate that VAG took shortcuts
400wh/mi though, oof. That would be about as expensive to operate as my current gas-powered vehicle (both around 10c/mi).
Model 3 Performance can keep up with 120K+ Tycan.
And Model S leaves a Taycan behind it like a the Taycan was a Ford Focus.
> particularly considering there are some great cars
People made the same argument in 2014 and all those cars came out. People made the same argument in 2018 and all those cars came out.
And non of that changed Tesla growth or margin (other then to the positive).
I mean it’s obviously an absurd claim anyway, Tesla is less than 15 years old and clearly the other car companies aren’t starting from scratch.
Besides, the Taycan now starts at $79k, not $120k. You are comparing the cheapest Tesla against a higher range Porsche. It’s pretty much cost competitive with the Tesla Model S. Not everything is about performance anyway, I doubt I need more power than either car - a comfortable driving experience and build quality would be more important to me if I was in the market for one of these cars (which are all more than I would want to pay for a car).
The Mercedes EQS is getting pretty good reviews and the specs look good, so I'm not sure about that. It looks like a direct competitor to the Model S.
There is in some other countries. IMO the supercharger network is a short-term competitive advantage but probably not a sustainable one as other companies move in.
All I can find are articles such as this one https://www.tu.no/artikler/apner-tesla-offentlige-ladestasjo... that talk about Tesla bidding for contracts to install charging stations and that the conditions of the contracts require the stations to be open to other brands of car.
The article points out that Tesla can do this by dedicating part of the station to third party chargers.
So it isn't because they are being forced to do it nor is it necessarily the case that Tesla's own network would be involved.
Why does this surprise you?
I honestly don't understand this sentiment.
Tesla invested many many years creating a charging network in a competitive environment that actively resisted it. So now that Tesla is super successful in part because of this long-term investment, how is it fair that Tesla _must_ open it up to the _same_ people that resisted them earlier?
That's like Apple being forced to give up their Lightning specs to third-parties because they invested years of R&D into creating a fast plug-and-play standard before USB-C gained a foothold.
I dont think people would put up with a gas station that only fueled Toyotas, or a parking lot that only allowed Fords. This doesnt strike me as being terribly different.