No government bailouts of other car manufacturers either, right?

Sure but that isn't an oil and gas subsidy.

Yes, and true to a certain extent.My point was that from an investor standpoint they don’t always inspire confidence.



May 12, 2018: 1:04 PM ET
The top dog on Tesla's engineering team is taking a leave of absence at a crucial moment for the company and its first mass-market car, the Model 3.
The electric car maker said in a statement that Doug Field, its senior vice president of engineering, "is just taking some time off to recharge and spend time with his family."
"He has not left Tesla," the statement added. A spokesperson could not confirm how long the leave of absence would last or the reason for Field's temporary departure.

The news was reported earlier by the Wall Street Journal.
Field has been with Tesla since 2013, and he's served as Tesla's engineering chief since September 2016.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said in a tweet that, sometime in mid-2017, he asked Field to take over both manufacturing and engineering for the Model 3.
But, earlier this year, Musk decided it was "better to divide & conquer."
"My job as CEO is to focus on what's most critical, which is currently Model 3 production," he said. "So I'm back to sleeping at factory. Car biz is hell."
He added that he views Field as "one of the world's most talented engineering execs."


Field's leave of absence comes as Tesla is attempting to assuage investors' fears about the company's ability to ramp up production of the Model 3.
After months of manufacturing issues that have left Tesla repeatedly falling short of its production goals, the company's latest earnings release showed Tesla may finally be getting back on track.
But then a bizarre conference call earlier this month — in which Musk refused to answer questions from two Wall Street analyst and called their quesitons "boring" — appeared to rattle investors.

Shares of Tesla sunk about 5% after the call during off-hours trading.
The company's stock has rebounded slightly over the past five days, but its price remains well below its all-time high of more than $380 per share.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/12/tech...l-3/index.html

Musk actively suggests that people don't invest in Tesla if they are hoping for great returns. Money has never been his driving force.

Tesla demand is NOT the issue. People clearly yearn for Teslas. Being able to produce them quickly is the issue. Tesla is one of the highest rated brands in the US and has superb brand loyalty. Combine that with innovative tech is no wonder they have such demand & strong support. The day they announced the semi many large companies jumped on the waiting list.

When this is true of the entirety of corporate America we’ll be a lot better off. But don’t kid yourself thinking Tesla is the only car manufacturer with gov’t help.

A peculiar stance for someone that accepted $220 million from investors at his IPO. Today’s announcement that the lead Tesla engineer is stepping away for an indeterminate amount of time is just odd.
Space ventures seem to be the arena for which Musk is best suited. At least for now.

18650 only indicates the form factor. 18mmm by 65mmm cylindrical. They've switched to 2170 for the model 3, and possibly the energy storage, Semi and Roadster as well.

The true difference in battery tech is chemistry for both performance and cost.

I honestly don't think anyone will be able to compete. As noted in the call, Tesla has greatly reduced the need for cobalt in their batteries, and see a path to get it to almost nothing. This is HUGE for cost as prices have been trending upward.

If other automakers intend to go 100% electric, which they all do outside out Fiat and Toyota(sorry gearheads), they'll likely be putting prismatic cells in their cars to get the volume they'll need and to save on weight and shove batteries wherever they find space.

Problem is, cars are a terrible place to use prismatic cells. This is typically what traditional OEM's use though. They favor larger cell sizes and less connections. The problem is, they degrade faster, and if a single cell goes out, it can make a HUGE difference to performance/range.

Basically, when you hear the worn out adage of, "you'll have to replace the battery after 10 years, if it makes it that long"!, they are referring to prismatic cells. The vibrations of the road make the bagged chemistry shake itself apart faster. Other problems are losing a single cell is significant, as I said earlier, and they can be easily damaged/punctured in a wreck. Which of course can be dangerous.

This is why I'm not too worried about all other OEM's going electric. It might effect the stock early, but once the public understands the ins and outs, or OEM's have their reputations ruined by going with a poor solution, Tesla should remain out in front.

It's electric. Given ample electricity, torque is not an issue, at all.

Tesla owns the factory and chemistry etc, Panasonic manages production.

Funny.

If your love of driving is about performance, it's electric all day.

If you're in it for noise, sorry. Eventually you'll learn to love the whirring of a powerful electric motor.

That will be the effect of Teslas cause. With global oil subsidies at $5 trillion/yr, going electric will save the US LOADS of cash.

Hell, that's only on transport. Renewables + storage will be just as big.

What auto company doesn't get the same "subsidies" Tesla does? Of course you know they all get much, much more.

Losing subsidies will be the best thing to ever happen to Tesla. Other OEMs wind be able to compete.

They inspire ALL THE CONFIDENCE!

Short term traders? No. Long term? Money in the bank.

Trading based promises and performance is asinine. It's not about how they get there, it's where they end up.

Seeing outlandish deadlines a bad thing? I don't think so, I've always been a big fan when managing people. Set expectations high, they might succeed, but will probably fail. They'll definitely get more accomplished the next guy though. Elons crazy time frames have advanced things far beyond what anyone thought possible, and in record time. What was it, 5 years ago that landing rockets was "impossible"and foolish?

You invest in people who talk, I'll invest in those who do, we'll see where we end up. Elon might be late, but he'll always be first.

He risked millions to start two "sure to fail" companies in an agent to change the world. The IPO certainly wasn't for personal gain, it was for the money needed to change the face of transport.

Their lead engineer is taking a break. Wouldn't be the first executive through had take a leave only to return from said leave.

I'm almost certain he's never worked harder than he has this past year and a half.

If he wants to build something big and be a part of history, he'll be back. If he just wants to get paid and live his life, he'll end up elsewhere.

Dude. Have you ever dealt with operating anything ever?

Torque isn’t the problem. Duh. Electricity kicks the **** out of internal combustion all day every day. Getting torque to the asphalt is the problem.

Everything on trucks needs to be heavy duty. Engineering a 2000lb car to run 200,000 miles is not even in the same universe as an 85000 lb truck for 1,000,000. Everything from the kingpin to the lugnuts need intensive testing.

The engineering has to be ****ing right or it just won’t work in a fleet.

It’s way different than engineering a passenger car

They'll be ready to roll in 2019!

Of course a lot of companies jumped on the waiting list. If you didn't sign up for one of the first 100 trucks, you will have to wait at least an extra year for delivery. Maybe two.

Yup, I'm familiar with the terminology. I'm counting on battery companies to keep my vaping gear operational. It's 21700 by the way rather than 2170. I currently use the LG HG2 (18650). The Samsung 30T (21700) has been tested and rated by an electrical engineer at 3000 mAh with a continuous discharge rating of 35 Amps. Not bad at all if you want a good, safe battery. By the time I swap away from 18650's I should be sitting pretty.

Who knew Elon’s mom posted here?

Start posting a consistent profit and then we’ll talk.

Remember when Amazon didnt make any money for years and everyone said they would fail? Now Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the world.

Yes, I remember when Amazon lost a little bit of money on each sale but made up for it with volume.

I also remember that for everyone Amazon there were hundreds of dot.com bubble companies that did in fact go bankrupt.

Facebook wasn't the only social media company. Google wasn't the only search engine. Apple wasn't the only company making music players.

Musk has done an amazing job with his space rocket company. For his car company he has created a prestigious brand and an impressive sport car.

It really remains to be seen whether he can mass produce a mid-price car in sufficient volume and reliability to make a go of it. His track record so far is very poor.

I'm curious also as to why he thought it was better to jump to a full sized electric Semi instead of doing a smaller delivery truck. Long distance trucking produces all sorts of headaches regarding range and re-charging. An urban delivery truck that spends a lot of time loading/unloading and stuck in slow moving traffic wouldn't need near the same range and always returns to the same location at night for charging.

I'm curious what gives you this impression. Because they're short of his insane prediction of how long it would take to ramp up? If you pay attention to pretty much every business he's ever run, he sets insane deadlines, misses them, but still hits them in about half the time everyone else thought he'd be able to. That's basically what we're seeing here.

There hasn't been a successful car startup in the U.S. in the past 90 years. So what is his track record being measured against that has been so much more successful?

Which would make a bigger impact on reducing fossil fuel consumption and emissions? There's your answer.

It's baffling to me that people haven't figured out yet that Elon's goal isn't to make money.

History suggests that that'll probably happen by Q4 this year, but we'll see.

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-conte...5/cashflow.png

None of this matters. Tesla will be out of business in less than 10 years...

Hot take.

When cars drive us there won’t be many car makers left.

Maybe 2019, maybe 2020. Who cares if it's late? So long as it destroys everything else out there and gets there first. Everyone wins, especially investors.

Daimler says the Semi brains the laws of physics at a 500 mile range, and Musk claims they'll achieve 600. Seems to me they'll have a sizeable lead.

Buehler, doing the math I'm using, the Tesla should weigh in at about the same as an average sleeper truck. They have the semis on the roads testing now. Not sure what's hard to believe about something that exists.

Whatcha vapin'?

I guess I don't think it remains to be seen, and I don't understand how he has a poor track record.

Tesla has MUCH better profit margins than traditional OEMs, aim for 25% across the board as o pad to the 5% industry standard. And production/profitability seems to literally be only a matter of time. At least, I can't think of any real hurdles to this. Really the hardest part is growing and managing your supply chain in unison.

As far as track records, I mean, hasn't he accomplished all of his goals since 2012 up until this point? I bet you'd be hard pressed to find others who have done so well.

As for going big rig first, it's all about destroying conventional solutions to destroy conventional wisdom.

If he came out with a competitor for the F150, there'd be all of this false narrative about an electric truck not getting the job done. They'd likely struggle to gain market share in multiple markets for years due to nothing more than ignorance and bias. If he destroys semis with an electric option, the news will get out, and those people spending ridiculous amounts on trucks will be forced to take notice immediately.

It's the "beat up the biggest guy in the prison yard" strategy coupled with what DaFace said.

OOOOOPS

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2018/05/...tah-wreck.html

Currently 50/50@18nic at 15 Watts in a Kafun 5 on a Joyetech Elitar e-pipe.

So? Even if it ends up being software error why is it a big deal? I would happily have the roads crowded with semi-autonomous vehicles that are nearly 4 times safer than the average "dumb" car. As these systems gain wider use they will become more efficient and safer. The only reason these headlines grab any attention currently is because humans don't like the idea of their fate being decided for them.

Exactamundo. Media eats it up ever time a Tesla is involved in an accident. And they don't even know if it is on auto pilot or not in that previous. Very few people use Auto Pilot when there are stop lights present.

My autopilot actually saved me from an accident the other day on Ridgeview. Some guy tried to pull out of the car wash and go COMPLETELY to the otherside of the street to a business. And the car stopped in time. Combine this all with the fact that this is the first autonomous optioned car, ever (meaning they will constantly make improvements every year) it is a great success. Auto Pilot enabled Tesla's have been found to be 3-4 times safer than older non AP Teslas.....

This isn't Tesla, but is one of the most laughable ones of these I've seen so far.

http://www.businessinsider.com/waymo...arizona-2018-5

Headline: A Waymo self-driving van was involved in a crash in Arizona

If you read the detail, the car 1) wasn't on auto-pilot at the time and 2) was only involved because another car RAN A RED LIGHT AND SWERVED INTO ITS LANE. I mean, seriously? Why is this a story in the national news?

I mean, I get it when there are stories where auto-pilot was clearly on and where there is an accident that a human probably would have avoided. There haven't been many of those, but I can think of two at least. Sure, it's interesting to know when the tech didn't work right to gain an understanding of where the tech is these days. But I don't understand why stories like the one Bwana posted are published before someone actually knows if autopilot played a role.

To further prove the point, this site estimates that there are roughly 15k accidents PER DAY in the U.S., yet a random accident where the only injury is a broken ankle makes national news? It doesn't make any objective sense unless your viewpoint is that self-driving cars are bad, full stop, and any evidence that MIGHT serve that position should be shouted from the rooftops.

I think the autopilot feature, if it was in use, makes the story newsworthy. The concept of self-driving cars and Tesla's autopilot specifically has been the subject of plenty of discussion in other accidents, some involving fatalities. The question of whether cars should have the feature in the first place is a valid question.

Eventually some of the haters might get one right...

But the problem is that the question has basically already been answered without much room for debate. You can Google around all you want, and you'll find that every single study that has examined the safety of Autopilot has found that people get in far fewer accidents when it is turned on than when it's not. Here's one just as an example.

http://bgr.com/2017/01/19/tesla-auto...-report-nhtsa/

As I said before, I agree that it is newsworthy when there is an accident where autopilot clearly IS at fault. My criticism is that pretty much every time a Tesla (or other self-driving car) is in an accident, it makes the news regardless of whether autopilot was involved or not. It's news orgs reaching for sensationalist headlines that give the impression that self-driving cars aren't safe, when the reality is quite the opposite.

When it comes down to it, the "debate" about whether self-driving cars are safer than human drivers is already closed. The question moving forward is more about HOW MUCH safer they are and UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES self-driving cars might struggle.

I don’t know the motive of the dudes posting up the wrecks, but that is a huge setback for the industry.

If I go plow into a bus load of kids because I ran a stoplight I’m liable. Problem is that if you remove the driver there is no one to be liable. That leaves....the manufacturer. Nobody is going to eat that kind of liability.

It’s the same shit with tractors. All I can hear is that it is the wave of the future. Yeah. Duh, stupid. Get guys out of the seat and it will sell. I have a 20 year old tractor with the hardware to do it. But if something Happens and there was no problem in the user controlled activities the liability falls to the manufacturer. And I know Mother Deere won’t stand for that. In fact there is a screen that pops up every time you turn it on that the driver is responsible for collision avoidance. And that is why. Deere wants no part of that noise.

We are scared of things we don't understand. Have you ever driven a Tesla with autopilot before? If not, go ahead and rent one. You'll have a greater understanding of it, and why it is a great safety feature. Human beings ****ing suck at driving. They are horrible at it.

Is Auto Pilot better than Jeff Gordon on two cans of Mountain Dew trying to drive as precisely as possible for a small period of time? No probably not. But computers don't get tired. They don't fatigue. They don't forget. They don't text & drive. They don't miss the brake on accident and hit the gas. They don't have to worry about a crying kid. They don't have to worry about spilling coffee on their lap and burning them. And they don't get drunk.

They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pain or remorse or fear. And they absolutely will not stop! Ever! Until you are dead!

Yeah, there are issues to be worked out for sure. FWIW, I know Tesla has toyed with the idea of getting into the insurance business for this specific reason. Time will tell how that stuff gets figured out, though.

:D

You could program them to do all of that.

$80,000+ sports cars have huge markups and relatively small production runs. Because of the high mark ups, you can have multiple recalls and still make a profit. Anyone who can afford to buy a $80,000+ car, can afford to be without it for a week while it is recalled. They already own a separate vehicle or have alternatives that aren't going to put them out.

That just isn't true of the mass produced middling priced cars. The margins are thinner. Recalls can eat up the thinner profit margin and drivers are going to be more upset about the recalls.

His track record is fine if he sticks to high markup roadsters. His track is very poor if he wants to compete with Toyota.

Starting a new car company is really, really hard. I hope Tesla succeeds but I think the odds are he isn't going to succeed as an independent company making mass produced cars.

It would be a personal defeat for Musk, but a tie-up with VW would make a lot of sense for the model 3. Tesla would get a deep pocket funder that has decades of know how about mass producing reliable cars. VW would get a fast track in its switch from diesel to electric.

I'm curious also as to why he thought it was better to jump to a full sized electric Semi instead of doing a smaller delivery truck. Long distance trucking produces all sorts of headaches regarding range and re-charging. An urban delivery truck that spends a lot of time loading/unloading and stuck in slow moving traffic wouldn't need near the same range and always returns to the same location at night for charging.

Oh I totally believe that Elon's goal isn't to make money. But he is not going to have the bigger impact if he goes bankrupt.

I wonder if people would feel better about auto-pilot if they turned their brain on and remembered every time you fly the pilot gets you off the ground and then doesn't do shit. The plane flies you, lands you etc...

And flying is so much more safe than driving it's not even funny.

Wait, she ran into a stopped firetruck at 60 mph and only broke her ankle? That's incredible.

Consumer Reports gives Model 3 thumbs down:

https://jalopnik.com/consumer-report...sla-1826198783

In its report, the outlet found “flaws—big flaws” in the Model 3's braking distance, controls and ride quality.

And finally, the “stiff ride, unsupportive rear seat and excessive wind noise at highway speeds” didn’t do the Model 3 any favors. The outlet argued that other competitors in the compact luxury sedan segment have a better ride quality and more comfortable rear seat.

Consumer Reports concluded that the Model’s problems outweighed its pros and couldn’t give it a recommendation, kind of an unexpected outcome for such a hugely important (particularly for Tesla) and extremely hyped vehicle. Tesla has been working like mad to even build Model 3s on time. You don’t want to put in all that effort for a car only to get not recommended by CR.

This part is especially reassuring:

In CR’s testing, Model 3's braking distance from 60 mph was 152 feet, a distance that the outlet claimed is “far worse than any contemporary car [it has] tested” and was nearly seven feet longer than the braking distance than that of a Ford F-150.

To conduct the braking test, testers make sure a car’s brake pads and tires are up to par, drive the car up to 60 mph and slam on the brakes to record the distance. They do this multiple times and, of course, they let the brakes cool between tests.

Many lifetimes ago, I hit a stopped 18 wheeler in my 1980 Volkswagen Rabbit. (Don't ****ing ask.) I went ~60 to zero in 0.0 seconds. Nothing but bruises and scrapes. It happens.

I wouldn't put too much stock into that. Those braking numbers don't seem abnormal for a compact at all.

2018 Golf: 185 ft
2018 Sentra: 168 ft (from 70 mph)
2018 Cruz: 161 ft (from 70MPH)
2017 Mazda 3: 185 ft (from 70mph)
2017 Focus: 173 ft (from 70 mph)
2017 Elantra: 168Ft (from 70mph)

(as per Car and Driver and Motortrend)

To me it sounds like Tesla didn't line enough money in Consumer Reports' pockets.

Wind noise can be found in most compact models (they're freakin' rolling bricks the lot of them) and back seat comfort is subjective. Just like every car, you'll need to drive it yourself.

I highly doubt that. CR doesn't take ad money or donated products. They made their bones on being verifiably impartial.

It's not a compact is it?

I always thought Model 3 was suppose to be a compact. Maybe i'm wrong?

I see them comparing it to the BMW M3. I'm no expert.

But I do know that the Tesla performing the same as those models you listed would be fine if they were in the same price point. But they aren't. They aren't even in the same area code.

I’m pretty sure it was marketed as a compact but I can’t remember

Geesh, the M3? That's a sports coupe. Anywho...looks like Elon is already on it:

https://qz.com/1285174/consumer-repo...king-software/

"The company had to scrap part of its assembly line last year, after struggles with automation. Today (May 22), Elon Musk said Tesla would be updating the Model 3’s braking software—and promised to fix any problems—after testers at both Consumer Reports and Car and Driver magazines found “big flaws” with the Model 3’s performance compared to comparable vehicles."

I thought i read compact, but as Vail pointed out, it'd be a "Luxury Compact" considering the price point.

And if they're comparing it to cars like the M3, that's not fair. The M3 is not a compact by standard definition.

I found this article to be informative in a no-bullshit sort of way...

http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla...t-78000-2018-5

Interesting..."And yet, other publications had variable test results, with Motor Trend noted that in one case, a car braked from 60-to-zero in just 119 feet."

https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/22/...shot-after-br/

Seems like it might be in an awkward place

So both car and driver and consumer reports are reporting inconsistent braking. Motortrend says they got a car to stop in 119 ft, while consumer reports is saying 152ft.

That's beyond inconsistent. That's wildly inconsistent. I'd be more concerned about inconsistent brakes than i would be over the 152ft figure. Your car should be predictable.

I can't imagine it is, but the "stiff ride" could be bad enough to have an affect on weight shift, or lack of, and breaking consistency. The location of the weight it's trying to control might make it even worse.

I wonder if it something related to when the car passes from e-braking to disc brakes. If that transition takes a split second longer in some situations than others, I could see it causing some significant variability.

(Obviously that's something they should take a close look at, regardless.)

The CR test was from 60mph not 70.

Right, which is why i noted they were from 70. Considering adjustments the number would still be close.

UPS is starting with this electric truck

https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/09/...rucks-arrival/
https://o.aolcdn.com/images/dims?qua...6094587422f4c2


UPS as also order 125 Semi trucks from Tesla.

That is probably the best possible fit for them.

However the UPS guys here drive the **** out of them. Those engines sound TIRED.

Yeah. Compared to a Model S it's WAAAY smaller. My Model S is huge, so huge that that is the only drawback I can think of with the car. It barely fits in my garage and is somewhat hard to park in parking spots because of it's width. The Model 3 has got to be smaller than a BMW 3-series. (I've owned a BMW 3-series and sat in a Model 3) Not quite compact, note quite luxury compact, I would imagine.

The Model 3 is supposed to be more profitable than both the Model X and Model S, it's where Tesla may be able to make lots of money and provide an efficient vehicle for the everyday man.

While I can't talk for the Model 3, the Model S is the safest sedan on the market. An argument can be made it doesn't have the safest crash ratings (while they are still high) but when you combine that with autonomous safety features the car is very safe. Model S's with Auto Pilot have been shown to be 3-4 times safer than Model S's without Auto Pilot.

I imagine there will be some bugs with the first year or two Model 3's. Just like there was with Model S in the beginning. This is not be be unexpected when making a brand new car company and a brand new model of car.

Not at this point. Driver should be engaged and ready to take over. Have a couple of levels to go before you can check out.

I think the thing most fail to see is, if it gets the WORST drivers off of the road, things are already markedly safer.

Yeah, we're past that. Tesla is here to stay. They won't be needing any help. I think they're in a better place than most should we hit another recession. Ford on the other hand...

I think all of the reviews I've read from auto blogs tested it's braking in line with the 130 ft(?) Tesla claims.

Elon's on one hell of an anti-media rant today. I generally agree with him that the media tends to nitpick Tesla but...sheesh...move on and crank out cars already.

They only nitpick for the clicks. Not only does Tesla generate clicks, but it's also the most shorted stock, so there's plenty of interest in talking negatively about them.

Also, the Model 3 is a Luxury Sedan.

I think it's external dimensions are make it a runt in its class, but the interior volume is supposedly on the higher side.

When did we discover that electric power negates the need for aerodynamics?

Have you seen a UPS truck?

UPS being cheap ****s negates the need for aerodynamics.