|
Jealous Cow posted:Well that sounds like a shareholder lawsuit waiting to happen. As long as it's clearly shown as non-GAAP and the differences are clearly defined, what would the grounds be for a lawsuit?
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:What do you guys think they will compromise for the lower price? Range or Self-driving ability? Or both? Those plus power, standard features, weird rear end enclosure methods.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
It just seems like a silly thing for the CEO of a theoretically major auto manufacturer to be high-fiving people who are putting down a deposit on a car that might possibly be delivered in two years. If, for instance, Sergio Marchionne did something like this, he would be pilloried and rightly so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Ola posted:I don't like the interior, hope it evolves a bit. Otherwise a slam dunk, I had big expectations and they were exceeded. It's almost too much, can they actually deliver this? The instant $120 million advance revenue should at least help them along! The 7 ft surfboard fitting is also excellent, it means a pair of cross country skis will fit. Typically, deposits like this are not allowed to be treated as recognized revenue and are held in escrow. Of Crounse, Tesla is a non-GAAP house so who the gently caress knows. That screen design blows from a driver perspective but it sure is cheap. The car seems pretty impressive, if it were on sale today. Deliveries in 2018 at this spec is a little underwhelming. Plus, no guarantees on cost targets, production ramp, unit profitability, etc. cooler than the bolt, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
Yuns posted:I'm super interested in the Model 3 but how likely is it that Tesla can deliver well over 100,000 cars given their struggles to deliver the Model X? Tesla claims that they're primarily battery constrained. I can believe that to an extent. Building consumer-quality and volume cars is really, really hard and you can see even on the Model S where they are not at a traditional auto OEM level.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Yeah, that seems like an odd design choice. Every Tesla has had a stupid design gimmick that has needlessly complicated production and not created any benefits for the end user of the car. Model S: Retarded door handles Model X: Retarded door design Model 3: Retarded roof design
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Surely they could subcontract assembly out to another factory Not a lot of advantages to that, considering NUMMI has like 300k capacity. The choices for outsource assembly are: Valmet in Finland, although they are building the MB A-Class and not sure they would have space for a full second line Magna/Steyr is probably a good bet Karmann, a VW subsidiary which is at capacity at this point with Porsche product I guess if you wanted to get really weird, you could buy the former Heuliez assets off Fabrique Regional du Bocage
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
It's not the sole factor, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Traditional car enthusiasts hate the Prius because Toyota sucked every speck of traditional driving enjoyment out of the car. The steering is numb and light with no feel, the brakes are nonlinear and horrible, the suspension is wallowy, and it accelerates at a glacial pace. None of these things actually matter in a commuter car, but I certainly understand why people do not like the car. I hate driving them, but they're perfect for like 95% of the population.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
In my dense urban neighborhood probably 65% of parking is street parking, so it's not like it's even feasible to install a charger even at your own expense.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
fordan posted:http://articles.philly.com/2015-05-07/business/61869234_1_martin-o-rourke-electric-vehicle-electric-vehicle I like how the article goes to some length to denote that the two people with the e-Golf are Foreigners. Stefan Prodan posted:I don't think it's like exceedingly safer but I think it is objectively safer to some degree due to the extra distance the car can decelerate over in a frontal crash due to the empty front of the car, I dunno what's reality distortion field about that? By objectively, I think you really mean theoretically. Assuming all other factors are equal (which they aren't, ever), you might have slightly better performance in a very high speed frontal low-offset collision, which is both an extremely rare type of collision and also a relatively safe type of collision in all cars. Rollovers, high-offset, and side impacts are what kill people.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
It works significantly better with fewer compromises now, though. Crash engineering is pretty incredible. It involves designing the right things to be quite malleable, and the right things to be extremely strong. Tesla's performance in the crash tests is commendable because they really haven't been doing this for all that long, but the car isn't really safer than the best other $100k cars. The question is whether or not the fundamental design of an EV is inherently safer due to packaging, and I don't think anyone has the answer to that just yet. edit: this is an incredible classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
I think my dad's 2016 volt has some sort of relatively inexpensive thing that plugs in to the wall.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Maybe the PO gave it up because he wanted a car with better build quality than a 1988 Chevrolet Celebrity. Cool car, though!
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Really now, half the fun of the Model 3 is that it's basically practical for cross-country travel (far from parity with gasoline, but still a great leap ahead of any other pure EV). This could make it way more marketable to people who wouldn't have the space for both an electric car and a gasoline car. Didn't Tesla just say you were going to have to pay extra money to use the Supercharger network with the Model 3?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
I think the Bolt is pretty clearly aimed at multiple car households. 200 miles is enough to be non-limiting in the average day with a very robust cushion. In theory, Chevrolet already sells you a product if you are really concerned about range. It is a little silly to me to compare an essentially production car with a prototype just because there's a shitload of preorders on it. The Model 3 looks better on paper, but who the gently caress knows?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Your 70D costs twice as much as a Bolt, though. Data doesn't back up the Tesla as being reliable, and the build quality is still pretty bad. What Tesla has done is very impressive, but I don't see why everyone feels the need to give them a pass on everything and expect the ultimate upside of all predictions and statements to be true. Nobody does that with any other OEM. edit: I expect build quality on the Bolt to be significantly better than the Model S, and even if it just the same, it's half the price.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Tesla is amazing in that they're the first ground-up car manufacturer that sells cars in the developed world since Hyundai / Kia and they've certainly advanced much faster than either of those companies managed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:Most of that is due to the finance side. No way you're getting money to start a car company without some gimmick to tie into the tech bubble where they just throw money away, other thsn maybe nationalist politics government money. Sure, they got funded in part due to the reality distortion field poo poo. It's still loving hard to start a car company even with boatloads of cash. silence_kit posted:No, I agree, they are amazing for doing so well as an upstart in the brutal car industry and launching a pretty cool new product which caught the established carmakers by surprise. That doesn't mean that there isn't a reality distortion field surrounding the brand though. 100% agree. Just because you're good at some things doesn't mean you're good at all things.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
If FCA, GM, Toyota etc took preorders on a production run car in the way that Tesla has on the Model 3 they'd be laughed out of the room, and rightly so. It's really hard for me to take Tesla's preorder process seriously, what with their non-GAAP accounting bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Ola posted:If FCA, GM, Toyota etc put a car to market that stirred up the enthusiasm the Model 3 did, they'd be praised. As for the non-GAAP accounting 1) it's very common among all the fast growing companies these days and 2) who cares about their accounting? It bugs me because it cooks the share price and revenue figures. Standard accounting practice is that the deposits are held in escrow until the unit is shipped to the customer, versus Tesla treating them as revenue. It's clever in that it pulls ahead revenue. No major automaker that accepts advanced deposits treats them as one time revenue, and advanced deposits are only accepted on limited-run cars, not mass produced vehicles.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Ola posted:For every internet anecdote with problems (I can find many similar ones from the Norwegian forums) there are 40 silent drivers with zero problems. This is the same with every car that gets a bad rep for reliability. Bjørn, the prolific video blogger, got a his battery replaced early on, he now has 130,000 miles on it. The drive units making GBS threads themselves was one batch of problems, that has now been fixed on the production line. I stand by my comment of the fundamental driveline being very reliable, this goes for all EVs. The theory says that it's simpler and go further with less maintenance than ICE drivetrains and billions of real world miles shows this to be true. This doesn't mean that there aren't going to be localized problems and periods with tons of warranty work. But if you've already decided against it, then by all means cherry pick the anecdotes that fit. The plural of anecdote isn't data in either direction but the actual data indicates that the Model S is not that reliable. I don't think that electric cars or Teslas are inherently unreliable. It's very hard to build a reliable car especially if you have never built a car before.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
I am pretty sure that Ferrari takes deposits directly on special edition cars since they are frequently handled outside of the dealer network (Dealer still gets a cut though). In answer to why I care about non GAAP, the whole point of GAAP is to be able to directly compare finances of different companies. Of course there are contextualizing factors, but everyone is supposed to report information in the same way. Non-GAAP accounting makes this very difficult and does not allow you to effectively contextualize results. edit: completely agree that as a buyer I probably don't care other than the fact that if the company is really hosed I stand a good chance of losing all or most of that deposit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Eh, doesn't seem any better or any worse than other car brand nerds, but I suppose it's inescapable since charging is a necessity.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
There's going to be a clear split between car as a service and car as a toy/recreational product. I am pretty excited for that day to come. You don't always need the same capabilities in a vehicle so a high degree of flexibility would be a major benefit - it's like an actually convenient version of Zipcar.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Enjoy your $5000/yr insurance "because it's just an expensive toy, after all" why would it be different from current stated value insurance policies
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:That will depend on how cheap and how durable they can get the batteries. Trucks are inherently slower and heavier, adding 10k pounds of batteries isn't that big of a change if it gets them a similar range to trucks get today. It's not great because trucks are weight rated on GVWR so an extra 10,000lb of batteries is 10,000lb of cargo you can't be carrying. Of course, if you can cut out the cost of the driver and HoS regulations, there's quite a bit of benefit in terms of asset utilization and your trip cost might be lower. I think the best application isn't semi trucks, it's the 20" cabovers used for local delivery, and refuse trucks. Local, short haul applications - similar to where Cummins has been successful with the CNG Westport engines, which have similar limitations.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
SoSimpleABeginning posted:I have no idea if this is vapor-ware or not, but this turbine-electric semi-truck seems pretty neat. I think it's vaporware. One thing that jumps out at me is that it's significantly overpowered and overspec'd. Max on-highway interstate GVWR is 80,000 lbs. At that weight, even 2050 lb-ft and 600hp is plenty verging on overkill. Someone is really going to build 3700 lb-ft and 2000 hp? Why not derate a bit to save weight, especially on the turbine and carried fuel? There's also very little advantage to 6x6 vs 6x4, and a lot of additional complexity and weight penalties.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Weight's a real concern for Class 8 OTR though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Powershift posted:For now, mainly because labour costs more than fuel does, so putting 2 trucks on the road where 1 squeaks by is an expensive option. One the trucks are automated, energy will be the next large chunk of cost targeted. Once they're driving by a robot, and run off sub-10 cent/kwh electricity, pretty much everything you buy will be Don't forget the asset cost.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The idea of basically any Manufacturer in the US (including imports) trying to convince the dealers to do anything even remotely like this makes me giggle uncontrollably. VW dealers had to install stations to sell the e-Golf, as did Chevrolet dealers to sell the Volt. Of course the infrastructure has to be subsidized by the OEM, but the possibility is there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Chevy dealer chargers are in the service department, and aren't publicly accessible. The last Chevy dealer that I was at had 2 out in front of the showroom in the parking area.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:That's a really pretty CGI, but would that realistically work as like, an actual car? Not quite enough glass and some of the shapes are pretty exotic and expensive but you could end up with something fairly similar. There are a lot of SLS shaping elements in there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
More than one year, fewer than three would be my guess, but it won't be nearly as halfassed as the Model S was at launch if stuff like the i8 is any indicator.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
I'm going with bankruptcy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Dealers always have known jack poo poo, it's their natural state.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
gently caress it buy it and write it up for us
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:There has got to be a way I can lease one of these in Nevada. Arrgh. Everyone not in CA/OR is playing the used market, unfortunately.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
DoLittle posted:According to local taxi owner who runs Tesla S it has been more expensive to maintain than internal combustion cars. 17 k€ in non warranty repairs (power steering, rear subframe, doorhandles etc.) on top of warranty repairs (drive unit replacement etc.). I hate to hold up GM as some sort of paragon of reliability, but I am pretty sure GM is better at all of those things than Tesla.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
blugu64 posted:Doesn't Tesla buy a lot of off the shelf components from existing auto part suppliers? Several major issues and production delays for Tesla have come because they refuse to use established suppliers. There's also a difference between buying a COTS component and having it work effectively in your specific application.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 21:17
|
|