Really do not understand why people don't just put the guy on ignore en masse...

Thread is 10x more readable with his nonsense blanked out. Would be 100x if TS would stop wasting his time arguing with a brick wall.

I put despacito on ignore a bit ago, but I still think there's nonzero chance this guy is actually Elon Musk. How's Grimes doing, btw?

TS meticulously countering every post he makes is "doing something about it". I don't find him to be a problem, but the things he posts and the way he says them is pretty blatant astroturfing, even if he's just some random Tesla loon.

The more the merrier anyways.

Jesus, you have no idea what you are talking about

So is the taycan really 150k starting price? I thought it was going to be in the 80k range...

Check out the Lambo and Ferrari hybrids.

Those aren’t EVs built for the environment. Those are built to be the fastest cars money can buy (for the duration of the batteries on board anyway.)

Just like we can infer that Musk dropping prices 40K euro overnight means terrible demand (it did and the stock tanked), the Taycan at $150K very likely means high demand. They had 30K preorders months ago (and these are real preorders, not fraud man claimed preorders) before all the launch PR they're doing now.

Surely this type of behavior is contributing to the higher accident rate such as occurred in Norway's statistics. Should be addressed ASAP.

I don't think it's valid to blame manufacturer for use of product contrary to instructions, but Tesla needs to take a different approach to preventing hands free driving.



Or it could mean Porsche can't compete on price and are relying on their excellent brand and core of devoted customers. Putting a positive spin on such a ludicrously uncompetitive price is a real stretch even by your slippery standards. I love Porsche (actually my #1 favorite automaker), and think the Taycan is awesome btw, but I don't think this is an instance of price fostering prestige as much as a failure to control costs.

https://www.axa.ch/content/axa/en/ue...ctric-car.html

I 've seen that article popping in french news sites, and that confirms my suspicion that Evs need more regulation and cannot really be compared to normal cars stat wise.

Porsche will charge whatever will soak up initial production. It's not an uncompetitive price if people are buying everything they can produce, and preorders seem to indicate they will. Musk was gladly charging $150K per car for the X before no one wanted it any more at that price.

Much of Taycan's development was a Volkswagen endeavor for their future product lines; many of their mainstream cars will share much of the Taycan electrification base, so the notion that it's an attempt to recoup costs seems a little silly.

I don't think people realize the tsunami of competition that's coming as battery prices make long range cars viable. The Volkswagen ID.3 coming out next year is from <30K to 40K euro with a large battery pack with a 500km range.

Tesla had a monopoly on high end electric sports cars. Once that monopoly was pierced, even in a small way, sales went into the toilet and Tesla had to drop prices 30% overnight - which still didn't save sales.

Tesla currently have a monopoly on long range nice looking electric mainstream cars. What do you think is going to happen when desirable long range competition enters this space? Cars aren't iPhones, they cost a shitload of money and consumers are price sensitive (which is why, for example, the luxury car market is so small and not growing).

I mostly agree with this. It makes perfect sense for Porsche to charge as much as possible. My point was the price is uncompetitive at larger scale and not a threat to Tesla or the $TSLA stock price.

Other makers/models might be a different story though, will be interesting to see this play out.

The solar city deposition stuff is pretty nuts

Because it was pure nepotism and ****ed shareholders and is a complete dumpster fire from top to bottom

Solarcity was exactly what the bears said it was - sheer panic buyout of a fraudulent business on the brink of bankruptcy, pushed through because if one of Musk's businesses fell and the fraud charges started, confidence would be lost in all of them.

Like most "green" frauds, Solarcity was always an attempt to get government and banker money at massive cost to shareholders. It was never a viable business and was always going to collapse. For example, at the time they were bought, their financials were incredibly bad: $1.5 billion in cost, much of it SG&A through high pressure sales techniques, was used to generate $800 million in revenue. The 30 year lease model is also horribly flawed given the decreasing cost of panels and the difficulty of recovery when non-payment starts in the next recession (it's not a car or property you can repossess, you actually have to get the homeowner's permissions to send in a work crew to uninstall).

They had no viable product to sell and no viable business model and bankruptcy was certain, so Musk had no choice but to put on a fraud show with solar roofs to con investors into voting for it, and strongarm the board against their strong objections. In any sane legal system he's personally on the hook for billions in investor losses as a result of his fraud and self dealing.

It's a lot like "1 million autonomous robotaxis in 2020" - the stock was tanking and Musk needed a donkey-carrot and a capital raise so he made **** up.

So, losing money selling more cars > making money selling fewer cars? Seems like a plan.

Competition does make it even less likely tesla will ever build a profitable new roadster, though the probability of that happening pre-bankruptcy has been close to zero for some time now.

You can address the de-installation permission upfront via contract. In fact that is what Tesla does now:

For a full contract
https://electrek.co/2019/09/07/tesla...-removal-cost/

Solar roof has already been installed in multiple states.

It's a question of cost and scale, not fraud, and you know this.

^ lol, you have no clue how the world works, do you? Repossessions aren't as easy as a line in a contract = you can trespass at will, especially when they're attached to a fixture and not discrete and movable like a car. You entirely missed the point of the (multiple troubles) of repossessing panels. For one you wouldn't even want to once they're a few years old with solar cell cost falling every year and the biggest cost component being installation, marketing, etc.

Also, ultra high cost prototypes in 2019 are utterly meaningless for whether statements about the current status of solar roof tiles were a fraud in 2016.

Anywhere, here's why Solarcity were always a certain bankruptcy:

1. A nonviable business model where you need to spend $1.5 billion with ultra-aggressive sales + various frauds to make $800 million in revenue and lose $700 million.

2. Selling a product on a long lease system that depreciates faster than the value of the lease compared to new alternatives. It's like leasing someone a high quality 1990s PC for 30 years; it's gonna be great for a few years and then cheaper better models will be out, and repossessing the PC is near worthless.

3. They lease out a product where most of the value is sunk in lost costs (installation, marketing, etc) and you require 20+ years of payments to get your sunk money back. In the next recession, people stop paying and you're left holding the bag of near worthless product (the market is awash in solar panels getting cheaper every year and in a recession it'll be far worse) and noone to pay for them and high repossession costs.

If you disagree with the above, Solarcity was going bankrupt (without Musk's bailout) in the middle of an economic boom and a free-money lending environment. That beautifully makes my point, especially point 3. If you don't have a viable business in a market awash with government credits and easy low interest money, you're the first to bankrupt when any of that changes.

Yeah, the luxury electric sports car market is small and not growing much. Even the entire luxury sedan market (including non-EVs) isn't growing much according to Bernstein a few weeks ago.

So every competitor in that market means that Tesla is selling one less huge-revenue, huge-profit sale of high end S/X/Roadster. The 30K Taycan preorders alone represent $4.5 billion lost revenue with ultra high margins for Tesla, equivalent to 100K Model 3 sales and 500K Model 3 sales in terms of profit. That's not trivial. Model S/X aren't even selling right now with massive 30% price drops...they sell less than production capacity...so every single sale of iPace or Taycan is one less sale of a Tesla at a near 1:1 ratio.

People who think this isn't a disaster for Tesla (already hemorrhaging money with a monopoly) are deluded.

I am not sure which sentence in this post is true. I'd probably go with zero.

100+ functional installations, at a painfully high price point, from paying customers is not relevant? It shows an appetite for the product. If Tesla achieves its price target, demand will be enormous.

Musk is optimistic on timelines but the product is already shipping, with more scale on the horizon. Clearly not fraud.

Scaling prematurely would create a lot of potential liability given the proposed 30 year lifespan of the product.

Also forward looking statements about new products are always subject to change. As they well should be. R&D is largely an iterative process.

The 2020 Roadster makes the Taycan look like a Hyundai Accent. Similar price, vastly superior performance.

i think they're just trolling elon at this point

Fake news. The paint job on that car looks way too thick.

How do you know the bolded? The last time Musk claimed this it was a pure, fraudulent lie.

He said this on the Q2 2018 confernce call:
But alas:

So we have a shamelessly lying piece of **** as our only source...contradicted by his own company. Do we know they have 100 now? In May 2019 Reuters claimed that only 21 had been installed.

The strangest thing about all of this is that this frantic ramp up of solar, with tweets and money-losing products suddenly put out on hacked-together web pages, is that this all started the moment that discovery proceeded in the multi billion dollar Solarcity fraud lawsuit. You can time it to the day when Musk suddenly started tweeting about solar with what happened in that lawsuit. The dude is shitting himself as what he did in 2016 is clear and obvious fraud, and is only out is to pretend that Solarcity was a viable acquisition rather than something he bought to save his ass then progressively shut down.
Yeah man, 1000km range, 1.9s 0-60, SpaceX thrusters so it can "fly" briefly (later clarified by our favorite liar and fraud as merely using gas thrusters to help with cornering!).

This fraud lies about solar roof installations, "funding secured", whether people are pedos, but you believe this loser and conman when it comes to claims that experts say breaks the laws of batteries, when they're spending next to nothing on R&D and can't even run a lap with their current cars without overheating?

You're a special creature, Spurious. Everything I posted was true, but let's focus on the interesting bit:

My take on autopilot - which has been correct while Musk has been 100% wrong on his timelines - comes from a careful considering of 10+ different streams of evidence which I've painstakingly laid out. The biggest bit of evidence is the software itself - the kinds of mistakes it makes which shows that it's highly unsophisticated and hacked together.

Regardless, even if it was a binary choice, any sane person would choose consultancy reports over a known, proven, serial liar and fraud with a massive interest in telling lies about the state of autopilot and long history of telling lies about his technology and its future timeline.

I don't think you're getting my broad point, either. The luxury car market is actually quite small. There are only a certain number of people in the world with the means and interest in luxury cars. That number is quite small, which is why Musk didn't ramp up the (larger market but still small) luxury sedan/SUV S & X offerings despite their profitability.

Every competitor that gets decent traction, like the Taycan is, is taking billions out of Tesla's warchest and destroying any hope at profitability. Even the iPace has cost Tesla billions of dollars in lost sales - without even including Tesla's dropped prices to (unsuccesfully) stimulate sales again.

There's less overlap with the S/X and 3 than you think by the way. Very different segments.

Australia is a great city TS! Would love to visit someday.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-mode...s-in-australia

A report recently published by comparethemarket.com showed that the Tesla Model 3 is Australia’s most popular EV, even though deliveries started only a week ago.



Image: TS analyzing Tesla.