Tesla oversells and under delivers on many things. Range is one and the other big one is the autosteer, FSD etc. which has gotten worse not better with subsequent releases. Then there was the crazy claim from Musk that the cars would be appreciating assets because of the software. LOL.
>Meanwhile, Teslas are some of the fastest depreciating cars on the market
Because they dropped the prices of new cars by a lot after supply chain issues resolved, price of lithium and other supplies went down. Why is that a bad thing?
Meanwhile Mercedes-Benz CEO said that residual value is more important to them.
Musk: "So I just can't emphasize again how important cost is," Musk said. "It's not an optional thing for most people. It is a necessary thing. We have to make our cars more affordable so that people can buy them."
Why is cheaper EVs a bad thing? Isn't this the exact thing that's making housing super expensive, that rich homeowners are restricting supply so their home(s) keeps appreciating, leading to folks getting squeezed with home costs and rents going up exponentially.
If you were told by the CEO of the company that your car would appreciate, and instead it depreciated at a rate beyond normal, you don't see an issue with that?
What does a new EPA testing methodology going into effect have to do with Nikola again?
Comparing Trevor Milton to Elon Musk is also wild. I still vividly remember the Tesla short seller crowd praising Milton as a genius while declaring Elon as a charlatan.
> "The entire infotainment system is a HTML 5 super computer," Milton said. "That's the standard language for computer programmers around the world, so using it let's us build our own chips. And HTML 5 is very secure. Every component is linked on the data network, all speaking the same language. It's not a bunch of separate systems that somehow still manage to communicate."
>Comparing Trevor Milton to Elon Musk is also wild.
Why is it "wild"?
Milton is going to prison for, basically, lying about the functionality of their truck. It didn't work like he claimed it did, when he claimed it did. But it's not like they don't have a real truck or a real business; they are testing vehicles right now. Nikola still exists. They have trucks on the road.
So why is that such a stretch to compare things he claimed to things Tesla has claimed? You can perhaps argue about the scale or severity of the different claims, but I'd say exaggerated range claims and full-self-driving are also pretty bad:
Milton was sentenced to jail because he was found guilty of one count of securities fraud and two counts of wire fraud. That's why.
Also, from your linked article:
"One of the experts, [Gregory Pannone], co-authored a study of 21 different brands of electric vehicles, published in April by SAE International, an engineering organization. The research found that, on average, the cars fell short of their advertised ranges by 12.5% in highway driving. The study did not name the brands tested.."
> The study did not name the brands tested..
I was curious why that is. So I did some digging and found this very reassuring info. I'm sure there's no bias right?
[Gregory Pannone]
-Sr. Engineer
General Motors
- Engineer/Intern Engineer/Intern
BP p.l.c. British multinational oil and gas
- FCA Fiat Chrysler Automobiles logo
Head of Fuel Economy, Performance, and P/T Synthesis
Chrysler LLC
Was Milton’s securities fraud something like a claim that he had “funding secured” for a private buyout of the company on an official company communication medium when he knew he did not? (That’s something that Musk did.)
What a very nice and compelling ad hominem argument. It's clear that you're very uninformed.
> Yes, it's all a big conspiracy
Questioning about a possible bias is conspiracy talk now? What ever happened to healthy discourse? It seems the level of your knowledge does not go beyond the news headlines.
>Questioning about a possible bias is conspiracy talk now? What ever happened to healthy discourse? It seems the level of your knowledge does not go beyond the news headlines.
Buddy, you started this thread calling me "intellectually dishonest", so don't start crying about "healthy discourse" now.
But sure, lay it out for us: you think that the author of the study is biased. So, what does that mean? Did he fabricate the data? What exactly are you implying?
This was enacted in 2022 but goes into effect this year:
This new policy is applicable to new testing for 2024 model year and later vehicles. It may be
applied to new testing for 2023 model year vehicles. *Vehicles utilizing carry-over data may
continue to use data generated under previous policy* for as long as the tests are valid (i.e., no
changes to the vehicle requiring new MPGe/range testing are required). *Manufacturers who add
a new configuration to a test group for 2024 and later must present new test results using this
policy*, but existing data can still be used if it is representative".
Promises notwithstanding, model 3 and Y are some of the most efficient EV's on the market, getting more mile/kwh (or less kwh/100km, or however you measure it) than their competitors.
Don't have a tesla myself, (kia e-niro), but weather will have an enormous impact on range, did a ~400km loop last week, 200km up north, used only 14.7kwh/100km, and the 200km back used more than 21.7kwh/100km. (Tailwind vs headwind)
>Then there was the crazy claim from Musk that the cars would be appreciating assets because of the software.
They were also going to appreciate because Tesla cars would operate as autonomous robot taxis by end of 2020, and it wouldn't make sense to sell a car to a consumer for $35,000 when you could have it earning money 24/7 as a taxi.
It would make sense to sell it at that price if you had competitors. So Musk was essentially saying "we are going to create a monopoly and then milk the market for all it's worth". I found it weird that nobody criticised him for that back then.
Well, the competitors in this case would've been taxi companies, not other car companies.
The case was basically that for every $35k Model 3 that comes off the lot can be sold for a profit up to $35k, or be added to the robotaxi fleet where it can generate whatever revenue it can produce. For example, if every Model 3 could generate $5/h of profit, then running it 24/7/365 would be $44k.
> Musk that the cars would be appreciating assets because of the software.
This may turn out to be true. Tesla Electric customers report making as much as $150 a day[1], this is with Powerwalls, 13.5KWH capacity. Teslas have 80KWH+ capacity, equivalent of 6 powerwalls. Tesla's have a potential to make a decent amount of money from participating in VPP (Virtual Power Plants).
Coupled with the $25/month plan[2], VPP participation will take advantage of cheap power when its available, supply power back to the grid when its extremely profitable.
Will this work for everyone, no, it won't. Some people are fanatic about using fossil fuels. Will it work for a fraction of the people who might be interested in getting paid. It just might.
And yet, they overdeliver compared to everyone else.
Tesla continues to trounce every other car manufacturer because despite the fact that us fanboys (and bitterboys) are regularly disappointed at underdelivering on the hype, they still produce the most compelling EV for the price when compared to everyone else.
"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."
> Yes, and? If that was their claim, there'd be nothing to talk about.
That's not even close to reality and not intellectually honest. It's a fact that anything with "Tesla" on the headline gets clicks. A Tesla gets t-boned by another vehicle and the next day will get headlines like:
"Telsa involved in a serious accident" While make/model of other accidents is never mentioned in other accidents even when there's a fatality.
>That's not even close to reality and not intellectually honest.
You're just making things up.
We are talking about very specific claims in this thread.
>A Tesla gets t-boned by another vehicle and the next day will get headlines like: "Telsa involved in a serious accident" While make/model of other accidents is never mentioned in other accidents even when there's a fatality.
Also incidents blaming autopilot get hundreds of upvotes and comments blaming Tesla, and when it turns out months after police investigation of that incident that Autopilot wasn't involved, that article never gets upvotes.
This is literally the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
It doesn't "blame" anything on the Tesla; instead, it seems to be praising it for lack of damage and injury to the passengers.
Is this interesting news? Not to me. But I suppose it's relevant being as how the Cybertruck is the most hyped vehicle of all-time, and there are only a handful on the road.
> And yet, they overdeliver compared to everyone else.
Which means they could publicly promise to do better than everyone else and still meet those promises.
So promising things that are unrealistic (ie Level 5 FSD 5 years ago) is an unforced error, an own-goal that could be avoided but they have chosen not to avoid this over and over.
The disadvantage is that you lose all credibility. If Musk says something factually true tomorrow, my first instinct is to not believe him. That's kind of bad.
I believe Musk is also tarnishing the Tesla brand by his antics. I noticed that the association to Musk is kinda turning some left-leaning liberals away from Tesla.
Tesla delivers. That’s above par for the current course. The problem is Musk’s antics create opportunity for competitors. If he could have the discipline he does with SpaceX, Tesla’s long-term prospects would be stronger.
> their only real competitor is a single Chinese company (BYD)
This is short sighted. Their threat profile from new entrants (whether de novo or legacy) is massive. Most people I know considering EVs are not prioritising Teslas. They haven’t ruled them out. But it’s an even comparison between the Tesla on the lot and whatever they need to put a deposit down on for delivery in a few months or even years.
An equivalent statement would be “I bought some pills from the guy on the street corner and they didn’t contain what he said they would, so I’m never going to the pharmacy ever again.”
