- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tesla Model 3 output less than 1/5th of Q3 goal
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:21 pm to shel311
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:21 pm to shel311
quote:
Nevermind that the overwhelming majority of trucks are not filled to capacity like you'd think so there actually is room for batteries...if that's the angle you were playing up? I think the number was 84% if I recall of trucks that go out below capacity.
Even if Musk figures how how to match the power output of a diesel semi, there is absolutely no way it will be able to match a diesel's range when towing a heavy load.
The battery pack and motor will outweigh a diesel and take up more space, reducing the amount and size of a shipment.
The only way an electric semi can compete with a diesel is if it's towing an empty trailer.
They will only be useful for short trips and who in their right mind is going to drop a couple hundred grand on a semi and trailer to only handicap how much money they're able to generate?
4
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:26 pm to dkreller
quote:Honest question, if it were that simple that you from afar without the research that Tesla has done would know that there's "absolutely no way" then don't you think Musk would know that? Again, that's a legit question, not sarcasm.
Even if Musk figures how how to match the power output of a diesel semi, there is absolutely no way it will be able to match a diesel's range when towing a heavy load.
quote:Offset, as I said, by the fact that the overwhelming majority of hauls are not even at max capacity.
The battery pack and motor will outweigh a diesel and take up more space, reducing the amount and size of a shipment.
quote:How much research have you done on this?
The only way an electric semi can compete with a diesel is if it's towing an empty trailer.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:29 pm to shel311
quote:
Offset, as I said, by the fact that the overwhelming majority of hauls are not even at max capacity.
how do you define max capacity?
volume or weight?
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:33 pm to dkreller
quote:
Even if Musk figures how how to match the power output of a diesel semi, there is absolutely no way it will be able to match a diesel's range when towing a heavy load.
The battery pack and motor will outweigh a diesel and take up more space, reducing the amount and size of a shipment.
The only way an electric semi can compete with a diesel is if it's towing an empty trailer.
They will only be useful for short trips and who in their right mind is going to drop a couple hundred grand on a semi and trailer to only handicap how much money they're able to generate?
There it is. We will absolutely never make any further technological advances everyone, so we may as well stop trying. Horses are faster than these new-fangled auto-mobile things. Moreover, these mechanical contraptions will just wear out and must be replaced, while you can just get a new horse. We have reached the pinnacle of technological achievement.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:38 pm to Mo Jeaux
we got us a couple of musk fanboys going in this thread. they post 5 replies for every remotely negative post about their GoD.
Musk is infallible much like a saint amirite?
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:48 pm to shel311
quote:
What am I missing?
Tesla doesn't use rare earth metals in its batteries.
This post was edited on 10/3/17 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:53 pm to dkreller
Teslas plants cannot operate at full capacity because there is not enough lithium, cobalt and nickel to run them at capacity. Electric cars will never be mainstream without battery technology changes
Posted on 10/3/17 at 5:07 pm to CAD703X
quote:
we got us a couple of musk fanboys going in this thread.
they post 5 replies for every remotely negative post about their GoD.
Musk is infallible much like a saint amirite?
Meh. I think your Lycra shorts are too tight. By all means, assert some cogent, substantive criticism of him and his companies, and please feel free to not invest your money with him. I'm just not too persuaded by the 20 year old Simpsons cartoons.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 5:25 pm to shel311
Thank you for the link.
As the article says, the profit was achieved from selling California tax credits. TESLA sold $139 million in tax credits and the company had a profit of $21.9 million meaning there was an operating loss from selling vehicles of $117.1 million for the quarter. And TESLA had a loss for all of 2016 of around $700 million so the article I referred to is still correct: the company had a loss on every car it sold.
In case you missed it, Musk announced in the article you linked from October last year that the company would not have to raise capital in 2017 to produce the Model 3. But in March of this year Musk announced the company would have to raise $1 billion in new capital in order to produce the Model 3. So, Tesla continues to burn through cash having needed to raise capital every year.
Business Insider, March, 2017
As the article says, the profit was achieved from selling California tax credits. TESLA sold $139 million in tax credits and the company had a profit of $21.9 million meaning there was an operating loss from selling vehicles of $117.1 million for the quarter. And TESLA had a loss for all of 2016 of around $700 million so the article I referred to is still correct: the company had a loss on every car it sold.
In case you missed it, Musk announced in the article you linked from October last year that the company would not have to raise capital in 2017 to produce the Model 3. But in March of this year Musk announced the company would have to raise $1 billion in new capital in order to produce the Model 3. So, Tesla continues to burn through cash having needed to raise capital every year.
Business Insider, March, 2017
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:06 pm to LSURussian
quote:
In case you missed it, Musk announced in the article you linked from October last year that the company would not have to raise capital in 2017 to produce the Model 3. But in March of this year Musk announced the company would have to raise $1 billion in new capital in order to produce the Model 3. So, Tesla continues to burn through cash having needed to raise capital every year.
That isn't what either article said
From the October one:
quote:
The electric carmaker also signaled it has substantially reduced the costs for launching production of its high volume Model 3 sedan next year. Musk told analysts the company’s current plan “does not require any capital raise for the Model 3 at all.”
The tech billionaire said Tesla could still raise capital to “account for uncertainty ... and de-risk the business,” however.
And from yours, both saying the same thing
quote:
Tesla wrote in a press release that it intends to use the net proceeds from the latest round of offerings to strengthen its balance sheet and reduce risk as it prepares for the Model 3 launch.
Musk said during the company's fourth-quarter earnings call that it was financially prudent for Tesla to raise capital to reduce risk ahead of Model 3 production.
And from the link inside your article:
quote:
"According to our financial plan, no capital has to be raised for the Model 3," he said. "But we get very close to the edge, then that's probably not the very best thing for shareholders on a risk adjusted basis so we are considering a number of options, but I think it probably makes sense to raise capital to reduce risk."
Seems consistent. What am I missing?
This post was edited on 10/3/17 at 6:14 pm
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:30 pm to 9WhoDat37
Feels like a both sides are kinda right thing here.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:38 pm to shel311
You jackholes are still fighting about this clown?
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:43 pm to member12
I wanted too. But it was a lot of money to tie up into a car I wouldn't get until 2020.
Was hoping by then, the wife's car would be paid, but then we leased, and now she keeps wanting bigger. I like the idea of an electric car, but I'd love to have an electric work vehicle. I put $75 in Friday, $70 today and I'm already at half a tank.
On that note, would standard deduction be less since there isn't fuel cost?
Mercedes needs to get on this, there rape van is the nicest out.
Was hoping by then, the wife's car would be paid, but then we leased, and now she keeps wanting bigger. I like the idea of an electric car, but I'd love to have an electric work vehicle. I put $75 in Friday, $70 today and I'm already at half a tank.
On that note, would standard deduction be less since there isn't fuel cost?
Mercedes needs to get on this, there rape van is the nicest out.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:51 pm to Napoleon
It shouldn’t as it is a business expense and not an itemization.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 6:56 pm to member12
Wish they would cut off his taxpayer funding and let him go belly-up, complete BS and he is getting by on taxpayers dime.
This post was edited on 10/3/17 at 6:57 pm
Posted on 10/3/17 at 7:03 pm to LSUnation78
quote:
Said this in one of the threads we had last few weeks about seitching to all electric cars.
Every electric car built uses rare earth metals for the magnets. There are2-3 primary ones, and there isnt much production outside of China at the moment.
Add on top of that, its called RARE earth metals for a reason.
Lithium isn't rare. As the demand increases so does the value.. and you can bet your arse someone will invest in the development of a decent way to harvest it from the abundant (and easily retrievable) lithium salts that cover the planet.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 7:07 pm to GREENHEAD22
quote:
Wish they would cut off his taxpayer funding and let him go belly-up, complete BS and he is getting by on taxpayers dime.
AMEN.
Are all truck stops going to have to have charging stations now? A sleeper cab parked at a rest stop will need a charging station.
The ONLY way I can see the electric truck working is for work out of places like the Port of New Orleans where they run day cabs and make short hauls through a city.
Over the Road business plan seems like a pie in the sky / Milk taxpayers for more money scheme that Musk is famous for.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 7:08 pm to GREENHEAD22
quote:
Wish they would cut off his taxpayer funding and let him go belly-up, complete BS and he is getting by on taxpayers dime.
Musk has asked the feds to end the EV subsidies (that do not just go to Tesla) because they hurt Tesla competitively. It's a leg up for the guys who are behind in the game.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 7:11 pm to NimbleCat
quote:
Are all truck stops going to have to have charging stations now? A sleeper cab parked at a rest stop will need a charging station.
The ONLY way I can see the electric truck working is for work out of places like the Port of New Orleans where they run day cabs and make short hauls through a city.
Over the Road business plan seems like a pie in the sky / Milk taxpayers for more money scheme that Musk is famous for.
Mid-range electric trucks that drive themselves, drive 24 hours a day, and charge themselves in areas that are currently undeveloped or will undergo changes in landuse.
Not hard to imagine gas stations in rural locations installing 1-2 charging stations and getting paid for it. Or massive parking lots with dozens of charging stations.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 7:18 pm to GREENHEAD22
I have been a petrol head my entire life but like it or not electric cars (via battery or fuel cell) are the future. It is about as close to a lock as one can get. Besides the military-industrial complex the car industry is likely the biggest reason behind the US economy being "great". While the car based economy is not gone it certainly doesn't have the import it once had.
The US now has a toehold on the coming electric car wave with Tesla making many of the strides toward marketability. With Tesla's work and the apparent recent commitment of GM the US is poised to stay a leader in this tech. I feel like anyone not willing to support this is simply choosing to cede the extremely lucrative car market of the future to other countries. If you are happy with the status quo of the American economy, fine, if not then this (along with autonomous vehicles) are two areas where we have a great chance at making the American economy great again.
Bending over monetarily for companies like Carrier to save a few jobs for a short time seems to be palatable for the general public so I can't see why investing in a huge industry on the edge of monumental change in the effort to be the world leader is such an issue.
The US now has a toehold on the coming electric car wave with Tesla making many of the strides toward marketability. With Tesla's work and the apparent recent commitment of GM the US is poised to stay a leader in this tech. I feel like anyone not willing to support this is simply choosing to cede the extremely lucrative car market of the future to other countries. If you are happy with the status quo of the American economy, fine, if not then this (along with autonomous vehicles) are two areas where we have a great chance at making the American economy great again.
Bending over monetarily for companies like Carrier to save a few jobs for a short time seems to be palatable for the general public so I can't see why investing in a huge industry on the edge of monumental change in the effort to be the world leader is such an issue.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News