Another video of the acceleration

[www.youtube.com]

And we all complain about the 718's exhaust sound.

13 Boxster, Racing Yellow, PDK, SC in yellow, 20" Carrera platinum wheels, sport steering wheel, yellow seat belts, yellow roll bars, 14 way power seats, PDL, sports tailpipe

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com

Acceleration is nice, but the whole fantasy and reality of sports cars is track driving. Once they make a battery system that won't overheat and can be used to drive to the track, run all weekend, and drive home, these Teslas are just silicone on a bimbo.

Of course, we American tend to like silicone on a bimbo.... Detroit always knew this and that is why American cars were alsays lousy at handling but big on acceleration.

Peace
Bruce in Philly



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2017 09:53AM by Bruce In Philly (2000 S Boxster, now '09 C2S). (view changes)

[en.wikipedia.org]

Typical Tesla. Want you to wait several years for an unknown quality car. Help finance the company with your deposit.

If they can't even crank out 1000 Model 3s a month (a relatively simple car) or get their electronic nannies working on their current $100k cars, do you think the effort to produce the truck and roadster will contribute to the company's longevity or prove a fatal distraction?

Quote
mikefocke, '01S Sanford, NC
Typical Tesla. Want you to wait several years for an unknown quality car. Help finance the company with your deposit.

If they can't even crank out 1000 Model 3s a month (a relatively simple car) or get their electronic nannies working on their current $100k cars, do you think the effort to produce the truck and roadster will contribute to the company's longevity or prove a fatal distraction?

Well said.
Lot's of sizzle with this product, but to this point they are still burning investor money.
Regarding performance, electric motors produce power like an on/off switch--hit the button, boom--you're flying. I wonder how many owners will be buying for that reason or trying to stretch their legs on city streets with these antics.

Some say its rocket science, but from what I've read, Space-X has brought down the cost of re-usable payload systems by something like 80%.

His production delay ramp-ups are for - if any reason can be said to be "good" -- good reason. he's investing in new process technologies to increase productivity and steepen the slope of the learning (cost reduction) curves. Note these glitches exist both in vehicle assembly (welding) and battery-pack assembly (gigafactory).

All business innovation is a risk, but I applaud these risks (and yes, I put my money where my mouth was, at $60). I now buy on dips, and imo, from them.

The cars are getting great reviews. I've spent time under the skin, they are beautifully designed and made. Most of the issues are advanced software bugs (big surprise there) and some sad but avoidable incidents involving autopilot being misused "look ma, no hands, oops".

If he ratchets up the new process a few months late, to me that's better than those who never even attempted it.

We'll see if he, and therefore I, win. Its no slam-dunk at current valuations (more than Ford), but it's quite feasible. he's got an Apple-like following in the market too.

(oh, and I made a bundle on Apple as well while people scoffed).

G

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com

Yes, that is their business model. What's wrong with that? Where do you expect funding for R&D to come from, investors just looking to make a profit? That model results in an inferior product with higher prices.

The introduction of more models has to be stretching their talent thin. With a 200k+ order backlog, I'd think they need to be devoting resources to getting volume production into quality and profit targets. The roadster can be hand built.

OTOH, rumor has it that they have now produced their first cars for ordinary consumers on the waiting list (multiple trailers have been seen leaving the plant), have allowed car reviewers to configure their cars and are producing cars via automation with better quality.

I don't own many individual stocks. Do know of folks who bought Tesla early and often and are loving it. Their reward for the risk they took.

Resource allocation is always tricky business. Tesla's model for order fulfillment has not been to hire more people but to develop better process automation. That's why when a supplier missed out on delivering a piece of automation hardware the factory's output tanked by 100x.

Flagships are good for a brand. I doubt the roadster will be profitable in a vacuum but it does generate buzz and excitement and that has value.

Only time will tell if their business model works but the stockholders have clearly voted that it will.

According to Musk the purpose (paraphrased) is to demonstrate the capability and viability of electric cars. That has been the single biggest barrier to mass acceptance.

You will be able to drive at highway speeds from SF to LA and back without recharging.

Quote
Boxsterra
Resource allocation is always tricky business. Tesla's model for order fulfillment has not been to hire more people but to develop better process automation. That's why when a supplier missed out on delivering a piece of automation hardware the factory's output tanked by 100x.

Flagships are good for a brand. I doubt the roadster will be profitable in a vacuum but it does generate buzz and excitement and that has value.

Only time will tell if their business model works but the stockholders have clearly voted that it will.

Stockholders have voted Tesla more valuable (or with the recent stock prices changes -- I haven't kept close track as I own no Tesla stock) almost as valulable as GM or Ford but having just 1% of their sales.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't assign a lot of creditability to stockholders, at least Tesla stockholders.

You're willing to assign credibility to automakers that recently required a government bailout to avoid bankruptcy?

Tesla is on the way up. Ford, GM, etc. are on the way down. Stock price is not a reflection of the current value but the perceived future value.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2017 12:16PM by Boxsterra. (view changes)

Granted, they may have had a bailout, but Tesla relies heavily on tax credits to peddle its wares. Think it is a tomato/toe-matto comparison. They all have survived on the backs of taxpayers.

Quote
Boxsterra
You're willing to assign credibility to automakers that recently required a government bailout to avoid bankruptcy?

Tesla is on the way up. Ford, GM, etc. are on the way down. Stock price is not a reflection of the current value but the perceived future value.

GM took (and needed) fed bail out money. Ford if I recall didn't need or want any bailout but was forced to take it.

FWIW, had it been up to me I would not have "bailed out" GM or any other car maker. The bailout was just a way to give the autoworkers union part of GM for its support of the democrats over the years.

However even the car makers that needed and received a bail out have done very well since.

Look at GM and Ford compared to Tesla.

                                                                EPS           P/E         Dividend    Net Cash
Company     Recent Price    Market Value (bil)  YTD Change  2017E   2018E     2017E       Yield       (bil)
Ford             $12.04              $47.8          0%      $1.82   $1.57       6.6       5.0%       $9.9
GM               $42.11              $59.8         21%      $6.32   $5.86       6.8       3.6%       $3.2
Tesla           $302.99              $50.9         42%     -$8.67  -$3.55       NM       None       -$6.4

Europe car makers (BMW, Daimler, VW, and Japanese car makers (Toyota) all show very good numbers (BMW's YTD change is -2%).
E = estimate; NM = not meaningful
Data taken from a table on page 22 of the Nov. 13, 2017 issue of Barron's.

As db997S correctly points out Tesla relies on tax credits and other government handouts. Consider it pre-bailout money. And even with this government largess doesn't appear to be doing all that well.

Ford did not take a bail out , voluntarily or forced. Period. The Ford family, with the only voting shares, refused to do it in fear of losing control of the company. Besides, they didn't really need it. Roger Mulally had returned them to profitability by 2007/2008 so the bail out was not needed or necessary. Double period. GM and Chrysler, on the other hand, were marketing a bunch of redundant dogs and needed serious downsizing. Ford did their downsizing on their own many years earlier.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2017 10:40PM by paulofto. (view changes)

Quote
paulofto
Ford did not take a bail out , voluntarily or forced. Period. The Ford family, with the only voting shares, refused to do it in fear of losing control of the company. Besides, they didn't really need it. Roger Mulally had returned them to profitability by 2007/2008 so the bail out was not needed or necessary. Double period. GM and Chrysler, on the other hand, were marketing a bunch of redundant dogs and needed serious downsizing. Ford did their downsizing on their own many years earlier.

Was not aware Ford took no bailout. Thanks for the correction.

...he took the wise step of selling everything not nailed down to hoard cash to weather the coming storm - Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston, etc.

The Fords *had* to protect the existing classes of stock, which give them effective control with only minority ownership.

GM too, with Bob Lutz work, had largely transformed before the credit crunch came. But they had too much legacy cost structure from years of affordable pension, medical and other obligations. Its complicated.

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com

Quote
paulofto
Ford did not take a bail out , voluntarily or forced. Period. The Ford family, with the only voting shares, refused to do it in fear of losing control of the company. Besides, they didn't really need it. Roger Mulally had returned them to profitability by 2007/2008 so the bail out was not needed or necessary. Double period. GM and Chrysler, on the other hand, were marketing a bunch of redundant dogs and needed serious downsizing. Ford did their downsizing on their own many years earlier.

Curious about this bailout business I did a little "research" and this is what I found.

From FactCheck:

A Ford TV ad slams competitors for accepting bailout funds, even though the company’s CEO lobbied for the bill. The company — the only one of the Big Three not to receive a bailout — feared a collapse of GM and Chrysler at the time would have hurt suppliers and, in turn, Ford itself. Ford Chief Executive Officer Alan R. Mulally also asked Congress for a “credit line” of up to $9 billion in case the economy worsened.
In other words, Ford was for government bailouts before it was against them.
Although Ford did not need money from the $80 billion bailout program, Ford did receive $5.9 billion in government loans in 2009 to retool its manufacturing plants to produce more fuel-efficient cars, and the company lobbied for and benefited from the cash-for-clunkers program — contrary to the ad’s testimonial that Ford is “standing on their own.”

They were caught in a financial crisis not of their making. For a bunch of reasons I wont go into, the credit market pretty much evaporated in 2008/9, and the vast vast majority of vehicles are bought on credit. Those firms were in deep trouble, regardless of the quality of their wares. A bail out, IMNSHO, was appropriate since the fed had been kicking the car for a decade and others ignoring their oversight duties (credit rating agencies anyone?). Think about the conflict of interest in the credit rating business!

Anyway, the circumstances were quite extenuating.

I do agree that comparing Tesla to GM (growth firm to mature) is apples and oranges. I expect you also question the P/E of AMZN, Alphabet, etc. So do I, but they have so far proved us wrong, and I am a very cautious believer.

G

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com

That's a lot of torques.

"What's also worth noting is that Musk says the announced performance figures are for the base Roadster. An optional package is also in the works to improve the Roadster's performance further."

Source: [www.cnet.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2017 10:45AM by Boxsterra. (view changes)

i was at the even at in hawthorne. the purpose of the event was supposedly to unveil the semi but the roadster, ermmm, it's actually a targa but that's a different story, stole the show.
the semi has the potential to be a game changer. cars are emotional. trucks and trucking is business, i.e. money. if elon's figures for the money saving characteristics of the semi are true, then having a tesla semi fleet will be a no-brainer. i'm very curious to see how this pans out.
the other version of the roadster is the "founders edition" and is priced at $250k. they're apparently all sold out. at the event, you could order the base model by putting down $5k at the event with another $45k due within 10 days. for the founders edition it was $5k now and the remainder, yes, $245k due within 10 days.

--
MY 2000 S, Ocean Blue, Metropol Blue, Savanah Beige.
Bought June 2000 - Sold May 2010

Trucking fleets are still moving to Natural Gas, away from diesel. Electric "diesels" have a huge momentum gap to leap. I saw NG pumps going in at all truck stops on I80 across PA 7-8 years ago.... Cummins and others have both engines designed specifically for NG as well as kits to retrofit existing diesels. Cummins took many big, long-term orders from long-haulers like Roadway. There is no infrastructure for electric trucking.

Stay tuned.... I doubt the electric truck is near ready for the trucking giants. They need big commitment, infrastructure, and not just one-offs. They have already placed big bets on NG.

[www.fleetowner.com]


Peace
Bruce in Philly