Thứ Hai, 31 tháng 10, 2016

Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA) part 21

  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    We haven't managed it in thousands of years, I'm not holding my breath.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    In fact I have not noticed that.

    So in other words, they exist for cooperational purposes, and to put the benefit of society as a whole over the benefit over a single individual who would seek to do damage to others. Kind of the point which was being made...

    You would then just call whatever guiding organizational structure under which cooperation happens "government."

    - - - Updated - - -

    Right, we're not living in a golden age of cooperation, the least violence the human race has ever seen, the fastest advancement of technology, the best communication, etc...

    I'm not holding my breath either. I'm breathing, because we're here. And it continues to get better.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Apparently there was an evolutionary bottleneck that kinda held back the males of the species about 4000 to 8000 years ago. http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20150216195902.shtml
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Disagree on all points of course, but not really the place to discuss it further.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Perhaps it's time to return to talking about Tesla?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Convincing article, Hopefully I can load up on some LEAPS at the open before the stock rips higher.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    It's not about the stock ripping higher. It's about owning the customer relationship and thereby creating lasting value. This is something quite fundamental to Tesla. In the long run it won't matter how many Model S Tesla delivered in Q1 2015. What will matter is how devoted Tesla's customers are.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Interesting article, thanks! So Tesla is the safest player then because they use synthetic graphite and I thought Elon was talking all the way down the supply chain to the miners of the raw material, buying directly from them....
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I didn't know that Tesla was using synthetic graphite. That's good to know. Hopefully Elon has secured enough first rights to the other mining companies to ensure a smooth flow when the gigafactories are up and running.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I have a bit of an issue with the study since it ignores real world conditions that can further reduce range. Take the LEAF type vehicle used in their example, EPA rated 84 miles x 80% = 67 miles x 60% bad weather = 40 miles. As this winter showed those conditions can last for months in much of the country. Add in a safety buffer and it's even less. That's just not enough range for most people to feel comfortable with, and it clearly shows why Tesla's minimum 200 mile range is a better target.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    yeah- agreed; I was thinking the same thing. It pretty much ignored those effects. I think Tesla has it right with 200+ after these effects are accounted. Still a good study in general that shows a continuing disconnect with much of the market. Good sign for market growth and acceptance going forward I think, as the comfort gap closes over time
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Conversely, the study shows exactly why the very people who ought to be helping EV acceptance are having a negative effect on it. The study shows that EVs are more suitable for most people than they think, that people are surprised by how well they would work in their life, and yet for some reason this information hasn't gotten out further. Why is that? It's either because established industry is trying to discourage the new technology, or because those of us who know better aren't doing a good enough job of telling the public about it. By saying things like "the leaf has less than 40 miles of range." Please.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    How about Tesla embeds its range management software in a "Virtual EV". What the app would do is monitor your travel in vehicles and estimate how much energy and range you would have consumed if you were driving a Model S or some other EV. It would virtually recharge at home and when near Superchargers and other charging infrastructure. You would be able to do route planning with it. Ultimately, it would give you ample statistics on your own vehicle usage and range needs. Most people would find it is very hard to brorder their Virtual EV and become more comfortable buying an EV.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    This is freaking brilliant.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I concur. Very nice idea.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Lying to the public and pretending that a LEAF type vehicle has more useful range than it really does will help nothing. In the conditions I laid out, based on the parameters of the study, the LEAF very well could have less than 40 miles of range. I know you prefer to pretend that never happens, yet people who have actually bought the LEAF have found it unsuitable for their needs under certain conditions and after the pack lost capacity. There are long threads on LEAF forums discussing this, and those are early adopters. If those people have well documented issues with the range of the vehicle you can be sure the general public will have even more problems, which will hurt the adoption of EV's. Further, I'll once again point out that the general public is not reading these forums, so any realistic discussion of range is not discouraging anyone and not having a negative effect on anything. Looking at EV's through your "range colored glasses" will only produce disappointment in the public. Whenever I discuss EV's with the general public I talk about rated range, with realistic and appropriate caveats, and it's almost never enough for them, unless it's a Tesla. For some, even that's not enough. That's the real world.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    excellent idea
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    As a broad question, what reasons might a private company, (Space X), have for buying $90 million in Bonds for a company it is sort of partnered with, that is a publicly traded company (Solar City)?

    A while back Space X posted a picture that showed that Space X uses "technology from Solar City and Tesla Motors." Anyone familiar with this type of thing have any thoughts?

    I'm posting this here because this could relate to Tesla Motors, Solar City, or SpaceX.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    That is an absolutely perfect idea. Tesla are the first-movers in coming out with a comprehensive SC network. Now they could be first mover in providing the software/big data driven tools that will be important in the coming transformation to EVs.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    That's a truly fine suggestion, James. I gave you the credit when I emailed it to the Tesla Motors sales department. I hope you don't mind.

    Anyone who has contact with others at the company who might be influential may want to do the same.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest


    BMW had an app like this for the activeE. Trying to find what it was called because I don't remember. Not sure if it has been updated or if there are others like it. It wasn't very publicized and people tended not to use it because it used up a lot of battery and would drain their phone (ironic, I suppose) by constantly logging location services all day.

    edit: here's one for android, don't know if it's any good, just came up on google, seems to have bad ratings unfortunately https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.limosoft.evrange&hl=en

    - - - Updated - - -

    So your evidence for this are the "early adopters" who bought the first-year Leaf and live in hot climates, something which is a problem unique to that model, year and type of climate, and has been fixed in later versions and on other cars? Well, then you're doing exactly what I said, and what you just talked about - lying to the public and pretending that EVs are useless. Focusing on "caveats" instead of the real world.

    The reason that the general public thinks it's not enough for them is because people like you, who ought to know better, are actively trying to make them think that. You are the problem I was just talking about, you are creating the issue that the study was about, with this less than 40 mile nonsense of yours. You and your conversations with the general public are exactly why people have this unrealistic picture of EVs. kenliles posted a survey talking about realistic discussions of range, and all of a sudden you're cutting ranges down to 1/3 of the actual rated range. That's not realistic, that's ridiculous.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I'm happy if this idea has legs. Thanks.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    By the way this wouldn't need to be done by Tesla either, an independent app developer could do it. Doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to use (location services, map API, keep list of supercharger locations on a server, maybe integrate with plugshare and talk to them about it, have a nice UI...make sure to make the thing as light on battery use as possible though because it's no good if people never use it), but then again, I don't know how to develop mobile apps so maybe it's harder than I'd think. If anyone here does, or knows someone who does, and who would want to take this up, it could just get done without having to refer it to anyone's corporate structure. Tesla has a lot of things on their plate already and a lot of them are late so I would think there might be faster ways to go about it than through them...and then an app developer who makes a good enough app could show it to Tesla, their social media team could tweet/FB it, and maybe even the dev would get a job offer out of it :p Soo....who's gonna do it?

    edit:


    I found the BMW app. It was called "BMW EVolve" and is no longer available in the iOS store. It looks like it may still exist on Google play though? Here's the link: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bmw.activities&hl=en

    I don't know if it works, I don't have an android device. But yeah, this is a basic version of what we've been talking about here.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    These are good ideas. I'd be happy to see an enterprising programmer take this on.

    For me, the key issue is to get actual Tesla technology into people's hands. As an interactive marketing device, it's best if it comes directly from Tesla. I have found that my Tesla app is a great way to show off my car to folks. Similar design features can be built int this app. Building a little design studio into app would be good to. Let prospects pick out the color and other features they like. They can even name their Virtual Tesla.

    On the back side of this app, Tesla can learn what areas are most prone for range anxiety. This could provide feed back for locating more charging infrastructure. It would show where nonEV drivers would get in trouble.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Apparently you didn't understand the parameters of the study, which talked about the usefulness of a LEAF type pack at 80% of capacity. I just pointed out the potential effects of real world conditions on that pack, something you have a history of ignoring in these debates. If you tell people a LEAF always has an 80+ mile range you are lying to them, I don't do that. Even a brand new LEAF could find itself with a sub 60 mile range in winter conditions. That's reality, especially here in the Northeast. You might notice that kenliles agreed with my assessment.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Apparently you don't understand that 30% is not 80% over here in the real world. You tell people that the Leaf has an under-40 mile range, and are lying to them. You *do* do that. You are the problem.

    If you'd like to block my posts from your view, I'd love for you to do that. I'll be happily doing it for yours, as well, since I'm pretty tired of your nonsense. But it would be nice if you also wouldn't expose the general public to it, because you're causing the exact incorrect perceptions the study talks about. I guess I can't expect that of you since you're so committed to these lies, though.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I showed the math I used to arrive at my figure. Again, you ignore that, so you may as well just put me on ignore as well. Doesn't affect me at all.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    A while ago I made an app that attempted to track acceleration, distance driven, heat usage (that was manual), external temperature, and elevation change in an attempt to come up with a realistic energy usage model. I never was able to get it to match an EV I actually drove (ActiveE, S85, i3) within 20%. I gave up on it. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea--just the implementation is harder than one might think, or has too much manual input required, like the BMW app mentioned above. That app did nothing but track mileage and subtract from 100 (the ActiveE's "range"), but you had to remember to "start" and "stop" it. And GPS mileage turns out to be too different from real world mileage it didn't work very well even for that simple use case.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    This is one reason why it would be good to use Tesla's model / technology. It would be specifically calibrated to the Model S. The accuracy of the app to an actual Model S would be key to making the app credible. You can bet that people will try to Brorder the app or the Model S while using the app. But if Tesla's model is strong, it will hold up to this testing.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Concerning the virtual EV thing, it is a neat idea but if you get it you are probably one of the converted already. A few will buy it just to post on social media screencaps of their device saying "you have zero range left" with snarky commentary.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I think Jonas is way too utopian on shared autonomous vehicles. People have always shared vehicles when ownership is out of reach, just like people have shared apartments and rented out rooms to make ends meet. The existence of car sharing apps no more means people will abandon personal auto ownership than the existence of Airbnb mean that people will abandon home ownership. It just strikes me as naive to extrapolate from a few novel start ups to imagine that such cost savings measures will be adequate for everyone. Not everyone is going to rent out an unused room room in their home just to collect rent from strangers. Honestly I do not want to pimp out my Model S to strangers even if Blueberry becomes fully autonomous. If people really want to ride share to save money, there are plenty of opportunities to carpool or take public transportation. Having an app on your smartphone does not make such options all that more attractive. Fundamentally, autonomous vehicles will put professional drivers out of work. The cost savings from eliminating these jobs will enable people to make more frequent use of vehicles for hire. But in the end vehicle miles per capita will go up as the cost per mile and inconvenience of travel go down, and automakers will sell even more vehicles per year. Additionally roads will become more congested than ever as vehicles without any occupants roll about avoiding parking tickets.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Remember that remote lots or really dense, inconvenient lots like tandem parking won't trouble an autonomous vehicle. As roads get better utilization, so will parking lots. Right now if a lot isn't within walking distance to your destination it's garbage. With an automated fleet much more space can be used efficiently.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    In a different vision of the future: after dropping you off at your destination, the car picks up a new passenger down the block and gets back to productive work.

    SUDDEN REVELATION: it's all so clear now! The reason that there's almost no 'clutter-storage' in the Model S is that Elon is trying to train us not to leave anything in the car. Thus when our cars join Uber-Z and spend their days busily making money for us as autonomous taxis, we'll all be cool with that.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Sorry but reading this gave me pain.
    Every single sentence is basically ridiculous.

    Jonas is talking about shared fleets, not shared personal cars.
    Millennia's just don't care about car ownership, in fact its just considered a huge hassle and big cost point.
    People just want to have an on demand supercheap uber.
    Its trivial that using a shared fleet selfdriving car will be cheaper than using a personal car.
    It has some similarities to public transport, just without all the major downsides off.
    Sharing the ride with weirdos.
    Dirty interior.
    slower than a car.
    Doesn't drop you off right in front of your doorstep.
    scheduled times that you have to adjust to.


    Your argument about the "using an app to hire them doesnt change anything" made me literally facepalm.

    Do you realize the hyper growth of Uber in the last 4 years?
    from 0 to 39B$ market evaluation, present in over 50 countries.
    Just in London they have 20.000 operating Uber cars as of today.

    You think that would have been the case without the app?

    The only thing why I am less worried about the future of Tesla in a future of automated fleets is that premium segment will still be dominated by personal owned cars.

    Similar to the airline industry.

    Where the really wealthy people have their own private jets.
    and everyone else who cant afford it rides in the "shared jets"

    The cost to entry point will for personal self driving cars will obviously be much cheaper then for Privat jets.
    I guess around 35k$.
    I also see the Car become the second living room, and that more people could start to appreciate a nice interior.


    Tesla CTO JB Straubel talks about the future of electric cars at 2015 Vail Global Energy Forum | Electrek

    That a very good Panel with JB Straubel participating in it.
    One big topic is how the SDC will shape the future of the industry.

    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    One other big advantage that was mentioned in that talk was the possiblity of "dynamic highways"
    Problem:
    Typical highway has 3 lanes going inside the city, and 3 lanes going outside the city.
    In the Morning everyone wants to get inside the city, and there is traffic jam on the inside lanes, while the outside lanes are almost empty.


    In the evening everyone wants to get outside t he city, and there is a traffic jam on the outside lanes, while the inside lanes are almost empty.

    Solution:
    Mark the inner most lanes of the highway as "Dynamic lanes SDC ONLY".
    Those lanes will change their direction, e.g. from 5am to 2pm both lanes are "in the city lanes" and after 2pm they become "out of the city lanes"

    o = outside city lane
    i = inside city lane
    d = dynamic lane that changes from o to i depending on the time of the day.

    lanes typical as of today:
    | o | o | o | i | i | i |

    dynamic lanes:
    | o | o | d | d | i | i |

    morning:
    | o | o | i | i | i | i |

    evening:
    | o | o | o | o | i | i |


    And allow those lanes only to be used only by full automated SDC.
    That way we could increase the use of the infrastructure by about 33% without any huge expenses.

    That solution would never work with human beings as drivers, it would be a nightmare, but with SDC it will work.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    TD1, some cities do have dynamic lanes already, particularly on bridges, with human drivers.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Agree with your view on millennials. For many of them car ownership is a hassle not an aspiration. Apart from millennials, there is a huge chunk of people from all demographics that are currently forced into car ownership by their life circumstances. Once these people are presented with viable alternatives to personal ownership, they might opt out of ownership.

    Agree with your point about apps and their power in shaping the market and behaviors.

    Such solution already works with 100% compliance with human drivers on many roads in Sydney. Physical portable markers are placed on some lanes before and after peak traffic hours.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Talk about grotesque over generalizations.

    My nephew is a millennial. And he owns a Honda Accord.

    True he does not aspire to Lexus nor Mercedes.

    But he does want a Honda Pilot. He likes going to weekend music festivals and camping out. His girl friend owns a Ford Focus.

    What people tell pollsters/researchers they are going to do and what they actually do is not necessarily the same.

    What a 20 year old says he wants in his 40s is not necessarily his lifestyle when he reaches 45.

    I know a half a dozen college buddies who were never going to get married and were going to live in cool guy lofts downtown all their lives.

    And now are happily married in the suburbs with 2.5 children, a Lexus sedan and a Tahoe SUV.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Ain't that the truth, RobStark!
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The plural of anecdote is not data. You know two kids with cars, that doesn't mean much. Of course some kids will want cars. And some won't. And all the numbers suggest that the latter percentage is increasing.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I think in the future people will simply have many more options available to choose from, regarding not just car ownership but regarding many other life choices that were rather singular in the past.

    If the social trend is moving from a narrow or mono choice to multiple choices then such trend suggests that the number of people choosing one option out of the many is likely to go down.

    Such trends are apparent in people choosing not to marry or have children in societies in which such choice is more economically and socially affordable and acceptable than in the past.

    A choice not to have children is more prevalent in societies with more lifestyle options available to people. In a similar way, changing cultural values and more alternative transport options are likely leading towards more people opting out of car ownership.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    very well said

    a counter anecdote:
    Im 27 myself and would consider myself among the millennials.
    And most of my friends are quite successful, and could if they wanted own a 50k$ car or better.
    Yet most of them don't have cars, and if then its a basis model VW or Audi.
    (im from Europe)

    They really like to spend money on apartments, holidays and restaurants.

    Owning an expensive car is even considered stupid/douchy.
    Model S is an exception thought. :D
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Human behavior does not fundamentally change from generation to generation. What is different is that people have less money to spend.
    If you can't afford a car without giving up an unreasonable chunk of the paycheck, well, the bus and occasional taxi will do.

    People who can afford a car will continue to buy cars. People who can't/won't buy a car anyway could also 'rent' a car for a day/ get a nicer, cheaper 'taxi' experience.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    True, except people don't ever really change. A walk through history shows that. RobStark made an excellent point, that what people think and decide as young adults is often quite different than what they do when they've experienced more life, matured, and had to really live. What's important in life changes as we age. That's not to say that there aren't generational trends, but recognize that the car industry is growing despite what a specific generation may feel about them. With this (hopefully) new electric age being ushered in, people are going to change their minds, yet again, about cars - as is already showing evidence.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Panasonic recently released their 2019 forecast, doubling automotive sales to americas/EU,
    and have already booked orders worth ~$12.2B for 2019

    pana2r1uvp.png
    panasonicyqlxf.png
    (1 Trillion yen ~ $8.3B)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    That is interesting, thanks for posting.

    Do these projections include Gigafactory output?

    I find it quite strange that anyone would use the word 'comfort' as an impact word in their business strategy, talk about different cultures and different aspirations :biggrin:
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Along those lines, it strikes me how red is the positive growth color. in the US this chart would be green all over the place. Actually took me a moment to figure out what the chart meant.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I think so, but it isn't mentioned in their slide notes or the Q&A. It seems to be mostly about infotainment systems though.
    (the translator really lost her voice at the end)

    Vision / Strategy - IR Information - About Us - Panasonic

    From notes [Page 12]

    From Q&A:

    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Didn't know Panasonic had such a large revenue from car batteries already, apparently they generated $10B of sales in FY15, less than 1/10th of these sales must have gone to Tesla, where did the rest go? Are they a large producer of the small car batteries you can find in every car?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Speaking of batteries, there is a gem of a video Tesla investors should watch. Here is the TMC discussion of it:

    Why do Li-ion Batteries die? And how to improve the situation?

    it is a college professor discussing different types of cell chemistry and what makes them degrade and fail. He does a good job of relating everything to Tesla too so you can keep score. It made me understand a lot better what TM is doing right on the battery chemistry front.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I'm always on the lookout for a rational bear argument against Tesla, so I enjoy listening to discussions such as this:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/video/call-day-tesla-211600796.html

    The arguments on the bear side in this video are current valuation, China concerns, profit margin erosion, and competition. So here's my 2 cents on these 4 points:

    1) Current valuation certainly can be debated on either side, as can any growth stock. A market cap of 4x 2015 sales is quite reasonable for a company growing at 50% per year, however.

    2) China does not concern me....TSLA doesn't need China in the near-term; and as Elon stated, I'm sure that the Chinese are eventually going to want the best car in the world.

    3) Regarding profit margin erosion, although the Model X will cut into the margins in the short-term, TSLA's stated goal is to maintain at least 25% gross margins.

    4) Competition....really?? Where? By the time any serious competition comes to market, TSLA will be completely dominant.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Competition is also not a negative. Tesla already built a great car and brand, so that is not a concern. The concern is to spur consumers into action and get them to stop buying the ******** they are buying. It's not like tesla needs to make a better car to beat what's out there, what they need to overcome is reticence and lack of information. Who can help get information out there and make people stop thinking electric cars are aberrant? Teslas "competitors".
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Competition, when it finally comes from traditional auto makers, will be a tough sell. As Tesla has pointed out many times, it takes an average of 3-4 hours of discussion, education, etc. with a potential buyer to sell a Tesla. When Audi, BMW, etc. finally do produce a compelling, long-range EV, they must sell them through their traditional dealerships....again, a tough sell.

    Furthermore, unless Tesla agrees to allow those autos to share in the supercharger network, demand will be miniscule compared to the EVs that Tesla has been producing for years.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    For the most part Tesla can be ignored in the moment (they have such a small market share), but a few of them (like Porsche) have got to feel the noose tightening (as Tesla continues to grab more and more of that high end market share).

    It's possible that Tesla and its Model 3 will do the vast majority of the education, such that IF GM/Nissan/fill in the blank do manage to bring that affordable 200+ mile BEV to market, their dealerships won't have to spend much more than a few minutes answering basic questions: How far does it go on a charge? How fast can I charge it? Do you have OTA updates? What's your battery warranty? And they might not even have to spend that much time. A lot of people go to dealerships already armed with a bunch of information and knowing what they want so as to avoid as much of the dealership experience as possible. There will also be the SuperBowl ads and such that the other OEMs can use for education.

    I'm not really sure at what point pressure from Tesla forces a radical flip by OEMs or the snowball down a mountain to the end. It's not here yet, but there's got to be some uneasy feelings taking hold. Personally, I'm hoping for a spectacular implosion of several, followed by the emergence of a few new from unexpected sources. Change can be painful, especially when you fight against it and seem determined to stay in one place.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I now wish that TM would start a modest TV ad campaign. Real modest scale, very tasteful. It would drive up wait times a bit yes, but I think at this point that is what Mr. Market (and I) want. All of the risk in the stock is connected to the fear that the bottom will fall out before the model III. Also, TM needs to position themselves in the general public as THE EV supplier. A lot of people think that now, but for the vast majority of even Americans have never heard of them and don't understand the mission. It would be a disaster if in 1-2 years GM had a superbowl ad and campaign talking about some dumb compliance car that cemented the idea that EV's are terrible.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    That would instantly crater the stock because every tv channel, newspaper, blog, site, media outlet would come out screaming that demand is flagging and Tesla now needs to advertise. There is only one scenario in which I think Tesla should advertise now - if they can make 100k Model Ss per year - announce that and then start the ad campaign.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I hear that. But if you presume they will need to work on demand at some point in the next 3 years, which I think is a reasonable assumption, do they dare wait until the very week they NEED to work on demand? Is that not too late? That is why start slow with an introduction campaign.

    You can head off the "Tesla is desperate" story line by just laying out the strategy ahead of time. Say they want to gradually work on the campaign, so they are doing the prudent thing and feathering in to build brand awareness.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Imminent Model 3 volume production is when IMHO they should start if they don't have sufficient deposits anyway to sell out for the foreseeable future already. They can then rely on the laurels of the Model S/X to promote their high volume car.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I believe Elon talked a bit about advertising in the last earnings call, as I remember it he said that he didn't know when it would make sense to start advertising; maybe this year or maybe next year, or something along those lines. I think it would be great timing to start advertising late this year after the X launch, with the 2k/week capacity soon available to stimulate demand so they can keep expanding production with a reasonable backlog. It's going to be interesting how the market responds when Elon starts talking seriously about advertising, the immediate thought is obviously for it to have a negative effect, but with sufficient hints about what demand it might lead to I think it could actually be pretty positive. The back bone of the bear argument is that Tesla is valued extremely lofty, but if 110k cars can be delivered in 2016, that would be $11-12B in revenue, and mean a P/S ratio of a mere 2.3, that must make Tesla on of the absolute cheapest growth stocks in the market.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I'm reminded here of a great tale:

    Thomas Edison invented this great light bulb, but too few homes had power to really let sales go anywhere. What did he do? He built electric utilities: Consolidated Edison of New York, Boston Edison, Commonwealth Edison (Chicago), Southern California Edison, and so on, to sell his light bulbs. At first, he priced the light bulbs to include the cost of all the power they were likely to use in their (somewhat limited) lifetimes. This was a brilliant scheme, inasmuch as the utility didn't have to have meters, people to read meters, or billing & collections departments. But Edison didn't have a monopoly on what devices people could plug into his free utility, so eventually he had to shift to charging for power and bulbs separately.

    I'm not sure that this bit of history is indicative of the future for Tesla, but it's worth thinking about.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    i agree with just some awareness catalyzing with a very minor and modest ad campaign now...however, I think Elon probably takes a sense of pride in not needing to advertise and is reluctant for that very reason...it would be great if Tesla can get to III and build awareness enough without ads to where they never will need to advertise to catalyze the awareness, but it is an IF and a chance they are taking... The flip side is if Tesla had enough capacity for some period of time to build/sell more cars then they actually do at some point on the way to III and pays a dear opportunity cost of not doing the modest awareness ad campaign now that would have kept them demand constrained all the way up to III

    as a prideful investor in TSLA since 2011 a big part of me doesn't want them to advertise and thinks it will be great to get away without needing to pay for formal advertising, but when I set my pride aside I think it would be the prudent thing to do...just to seed more demand for the future and insure them from having to pay the 'opportunity cost' cited above
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Mercedes and BMW don't need to do much ordinary advertising for their large premium sedans, and neither does Tesla. SUVs and mid-range sedans are different. I expect more traditional marketing will begin between the X and 3 launches to prepare the 3 market for maximum uptake, accelerate X sales and maintain growth in the S once manufacturing capacity is available.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Everyone knows about BMW and Mercedes and considers their lineup, at least to some extent, when buying a new car if its in the price range. Tesla needs to establish brand awareness, I'm sure not even 20% of the population, at least here in Europe, knows about Tesla to the extent of their SC network which ofcourse is very key knowledge as it dealt with what probably is the largest problem people have with BEVs; range anxiety. Well maybe 20% is a bit low, I feel like it must be below 50% of potential (affluent) customers for sure, which obviously means an ad campaign could potentially double sales, imagine that.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Who watches TV anymore? Tesla is already very good at delivering advertising content through the Internet at very little cost. I really liked that ad on autopilot tech that came out on the first of this month. The real bomb are viral videos that everyone shares and talks about. Tesla is quite strong on social media.

    Once Tesla crosses over to paid media, there are many very focused options. Certainly the internet is central because Tesla's primary sales channel is online. In states like Texas which inhibit Tesla's free speech, it may be a real hoot to put up billboards that read, "Don't tell Texans where they can't buy their Tesla. TeslaMotors.com" Go ahead and let the TADA sue. Another avenue is to push a lot of licensed merchandise. Many people would be proud to wear branded shirts even if they can't afford the car. This is all brand marketing and builds long-term brand loyalty. Finally, product placement in media is very good.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    A lot of people does. Sure if Tesla can spread the word about their qualities without paying for it I agree that would be the best, but even though they have done an excellent job so far I think there is still a large part who haven't been enlightened about the future of transportation yet, and a TV ad would definately help to quickly get the word out to the nooks and crannies of the population quickly.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Somebody has to educate the public on the merits of the ev and tesla, and education will cost .
    It's in teslas interest to do so.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I have never loved the "free for life" model. It wouldn't change the value proposition that much if you took out the reserve from the car's price, whatever that is, and just had the car charge you some nominal fee when you charge. It wouldn't have to be any harder, swiping a card or anything, just have a credit card attached to your Tesla account and charge something for your usage. Almost any mechanism you pick would work, like a nominal $.10/kWh flat, rounded down. That for example would probably not fully offset the cost, so it is still a bargain. The cost of road tripping is still very, very low and seldom used anyway. But this nominal charge would eliminate the possibility of unintended consequences down the line. There are scenarios it is not hard to imagine where unlimited for life becomes untenable. Suppose that Model S' really do last for a long, long time. After 15 years and 4 owners a typical car might be going for 20k and be all beat up but still running. Those cars will still be eligible for free supercharging and eventually you can have a situation where every car has taken more than the purchase price put into the system. It works only if the company is growing endlessly. If, heaven forbid, growth slowed and they became a mid-major producer in 2020 with let's pretend flat production, the fleet size would continue to grow endlessly while receipts would not. It is a little like social security, if half of the population lived forever.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Math is hard, consequences are obvious.
    Free for life is not free at all, it is prepaid and vastly overpaid for mere kWh.

    Charging for charging would end SC network before it even got started.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    "It works only if the company is growing endlessly..."

    Or if Tesla has free access to power, I.e. generates their own :smile:

    RT
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Whenever they do start an advertising campaign, TSLA should absolutely pre-announce the campaign in a Shareholder Letter. It should explain why they are advertising, what method they will use (Television, Internet, etc.) and the scope of the campaign. This would go a long way in reducing volatility associated with having to guess these things.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Ok, here is one unintended consequence. There is a fair amount of chatter that supercharging is being throttled if you are within some circle, say 50 miles of your home. People are reporting a max of 60kW charging. The theory is that Tesla is discouraging people who happen to live close to a SC from making that their routine charging. If so, they seem to recognize the danger in having a few cars that do most of their charging at a SC instead of home. Users are (rightly)complaining that if that is their policy, it is a bad idea since it will just double the time people are parked and hurt availability to travellers. If they were just charging money for charging your car this wouldn't matter. This becomes more of a problem if they try to address urban owners who do not have garages. If the solution to that is urban superchargers in Beijing, Paris, London etc then those users would 100% super charge. How do you reconcile that useage model with the fixed prepaid pricing?

    - - - Updated - - -

    They have what, one solar supercharger? Don't look for this to be a priority.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    If they play it right the public legal battle against the dealer franchise laws will provide plenty of "free" advertising.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    From what I can tell, that's a completely unfounded conspiracy theory. Keep in mind that you only get about 60kW at 50% SOC, and if you're close to home, there's a good chance you're not empty.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I'm sure Tesla Legal doesn't view these suits as "free". But at least they can get some PR upside from the legal costs.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Tesla BEV Competition Developments

    The "throttling" rumor has been convincingly debunked by many reports of people, including me, getting normal charge rates at SCs near them.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Of course it will cost them. But they should make a big, public debacle out of the whole thing to get as much media mentions and airtime as possible. Of course the dealerships will try to spin it as "your poor local friendly car dealer who's looking out for your best interest is going to go out of business" but that won't fly - people in general don't like dealers and common sense dictates that Tesla should have the right to sell directly.

    The legal costs will be there no matter what, so might as well play it for all the PR possible.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Given his position, I think he's smart enough to know the three are strongly correlated and, as such, he's simply manipulating.

    - - - Updated - - -

    $2500 option for supercharging

    $2500 / (kWh / $0.10) = 25 MWh prepaid

    25 MWh * (mi / 300 Wh) = 83,333 miles

    So you've prepaid 83,333 miles of supercharging. I'm quite confident that most buyers will not consume that much supercharger juice in 8 years or even for the life of the vehicle.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Rate of return on capital.
    Costs of ongoing account management and financial transactions.
    Law that prevents charging by kWh.
    Law that requires alternative method of payment.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest

    Well, that 2500 is being spent in a variety of ways. Is it for energy or for buildout of the supercharger network? Regardless, I don't think it is going into a SC electricity trust fund to provide liquidity forever in case TM goes out of business right? It just goes into the cash flow and they pay the bills with cash. It just seems like an accounting headache. Even if your right, this is another way that TM is making it unnecessarily difficult to understand the business and make hater/enemies. If an ICE driver hears someone offering "Free gas for life" they should know it's a scam because there is no way that could be, so when people hear "Free electric driving for life" it similarly sounds fishy.

    My ENTIRE point isn't that this is a wrong way to do it, but rather I wish they had financed in another clearer, more conventional way. It would strike something off of the list of things we have to "defend" from detractors.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    think of it like social security in the US - current workers pay retired workers. current buyers pay for existing owners if that makes it easier :)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Yes, exactly. And people (in the US) are beat over the head with how risky that technique is and how in the future it will need to be fixed or reduce pay outs. Rather than copying social security, just make it a conventional commercial transaction. People get that.

    I understand it isn't up to me and we aren't voting on the future of supercharging. I just have an opinion.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Tesla BEV Competition Developments

    You are all forgetting that supercharging is a form of advertising. It's a billboard, it's customer satisfaction, etc. if it doesn't cost tesla much in the scheme of things, and I'm sure it doesn't, then it is a worthwhile expenditure. How many of you consider supercharging to be the thing that sets tesla apart? If this is costing tesla 1% of their total revenue (no idea what the real number is but I feel like 1% is overshooting it), is that worth it? I say yes. Heck it could even become a revenue stream with grid balancing and solar. Not to mention it's illegal to charge by kWh as a previous poster said. So why nickel and dime people? Just make it free. No big deal.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I disagree. Let me give you an example. Suppose I told you that I eat out at least once a week (but don't really "schedule" it) and then you said, "Well how can I accurately account for how much you're spending on eating out?" My answer: I don't know and I don't care; you're making it more difficult, not me. :) I don't bookkeep how often I supercharge and, AFAIK, Tesla probably doesn't bother either. It's not that they can't or "shouldn't" but that they have better things to spend resources on than small ball.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The supercharging model is superior, if only due to human psychology.

    Just think about how many people buy hybrids or diesels today, when many drivers are likely never to recoup those costs when compared to the normal gas models.

    I further expect that in order to maximize the psychological superiority of the supercharger network, Musk will always include supercharging baseline with every vehicle going forward, and he won't be disclosing the fact that such a feature is itemized out in internal accounting to make sure supercharging doesn't cause them to lose money. It's a win-win-win situation; the average consumer thinks they get free charging for life and doesn't think they're paying for it, the company on average will bring in more money than it will through the hidden "supercharger surcharge", and the network is effectively self-funded and self-sufficient.

    The best part is that since Tesla (supposedly) has cheaper batteries than the competition, even if you had two identical vehicles with Model 3 v. Bolt at similar prices and similar features, Tesla will still have its supercharger network available for "free". Consumers desire value in a vehicle, and the Model 3 will by and large have it.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    But the prepay model is a brilliant solution to the "chicken and egg" problem: people won't buy an EV for the lack of proper charging, so too few people pay for charging to fund the buildout of charging infrastructure.

    Solution: prepay for proper charging + the company throws in some finds at the start, a positive cycle develops where people take the leap and buy a Tesla since there is charging infrastructure, more prepayments are made (with each car purchase), more infrastructure gets built, more people adopt EVs, etc etc ad infinitum or at least until the infrastructure is mature.

    And note that with this simple, yet brilliant model, the buildout "pays for it self" except for the initial investment for Tesla. But the payoff from that investment has been huge since it has been a big part of getting past the enthusiast and first adopter buyers.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Actually, this made me think of something unfortunate. People commonly dislike "politicians" or "congress," and yet still continue to vote for their own representative. There's a related issue in people who are prejudiced against an entire group, unless they happen to know someone of that group, and will often write that one person off as the exception. So I wonder if, actually, people hate car dealers in general but have a disproportionately favorable view of their own car dealer. I bet this is probably the case. So that spin might actually work better than you would otherwise hope, unfortunately.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    While primary power generation with their own solar may not be a priority for Tesla now while they are using their capital to build out the supercharger infrastructure and they have a mere tens of thousands of cars on the road consuming a relatively inexpensive amount of energy, that doesn't mean it won't be a priority when there are 10X as many cars on the road and they are largely done construcing the charges themselves.

    In other words, building a $100 million worth of solar infrastructure to cover $10 million worth of electricity over the last 2 years isn't worth it... spending that amount to cover $250 million worth of energy costs over the next 5 years is.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    eloder - Consumers vastly overestimate the importance of startup costs and underestimate the importance of running costs. Hybrids are actually an example of this, not of the opposite as you are using them. Hybrids still only sell single-digit percentages, despite being familiar and old technology, which is successful and does indeed save money over the life of the vehicle, and yet still people aren't buying them. The reason for that is because when given the opportunity to spend 2k more now and save 3-4k over the life of the vehicle, the consumer will usually choose not to do that.

    Of course Tesla's approach is different from this, since they obfuscate the cost of supercharging (by including it "free" with cars, and not allowing people not to buy it), and since supercharging isn't just a cost/money saving scheme but changes the way you use the vehicle.

    But human psychology would in fact dictate that it would be more effective for Tesla to charge ongoing costs for charging, rather than a startup cost. If the target were to make money from supercharging. Which it isn't.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    While I do see your point and agree that human psychology is not always very rational like that you'll also have to agree that if this was the case - that people in general liked their local car dealer and had generally positive experiences from dealing with them - well, then the general opinion regarding car dealer would be that they are a good thing worth protecting. Which it isn't.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Right, but the same can be said about congress. 10% approval and 90% incumbency. Obviously there is a disconnect there.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Man, I have stirred up the hornet's nest ;)

    I agree it is great for the consumer. I also agree it is a great sales tool, sorta. I was giving my sales speech to an older couple who had very little exposure to the car. They knew it was expensive and not much else. I gave them the economic approach: It is a high initial outlay yes, but think of it as pre-paying for fuel, plus I expect less depreciation than a similar ICE car (plan to drive it a long time). I then explained how you can charge at the superchargers in the time it takes to take a short rest, and its free for life. It is a great line, and it surprised them and aren't we all so smart.

    BUT...

    This actually requires more brain cycles to understand than simply "it costs like 5-7$ to fill up." I fully understand that zero is better than $7. I fully understand that this way is easier on TM and avoids the costs of setting up and administering a website for billing. I fully expect if someone else had taken up this position I would be joining you in refuting it :)

    They only reason we think pre-paid-free-for-life-no-billing is great is because we are inside the church of Tesla and we have had time to absorb it and understand it. For those outside the church it is one more thing to think is Elon magical thinking and one more reason to think something is "fishy". It is different just for different's sake. EV drive train, direct sales, SC network--- these are different for awesomeness. This one not so much.

    Think of it this way. Suppose Tesla announced that they can do more for the Earth and make more money by phasing out auto sales after 100k units and focusing entirely on battery systems and stationary storage. (that might actually be true, but I am not suggesting that will happen). Now there is a fleet of 100k cars that have been promised energy for life. For "Tesla Energy" this would be a cash outlay every month in perpetuity. For the company this would be a liability with a real cost. No new car pre-paid would be coming into the system to offset the costs. That liability goes into the valuation of the company, and the company is worth less than it would be without such a liability.

    This same phenomenon is happening now within the company but bulls will ignore it and write it off as "easily affordable" or "its free advertising". But the casual investor isn't going to automatically understand that. Nice for company stockholders to shift the cost of that liability to drivers so it is off the books entirely.

    Plus, this isn't going to go perfectly forever. Someone, eventually is going to buy a model III taxi fleet that drives 150 miles/day. Say $.12/kwh, 300 days a year that is ~1400$/year. That is an aggregious overuse of the shared pool. Will that not cause friction? TM will have to decide to look the other way and accept a larger-than-modelled expenditure or set obtrusive policies for over users that will sweep up innocent commuters who happen to drive crazy distances.

    tl;dr: Communism bad. Invisible hand of commerce good.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I suspect this will change with Model 3 as it will enable Tesla to advertise lower base model price.
    It is that that Model S is climbing higher where feature list needs to be as long as possible.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Is the reason for this not more to do with the highly polarising effect of 2 party politics? Sure, everyone hates congressmen, but a through-and-through southern republican would never vote for a democrat just because he's dissatisfied with the performance of Congress (and vice versa for a New England liberal democrat). Once election time comes around it's all about 'us vs them' and everyone rallies around 'their' guy. It seems to be (to me, as a very interested, but foreign, observer) almost entirely about ideology, not performance in Congress.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The difference between free and very cheap is still important (yes I know it's not free for real, but prepaid). At home I've got a charger and charge slowly. On a recent trip to Belgium using superchargers, I stayed in Antwerp. They have a supercharger south of the city, about 5 miles out. Instead of messing around with finding local regular plugs for charging which sometimes are broken or you get problems getting the payment solution to accept your money etc I drove the small distance to the supercharger and charged there.
    End result because it was free I didn't mess around with the slower and more hassleprone solution. I went to the supercharger, which is at a Tesla store and had a cup of coffee, used their Wifi and got a charge. Extra outlay for Tesla, minimal, the effect of me telling all my friends and family that using a Tesla and superchargers even work without my own charger at home in a foreign country propably worth a lot more...

    So the advertising effect is real and significant, because they do just work, just like gas pumps do...

    Cobos
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    But AustinEV: in the a-bit-more-distant future the following will likely happen:
    1) Tesla will sell substantially more cars every year than they have done so far
    2) the SC network gets "fully built out" at least in
    places like the US and Western Europe
    3) Electricity will be relatively speaking cheaper than it is today, especially when generated on-site with solar or off-set by solar someplace else.

    1+2 means a lot less $$$ per car going towards investments in further expansion

    3 means the money claimed as pre-payment covers even more kWh.

    With this in mind $2000 per vehicle, or thereabouts, looks like a pretty sweet deal for Tesla but is at the same time still a good value proposition for the customer.

    Also, these cars won't "live for ever" and for large taxi fleets just look at Schipol Airport: they have their own charging set up. I don't know the details but I believe it's a bunch of 22kW AC charging. There is no public SC there. I don't believe they have a SC and if they do I'm sure it's financed and being run separately from the general SC network. I believe there are some terms in the purchase agreement that states that "free for life Supercharging (prepaid)" is in fact limited to personal use (not commercial use) but don't hold me to this statement.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    In all fairness that's because in politics, especially American politics (I hope I'm not offending anyone too much), the candidates will say a lot of stuff during their campaigns and give the impression that they will act according to a certain ideology but once they're in office they are more or less just implementing the policies dictated by the special interests that got them in to office. Naturally the voters get disappointed. Wait 4 years, rinse and repeat. People never learn.

    As the famous quote by Boss Tweed goes: "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating."

    William M. Tweed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    (Oh boy this post is going on the politics quarantine thread) :)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I don't know about that statement either, but there were (before Redondo and Culver superchargers, and before there were also HPWCs at Hawthorne) lots of limos/hire cars at Hawthorne supercharging. By "lots" I mean that when I was there, there were usually 1 or 2 (out of 6 stations at the time).
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I will try to extract myself from this, but you are doing a great job of explaining why the current model of financing it is probably fine, which I agree with. My beef is that it takes a complex analysis to explain it to people. I dislike the financial complexity. I am not afraid that TM will go bankrupt over it, I am afraid that Mr. Market applies an unnecessary discount to the stock value because of indeterminate commitments like this.

    Actually when I explain the SC network, i don't say its free. I say its free, then they look at me like I am crazy, then I say "well its more prepaid. There is like $2000 built into the price of the car that is for electricity. Since each charge is about $5 it is virtually impossible to spend that much so it works". So, that is a needlessly complicated message. I could just say don't worry about it its magic, but that is worse; people can't just accept something for nothing, they want to pull at the threads to find the scam.

    I am probably in the minority in thinking of the liability and losing sleep over it. Y'all are sleeping well and don't understand and that is perfectly fine :)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Even if this was plausible, I don't believe this to be a huge deal.

    Cell phone carriers with unlimited data plans subsidize the top 5% of users with the bottom 95%. Broadband providers often do the same thing.

    Warranties are also "free". In reality, it isn't though, because it's built into the price of the car. There will be people who receive more in warranty work than the entire worth of their car. Like supercharging, warranties are disproportionately paid out where some people TM essentially pay to be a customer through warranty work, while others will never see use of that warranty once.

    This is true of many other industries and services--insurance, buffets, roads... I could go on.

    I think the positive word of mouth and the power of the supercharging network are well worth the downsides, in its current model, and I think Musk would be making a huge mistake to separate it out and itemize it as a separate feature for the Model 3.

    Also, I don't see why it's an issue even if TM goes bankrupt, or if the charging network has to be sold to another company. You're still capable of charging Tesla vehicles without the supercharger network. This sort of thing, also, happens all the time in the consumer world. An example would be a dealership who offers free car washes for life. If that dealership is bought out, they may no longer offer free car washes for life. It's the risk of being a consumer.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    No need to be insulting or draw incorrect conclusions. Not agreeing with you doesn't imply that the other person doesn't understand; it also says very little about how well others sleep.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    To me it sounded like he was joking.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I don't think it's that complicated to explain it. Just explain the two aspects separately
    1) Up-front payment to help with the up-front cost of building the Superchargers, which is much greater than the electricity costs.
    2) Benefits of up-front payment for average electricity use: better experience for car owner, better for Tesla, win-win lowering average cost

    I think it's really important to communicate the first point.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I agree. "don't understand" = "don't understand why I'm so worried".
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Since the patents are open then any of the other manufacturers should be able to build thier own superchargers with the same connection. However sincw the software handshake may be different the parallel networks may not be interchangeable unless a common protocol is established
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Nope - here is the US the politicians are quite upfront about what they are going to vote for in the campaign and then follow through. The trick is to get enough voter groups together on issues that they don't really care about in order to trade support for issues that they do. Some sort of ideological framework helps, but it doesn't need to make much sense.

    Just look up "Kansas budget" and the newly re-elected governor for example
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    You've lost me.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I think we all understand that it's not a liability at all.

    I also have never had a problem explaining it to anyone.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I haven't really seen investors complaining about supercharger cost. It's pretty obvious superchargers are one of the top factors for Tesla's appeal (if you removed superchargers sales would not be where it is today). Also it's easily explained away by mentioning that there's a $2000 fee that covers it.

    Plus in your hypothetical situation where Tesla ceases to sell any cars, at most Tesla will only have a liability of supporting the network for 10-20 years. Remember, Tesla only promises that the supercharger network is free for the life of the car, not free until the end of time.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    That's true, in a way. But the other way of looking at it is that it's much more than $5 per chargeup... because compare it to CHAdeMO for example, where you pay something like $12 per hour and would need to charge for 2 hours to get the same amount of energy, not to mention losing an extra 80 minutes of your life waiting for it. I think that, to me, each supercharging experience is worth much more like $20-$40, not just the $5 for the cost of the power. Maybe even more.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I don't remember where the conversation about advertising was, but continues along from that.

    I am at an ophthalmology conference in San Diego and the organizers of the conference are giving away a Tesla (bought by the conference organizers) as a grand prize to try and get more attendees to go to the exhibition floor where companies are peddling their goods. Each booth has been given 45 raffle tickets for the Tesla and it will be raffled off on Sunday. There is a Tesla parked prominently outside the exhibition hall.

    Note that Tesla didn't pay one cent for this free advertising that will be seen by thousands of people attending the conference, most of whom could afford a Model S/X, and will likely generate some degree of buzz and hype about winning the car. It also cements the car for people seeing as the best car out there and unique/special.

    I was very happy to see all of this and it's a nice stream of free advertising.

    Another example is the Children's Hospital in Vancouver having a "dream lottery" where tickets are $100 each and the big prizes are homes and cars. The car this year is a Tesla and it is always mentioned in the ads.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Everyone keeps parroting that $2500 (sometimes $2000) number. But it is simply not true. Yes, you have paid $2500 or whatever for that option, but Tesla only uses $500 of the revenue as a reserve for future supercharger access delivery (see SEC annual filing for 2014 page 68 : As of December 31, 2014, we had deferred $25.6 million related to access to our Supercharger network; divide by the number of outstanding cars at that time and you get to $500). The rest of the money is used to make Tesla's gross margin and currently that means it goes to servicing Tesla's huge capital expenditure. The money is gone. Read the filings. That whole $2500 is eaten up by the investment in the supercharger network which alone has already cost upwards of $120M (once again divide by the approx 50k cars sold end of last year).

    So here we are with $500 which must cover not just electricity but also maintenance and lease (read the filing again, Tesla pays a lease for a number of supercharger locations; premium parking space in London, Amsterdam or Tokyo is not free). Let's be extremely generous and put maintenance costs for a supercharger stall over the lifetime of the model S at 10% of initial costs (or $12M). There goes slightly less than half of the reserve. Throw in some incidentals like the leases connection costs and we are looking at probably $250 of that reserve left for pure electricity costs. That comes down to 8000 miles of supercharging (note that electricity in the Netherlands and Germany is significantly more expensive and a quick google seems to confirm California also has high rates).

    The reasons the numbers work is not because you prepaid a lot, but because many of your fellow Tesla owners don't use the supercharger network at all.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    So the build-out of the Supercharger network is free? No part of the initial $2000 from this "number of outstanding cars at that time" has been used to set up the initial run of SuperChargers build until December 31, 2014?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Wow, I'm not sure if we are talking about BEV competition here. In any event there are two things I'm not sure have been said. First, I could swear one of the executives actually said recently that only the first 1 million cars get free supercharging but I can't find that. The second thing I think we fail to consider is that it is "free" for [the] "life" of the battery. When the owner needs a new battery then Tesla has an opportunity to collect the appropriate amount of revenue to pay for supercharger use. The car may last forever but the battery will not.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I've not heard either of those things said publicly by anyone from Tesla.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    JB talked about it in the recent future of transportation talk. Starts around 13:00.

    The Future of Transportation - YouTube
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Maybe I wasn't clear (English is not my first or second language) so I would encourage you to read the filing for yourself. The money spend to build-out the supercharger network was more than than $2000 times the number of cars sold at the end of last year.

    This is at the earliest after 8 years though.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    English is not my first language either, and it may be contributing to that I do not make me sufficiently clear. But I try anyway :tongue: (bear with me please... :smile:)

    From what you are saying, X is the number of cars sold at the end of last year:
    $2000 * X = amount paid for build out and maintain the SuperCharger network, and pay for the electricity.
    - $2000 * X < amount paid to *build* out the network alone up to this point.
    - $500 * X = amount reserved to pay for the electricity in the future.
    -------------
    = $rest that is "used to make Tesla's gross margin and currently that means it goes to servicing Tesla's huge capital expenditure. The money is gone."

    I'm not sure the exact number used for X, but I don't care. No matter what it is, this $rest that you say is used to servicing Tesla's huge capital expenditure is from what I can see a negative number...

    In the future, when less money is spend on building out this network, I'm sure that the reserved amount to pay for future maintains and electricity will be more then $500 for each car sold that year. But in this initial period they have spend more on this, and therefor has reserved less money for this.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Tesla BEV Competition Developments

    What JB Strauble said was that the current prepaid Supercharger system works well for "the first million cars or so" and after that Tesla MAY CONSIDER "phasing it out" and go to a pay per charge system.
    So he did not definitely say that "only the first million cars" will use the pre paid charging model, he only said after Tesla has built around a million cars they might move away from that system. So any possible change is years away.
    Also, I have only heard from Tesla that the current "free Supercharging" system is for the life of the "car", it is not tied to a specific battery.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    My apologies I should have been clearer. When I said that Tesla had "opened its patents" I didn't mean that literally. They still have their patents and the right to enforce them, its just that they would enforce them less vigorously provided they weren't being abused. As Chad correctly points out there are a number of conditions that Tesla will invoke prior to permitting another manufacturer to use their specifications. As we know a patent isn't a cookbook instructing the reader how to build their product. Those manufacturing instructions would have to be provided by Tesla to facilitate adoption. In other words, I doubt another manufacturer could build their own version of a Supercharger without Tesla's permission and assistance without facing legal action.

    Larry

    Edit: A more likely approach is that Tesla would sell the connector and firmware to other EV manufacturers and charge a fee for access to the Supercharger network. That is, other manufacturers wouldn't have to build anything on their own to benefit from the Supercharger network.
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)