Thứ Hai, 31 tháng 10, 2016

Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA) part 20

  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I suggest you take s look at the "flat" delivery.. It is not flat at all.:)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Does Tesla buy all their motors?

    I thought they were making motors in house and were outfitting the Lanthrop facility to make motors?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I could have sworn that in one of the many Tesla documentaries I have seen showed them making the motors in house. It went into detail as they were spooling the copper and putting the different strands into a sheath.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest



    Science Channel's documentary shows Tesla's electric motors being built at Fremont.

    Starts at 5:42.


    They may buy electric motors for power windows from Japan. Or something else.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Flat curve guesstimate here:

    Q1 9,500 MS Flat deliveries.
    Q2 12,500 MS Flat deliveries.
    Q3 13,500 MS Flat deliveries.
    Q4 15,500 MS Flat deliveries plus
    4,000 MX flat = 55k.

    Easy as pie.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest

    Per your link "Fukuta Electric & Machinery Co. in Taiwan has collaborated with Tesla Motors on the development of a copper rotor induction motor for Tesla�s electric Roadster."


    One of the requirements of Tesla's DoE loan was to on shore a minimum of the powertrain production to the US.


    Tesla has since repaid the loan in full but have not seen/read anything since that they are going back overseas for the production of the powertrain motors or their components.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Outsourcing the rotor alone should not change the percentage of US made components that much. Plus there is this:

    http://english.cw.com.tw/article.do?action=show&id=14438&offset=3
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    That might be true where you live, but it is certainly not true where I am. The urban schools nearest to me continue to deteriorate to the point where many believe the situation is hopeless without a major government intervention.

    The unfortunate truth is that race, and to an even greater extent, class, means that the well-to-do here choose the suburbs over the city.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest

    You forgot the headline .......Why Did Taiwan Lose Tesla?

    Any one piece is not much but they add up.

    No mention of Model S production just preparation for expected Model X contract.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Does anyone else keep hearing the music from Close Encounters when they see this?

    Untitled.png

    Looks like Devil's Tower to me!
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Around Model S launch in 2012 there was an article with picture of Fukuta guy(CEO or something) holding Model S copper rotor. So most likely at least some rotors were produced by them. But Tesla may have insourced production since then. Or found another supplier.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Since that article is from Oct 2013 it's also possible that with the X delay and increased S production and the introduction of the D, along with the loan payback and presumably no further NA content requirement, that Fukuta was back in play sooner.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I'm not saying it won't happen, but... I wouldn't say it so matter-of-fact that they *will* raise more capital. Elon has said for the next couple YEARS they will not need to raise capital. If they get the kind of cash flows that he has been hinting at that starts in Q3/Q4 of this year then it honestly sounds to me like all their money problems will be no more. They have had to spend an *enormous* amount of cash to get Fremont to the state that it is currently in, and will have to spend a ton more over the next year which is why their capex burn is so rough. Combine that with really high R&D costs for the Model X and it is no wonder they look like they are burning through cash faster than a lottery winner at a strip club.

    Again, they very well *could* do a capital raise, and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened, assuming they have good reason for it (really rapid growth of new factory expansion... like capital to seed 3 new factories or some such all in one go) but I wouldn't say it is 100% a sure thing to happen.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The misinformation is strong in this one. I believe Realist makes the right logical deduction from this chart, but Realist does not have the full picture on this matter I am afraid.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Coulda woulda shoulda Mighta
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Hmmm,

    A chinese corp owns 20% of Fukuta. I would suspect trade secret considerations for not using Fukuta. But Tesla opened their patents so this might not be the case.... too many strings to chase in this web. Not enough motivation to chase these.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Google and Solarcity

    Google and SolarCity 2.0

    This should be a positive regarding Tesla's residential power unit product?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Concerning the thread about sitting and not market timing, this article made the rounds on reddit. What if You Only Invested at Market Peaks? - A Wealth of Common SenseA Wealth of Common Sense It is about how holding on to your position is more important than correct timing. A person who chose only the worst possible times to enter the market over the last 40 years, but held through the crashes was still a millionaire. Advice I don't take myself, but whatever :)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Very nice read. Timing the market is impossible to me, especially with the short term capital gains and wash rule affecting our decisions. Others may feel differently but I'm very comfortable sitting for another 10 years depending on our growth prospects. So far, I'm liking the 50% growth. When it drops to 20-25% I'll need to rethink my strategy, I don't expect this to happen unless a catastrophe or recession hits the US and Europe or China. If the US economy continues to be strong for the next 2 years, it basically buys us enough time for Gen 3. By then, even a recession may not matter as much.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest

    I think this is a great idea. Adding non Tesla exclusive chargers to the Supercharger location also has the added benefit of removing the complaint I have heard some people make that these locations shouldn't be allowed because they only service Tesla.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    On long term investing.

    I am a bit like George Soros in that I use introspection to look at my emotions. The question I ask is: "Is this feeling greed or fear?" Most of the time I am asking this at peaks and the answer is mostly greed. So I start with selling half and keep selling half of the remaining holdings until I don't feel the greed anymore. I believe that the invisible emotional damage from investing stocks is greater than the physical damage of losing the money in a person's life.

    For trading. I just stick with the plan since it is usually short term.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Good strategy, fear & greed are the main drivers of our decision. Trust your instinct and gamble small while holding onto cores for long term play. When my position stresses me out, that's when I close it, this happens often when I try to time the market for short term gains. I've had gains of several 100%s in one month, where my plays were near perfect, only to lose it all in other months. The short term play can be quite addicting, and knowing myself, I'm better going long bc a few bad moves short term can ultimately change my behavior. In order to avoid loses, I buy long term leaps. If my bets and timing is miscalculated, I'll sit on it until things get better. The average cost for my rolling out an extra year is about $1k-$1.5k hardly anything to think about with Tesla going for the win by 2017-2018 timeframe.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Stock Option Incentive Program

    Stock option employee incentive programs help us understand specific strategic objectives that Tesla has set for itself. In reading the 10-K, I was pleased to see a new incentive program approved in January 2014 which has the following vesting milestones:

    1. Model X production vehicle.
    2. Aggregate vehicle production of 100,000 vehicles in a trailing 12-month period.
    3. Model 3 production vehicle.
    4. Annualized gross margin of greater than 30.0% in any three years.

    Milestone 1 is on track for this summer.
    Milestone 2 seems to be a new ambition pushing the company past 100k in annual production. We could see this as soon as 2016.
    Milestone 3 is no surprise, but I think the ambition is to realize this in 2017.
    Milestone 4 is a big revelation to me. Three years of GM > 30% would indicate a clear intent to price all products, notably Model 3 and stationary storage, with a very high markup. All products have to be priced quite close to 30% GM. Since this involves a span of 3 years the earliest completion would be 2017, but would be realized perhaps in 2018 or later.

    I think these goals tell us alot about Tesla's strategic plan for the next 4 years. Volume growth will not come as a sacrifice of profitability. Indeed, the only way to sustain high growth rates is to insist on a 30% GM because this is what produces enough cash flow to self-fund 50% annual revenue growth. Let's hope Tesla employees can pull this off with style.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    +1
    Strategic focus on these objectives is the path to success
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    To illustrate the connection between GM and self-funded growth rates, let's talk about the Gigafactory. Battery pack production capacity is the backbone of growing an EV business. So whatever limits the longterm growth rate of your battery supply limits the growth rate of your entire franchise. Now, the Gigafactory JV will require an investment of about $5B for 50 GWh capacity. This is an investment rate of $100 per kWh/yr. Let's assume a price of $200 per kWh of finished battery packs with a markup of 30%. Thus, GM per kWh is $60. If we reinvest this GM back into building out more capacity, then we are able to grow capacity at a 60% = $60/$100 annualized rate. Thus, a 30% GM on battery packs implies a 60% limit to self-funded growth. To grow faster than 60% requires funding from another source be that external financing or cross-subsidization from other products.

    Now many Tesla investors have supposed that batteries can't possibly be a high margin product. But suppose you could only get a 15% or $30/kWh GM on battery packs. This would limit your self-funded growth rate to no more than 30% per year. So if that were the case, then the only way Tesla could grow long-term at 50% per year would be through massive capital raises every year and getting 50% bigger each year. I don't see how that would be workable over the long run. So the thing that investors need to be able to wrap their heads around is the notion that a 30% GM is a requirement for sustained 50% annual revenue growth. This is why a commitment to 30% for all products is of strategic importance. It's not a matter of "nice to have;" it's "must have."

    Notice also that this same argument applies to any competitor who may enter the EV battery space. Even Apple, if it were only to pursue a 15% GM, it would limit it's self-funded growth rate to 30%. Of course, it could fund from cash earned on other lines of business, but that is not sustainable growth model, even for Apple. So here's the rub, as Tesla and others build out capacity, the margin will compress over time. Thus, the self-funding rate of growth comes down. Early entrants, like Tesla will enjoy high self-funded rates of growth, but later entrants will not. The EV market can grow at 50% annually for the next 15 years. So I am not at all worried about margin compression anytime soon, but those who wait until 2023 to build their first gigafactory will be in sorry shape. They will need massive capital and will have very little to show for it. So Tesla gives itself a huge first mover advantage by adhering to a profit discipline of 30% GM. Until there is more than 1000 GWh capacity across the industry, Tesla harms itself by trying to grow any product line at a lower GM.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The explicit goal of at least 30% Gross margin on cars for three consecutive years is bold, unprecedented and to continue growing recklessly the profit is absolutely needed. Tesla is putting up this goal even in light of probable competition coming from other big auto makers on to the field in the next few years. Still Tesla seem confident they can (keep) selling S, X and Model 3 at margins only before achieved by Porsche. This signals great confidence in the company, products and infrastructure. I believe in that it's possible and I'm putting my money where my mouth is.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Er...the 30% goal isn't new, it was laid out years ago in elons vesting milestones.

    Personally I think it won't be achieved. Once model 3 comes out gm will be a bit lower. 30% will be hard to sustain and stay competitive once tesla moves past luxury vehicles. At this point I think it's just too late. 20-25% for three years or long term? Sure, probably. But 30%? That's really high. And I think it would be folly for tesla to price with that in mind just for ceo stock options, when they should be pricing based on demand and competitiveness and public perception, that sort of thing, instead.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Stock options are for management not just CEO.

    I highly doubt they price product with stock options in mind.

    Instead they price product based on company goals.

    And when company goals are reached then stock options kick in.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    IIRC, Musk's incentive GM milestone was only for 4 consecutive quarters, which left open the possibility of ringing the bell 4 quarters while only having Models S and X in play, then pulling back with Gen 3. So this new milestone for 3 years suggests to me a much longer term commitment to high margins.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    That's how I read it as well. They haven't achieved 30% gross margins yet so that means if they can get GM up to 30% this year the soonest 3 years they could count would be 2015, 2016, and 2017. Even with a low volume Model 3 introduction in 2017 they would need to either have much higher than 30% GM on the Model S/X or slightly higher on S/X and high GM on Model 3 as well. Both sound good to me.

    The bear argument would be Model 3 delay but I trust Elon when he said they want to stick to their target date and not do anything crazy that will push the date back.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    My read on a milestone like this is that reaching and maintaining a 30% GM is explicitly the company goal. Naturally if the competitive environment changes to the point that this is no longer a prudent company goal, then the plan can be amended. At least for the next four years or so this appears to be the intended goal.

    It should also be said that merely grossing your cost up 30% is not the intelligent way to meet this goal. I think the challenge is to start with a target price of a product and work out how to bring the cost down to achieve the margin. This is what they've been doing with the Model S. No one has raised the price 5% just to push GM fro 25% to 30%. Rather, the company has been working very hard to drive the cost down over time. If you believe that this technology and manufacturing efficiency has the potential to improve and squeeze out cost, then this is the direction you always want to go.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    This seems to me the most important aspect of investing long-term in TSLA. Demand is clearly (to most, anyway) not an issue, and the company has a road-map to grow 50% per year. My one big worry as an investor has been that management is more concerned with saving the world than turning a profit. Stating an ambitious goal of 30% GM for 3 years implies that the Model 3 will be priced to have a similar GM. I will sleep better at night now.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    +1 I think it significant that these goals are heavy on the production side. There is no demand side goal beyond simply bringing two new models to market. Most corporations have to incent heavily for marketing and sales outcomes. Not Tesla, just build it, bring it to market and keep the cost down.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Saving the world is a very expensive proposition.

    You need to generate a lot of free cash flow.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I think this is pretty much how Musk looks at the world. Cash flow is the life blood that empowers a company to keep growing into its mission. Profit is the means, not the end.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Which is actually great long term once your senior management is already richer than their wildest dreams.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Those goals are not mutually exclusive, actually they reinforce each other.
    People will love clean cars, which in turn increases demand, which allows for pricing
    power and better margins.

    Competition will not be much of an issue until battery supply increases dramatically .
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    +1 Your last point is absolutely key to sizing up the competition. A competitor is only as big as the GWh they bring to market.

    In 2014, Tesla brought about 2.5 GWh to market, which was about 35% of the EV battery market production. Battery production was 7.2 GWh in 2014, up 54% over prior year. Panasonic gained 3 points of market share.

    EV Battery Makers Market Share 2014 vs 2013

    So Tesla wants to bring 50GWh to market by 2020. Will competitors bring 100GWh in that same time, or will Tesla continue to have a 1/3 marketshare even in 2020? I'd be happy if Tesla just retained a 1/5 marketshare, but this could require competitors to build out 200GWh of capacity. So at this point I do not see what competitors have the ambition to scale even to 50GWh. If any do, we should be hearing about their own gigafactories soon.

    Excluding Panasonic, if other battery makers advance 54% per year from 4.5GWh in 2014, that would lead to a mere capacity of 60GWh. So at this pace, the industry brings about 110GWh in 2020 and the Tesla Gigafactory has a 45% marketshare. So the competition really needs to pick up the pace.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest


    Thanks for for the information . Battery supply allows for pricing power, without pricing power the business
    is not investable in my view.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    When you frame the situation in this manner with the math - well, I can't even put it into words how far ahead Tesla is in their planning and preparations, and I can't decide if I'm crazy to be able to see so clearly what Elon's laid out going forward or if I'm crazy to believe it's going to happen. It seems so obvious, I just don't understand how (as an example) GM could announce the Bolt (and presumably be 'serious' about producing it per their announced FULL SPECS) and NOT also be laying the groundwork (battery factories or some such, charging infrastructure or some such etc...). To not be doing so suggests to me they are either blowing nothing but hot air, or are mentally crippled. Perhaps both. We're witnessing and amid a colossal (world) domination by one or a colossal blunder of epic proportions.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Isn't investing in Tesla grand?

    I find myself hoping for more of a dip from the current level, as an excuse to add some more shares.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Pretty much comes down to ability to generate demand and produce vehicles. GF is major part but also ability to scale factory and generate demand. GF seems to be going well.

    In terms of demand generation we are already ahead of Elon's 2012/ 2013 estimates for Model S (~30k total WW) so I am less worried about impact of slower than hoped uptake in China and Germany getting in way of long term plan. Based on Elon's comments it seemed that total WW demand for S + X in the 50k range would be sufficient to get to GF and Model 3.

    Of course Tesla has to be able to make the cars. Given the recent analyst note (this week) of 1000-1100 cars/ week it looks like they should be able to meet 40-45k demand for Model S this year. The big question (to me) is do they have enough WW demand this year for 40-50k cars?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    This has to be a dream, no? How is anything else possible? I keep pinching myself, and running it over and over in my head.

    Long and strong, but constantly questioning my sanity.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I'm unsure how Tesla could be more clear than they already have been for the past year: Demand is not an issue. Demand is not an issue. Demand is not an issue. I think there needs to be a new Tesla t-shirt available at stores that says: Stay calm, demand is not an issue. Seriously.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Not worried about demand up to 100,000 cars per year , with just S and X . Thereafter we shall see.

    We we are in transition phase that allows uncertainty and fud to creep in, ramping up preduction , model x , etc...
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    you are right - the real question is can they deliver that many
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Another question is can they service that many? Non emergency service appointments have a 5 month waiting list in Norway & 1 month in California with the current size of the fleet, I don't see a lot of discussion regarding service capacity expansion to handle the impact of adding 60k in 2015 & 100k in 2016.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    That is part of the $1.5B in CapEX for this year.

    "Only" about ~$300M is for the GF.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    How much self-funding could finance the Gigafactory?

    Tesla has raised about $2B for the Gigafactory, and Panasonic has committed itself to invest $2B spread out over 8 stages. Now if the Gigafactory requires a $5B investment, where does the remaining $1B come from? The Gigafactory itself, I will argue. Let's have a little fun with math to see how much self-financing is plausible.

    To keep things simple, let's look at this from a Gigafactory JV perspect so we don't get bogged down with how pays for what between Tesla, Panasonic and any other partners who may join in. Let's assume that, to reach 50GWh annual capacity, the Gigafactory requires a $5B investment, $1B for property and plant and $4B for equipment. Thus, $1B is needed upfront and the $4B can be rolled out 1GWh at a time as capacity is needed. So the marginal investment is $80M per incremental GWh.

    Let's further assum that 1 kWh of battery pack can be sold from the JV for $200 at a cost of $140 to the JV. Thus, the JV gross profit per GWh is $60M. Lest furthe assume that the JV retains $52M per GWh to self-fund the roll out of equipment. Thus, the JV is able to grow at a self-funded rate of 65% = $52/$80 per year. To arrive at 50 GWh capacity in 2020 on a self funded basis, it needs 30.30 GWh capacity (=50/1.65) in 2019. And to get this, it needs 18.37 GWh in 2018, 11.13 GWh in 2017, and 6.75 GWh in 2016 (= 50/1.65^4). So kick this off the JV needs external financing (from Tesla, Panasonic, and other partners) for 6.75 GWh worth of equipment in 2015 at a cost of $540M plus property and plant at a cost of $1B.

    In this first stage, Panasonic is investing $300M. This leaves to Tesla an investment of $1.24B which it began last year and may conclude this year. The remaining $3.46B investment can be self-funded by the JV.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The State of Nevada gave Tesla $195M in transferable credits.

    Which various Nevada companies agreed to purchase from Tesla at full value before the deal was finalized.

    Plus, Panasonic suppliers are supposed to purchase their own equipment. Companies like Hitachi that already supply Panasonic in Japan in making cells for the Model S. That is supposed to be the other $805M. Tesla, as the landlord of the GF, takes care of any cost overruns.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Rob, will these suppliers of Panasonic also manufacture at the Gigafactory? And if so, will they allocate the $805M over the 8 stages along with Panasonic?

    So this basically could explain where the entire $1B investment comes from, while the self-funding argument speaks to how the JV partners can pay for their share of the investments.

    In my previous post I forgot to mention that the $2600M of retainable gross profit in 2020 can in principle pay off all the initial investment and leave $1B to invest in the next Gigafactory. I do, however, believe that a second Gigafactory will be built before the Sparks Gigafactory reaches full capacity.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Are you assuming that Tesla's finished pack costs will be $200/kWh? If Tesla is buying packs at $200/kWh that puts the theoretical 50kWh base Model 3 pack at $10K, which seems a bit high for them to hit a $35K vehicle, (which I realize may not happen).
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    1)Yes, Panasonic suppliers will turn raw materials into battery precursor materials and components at the GF. The point of the GF is not only scale but centralization of production to save on shipping cost.

    2) No contracts have been signed yet but I would assume so. What is the point of Hitachi having 35 GW installed capacity if Panasonic only has 4.375 GW installed capacity?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I was assuming a price of $200 with cost of $140. So a 50 kWh would be just $7k, just 20% of the base price of the Model 3. A complicating issue here, however, is that $140 is the cost to the JV, so the GM on that is shared among JV partners. Suppose the $36 out the $60 GM/kWh must be shared back to JV partners. This brings the full cost to Tesla to $176/kWh or $8800 for 50kWh pack, 25% of the $35k base. I've heard that the battery pack of the Model S is 1/4 the price of the car. So I think we're in the right neighborhood.

    Even so, the critical assumption I am making for the self-funding argument is $52 GM/kWh to the JV. So other price points get you there, for example, $172 price at $120 cost. Musk has been expecting a cost below $100 by 2020.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I see it the same way - it's obvious what needs to be done but no one else is doing it. I've come to the conclusion that it's because of the structure of corporations. The incentive for top level management is to keep the status quo with very small incremental steps forward and collect your pay - the board/shareholders won't fault you for running the company into the ground even disruption kills the business, therefore in such a case you still get a nice golden parachute. Think of it this way - the old execs of Nokia did just fine for themselves, despite botching the massive Nokia market share by not responding to the iPhone. It's kind of sad it works this way, but at the same time provides the opportunity for new companies to enter.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Post deleted - posted in this thread by mistake
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    A friendly advice to some; it is dangerous to fall in love with a stock.

    Famous quote from one long time successful Swedish investor �De �r alla samma skit� meaning �they are all the same sh*t�.

    Don�t fall in love.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    But they are not all the same

    Some are so cute, much cuter than others
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    :biggrin:
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Matias, I'll have to assume you've not received your Model S yet?

    That must be the case because, well, it's hard not to fall in love with the sheer brilliance of the car, the concept, and the execution of the entire Tesla/SolarCity ecosystem.

    Despite the danger of the refrain, "It's different this time," it really IS different this time.

    As a long-term holder but short-term buyer (I like to buy more shares when my favorite company is "on sale," such as NOW), I persist in trying to shoot down my own premise that Tesla is a game-changing, industry-creating company.

    I can't do it.

    Almost every sign points to success over the long-term:

    1. Gigafactory progress and completion, which will create an entirely new industry in home and commercial energy storage, in partnership with SCTY. (As a SCTY customer--far too small at 7.44 kW--combining a Tesla or two with a PV System AND home energy storage is a HUGE opportunity. As in: anyone with a Sun-facing roof and a brain will figure out how much money they can save powering their home and their cars from the Sun, thus assuring "no-brainer" success.)

    2. The Model S itself--we've purchased three of them so far--the "Best car we've ever tested," according to the engineers at the NON-PROFIT, BUY EVERYTHING WE TEST, ACCEPTS NO ADVERTISING, Consumer Reports:

    Tesla Model S 2013 quick take | Consumer Reports - YouTube

    Talking Cars with Consumer Reports #5: Tesla Model S - YouTube

    [Hopelessly out of date, and more than a few editing and content errors, but still remarkably and overwhelmingly positive from these normally jaded engineers.]

    3. JB Staubel's comments at the Energy Storage conference last year, and Elon's multiple interviews. Between the two of them, I don't think there's a "spin" bone in their bodies. If anything, they're probably too honest and unfiltered for their positions? They'd never make it at a conventional auto company, being sent off into a backwater division as punishment for excessive honesty and rule breaking.

    4. The problems I've seen, and there ARE a few, (probably too many: atrocious and unacceptably long waits for service, now measured in MONTHS, sometimes not-the-best hires for sales and service, initial quality at delivery issues, apparent lack of concern for safety defects, customer communication) are all somewhat expected with a newish start up that keeps growing as fast as Tesla is. They've gone from a few hundred "true believers" to over 10k employees in just a few years? While exasperating and irritating, what is important for investors is that they are surmountable problems.

    5. The level of outright giddiness, enthusiasm and interest from everyone (and that's about 50+ people I'd guess) that has test driven our various Model S's suggest that the Model 3 will be a slam dunk/sure thing, with production constraints as the only limit to sales volume given that the SC network will be very well established by then, and still growing globally.

    Now, in the short term? Sure, lots of volatility. I see those as my path to increased margin debt as I purchase even more TSLA shares with funds that are, ahem, currently not in my account. The short-term pain I feel now will be more than made up for when the stock approaches Apple levels of valuation (assuming Elon's whole "give away the patents" thing doesn't destroy the value of the enterprise, of course;-).

    Thus, after you've had your Model S for a few weeks, please let us know how your outlook and thoughts on the stock change; I'm pretty sure they will!

    p.s. FYI, also in the short term, all of which will be strong positives and provide gob-smacking levels of free publicity, and which suggest buying more TSLA now while the FUD Monster is in full attack mode is a really good idea: Model X reveal and deliveries, 1st Gigafactory progress reports, CPO reveal, Model 3 reveal, additional Supercharger rollouts/milestones, plus a few "Elon Surprises" that are sure to come too . . . .
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Tsla pilot, you are right, I don�t have the car yet and dream about it every day. :smile: Late May is the D-day!

    I don�t disagree with you with the fundamentals, but as you know, fast growing sexy companies often in some point get overvalued, and I think this might me the case at the moment. Of course I don�t claim to know anything, just guessing.

    I think, that the biggest threat in the few years� perspective from now is the Gigafactory. In order to be profitable it needs high capacity utilization. IF model 3 ramps up slowly and home storage is not a hit, this can cause serious negative cash flow.
    But of course this is just speculation.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    And that's the magic of the GF: flexibility. While I am pretty sure that home/commercial energy storage and PV are an assured "hit," just for arguments sake, let's say they're not.

    Net result: more batteries available for the Model 3, Model X and Model S variants (and perhaps new, 95 or 105 kWh packs?). GF production can be shifted to where the demand is within days or weeks I'd guess?

    Also, and this is pure speculation: Tesla may delete the 60 kW version of the MS to "make room" in the product line up for very well equipped, high-margin Model 3's, thus shifting all MS production to 85, 95 or 105 kWh batteries, further boosting the MS ASP AND the value proposition of all MS's (longer range, and even stronger acceleration and regen possible with a larger battery).

    Given the above, I'd posit that all of the first GF's production will be fully subscribed from Day 1, and that there will be another GF location contest within the next year or two.

    While long-term, all of these factors will increase the value of TSLA, thus the importance of buying TSLA when it's on sale . . . .

    A Warren quote:

    • The approach and strategies are very similar in that you gather all the information you can and then keep adding to that base of information as things develop. You do whatever the probabilities indicated based on the knowledge that you have at that time, but you are always willing to modify your behaviour or your approach as you get new information. In bridge, you behave in a way that gets the best from your partner. And in business, you behave in the way that gets the best from your managers and your employees.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I agree with the value of flexibility. Innovation gives Tesla alot of "option" value.

    To extend this theme to battery makers, consider that other EV makers are using battery technology which is about ten years old on the density scale. How do their suppliers remain current with emerging technology while traditional automakers drag their feet. I think that Tesla's entry into the stationary market will heat up competition in that space. That will motivate battery maker to compete with newer, higher density technology and with expanding capacity. Basically, this creates new "options" for battery makers. The slow uptake of their auto customers need not constrain their growth, the massive supply chain growth needed to transform the auto market.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    It's quite OK to fall in love with a company and a product. It's also quite OK to fall in love with a stock, but with one important addition: "... at a given price point!".

    In other words: TSLA at $190 in 2015 is a bargain. I believe it with all my heart as well as my rational and analytical parts. (My average buy in price is in the $30s and I'm don't have more funds to commit to TSLA stock now).
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I should say at this point that I think there are a number of serious risk factors for the *company*. All the worst-case scenarios I see still involve Tesla being a major brand, and a major manufacturer of large numbers of very successful cars. But remember, GM is operating and making cars, while the GM stockholders as of 1990 got wiped out. And this sort of thing has happened even to companies which didn't go bankrupt -- I owned Southern Pacific stock in the 1980s, and found myself a few years later sitting on stock of a company which didn't control any of the Southern Pacific lines. There are nightmare scenarios where other entities manage to scoop the guts of the company out of the hands of the current stockholders. So there are always risk factors.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Absolutely true, there are always risk factors. And it is prudent to continually reassess the atmosphere surrounding a company to see if those risks are manageable.

    The way I see it, there's no way a company CANNOT be successful if (1) their product is far superior, and (2) there are sufficient barriers to entry. Both of these ring true for Tesla, the latter in the form of battery availability. Granted, there will be many bumps in the road, however.

    Regarding the dangers of wiping out equity in the form of bankruptcy, it sure helps to have the CEO owning somewhere around 30% of the stock.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    There is a reason why Ford used extraordinary means to avoid bankruptcy and GM did not.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Here is a link to Morgan Stanley's 5 minute video they released for their clients last Thursday. Quite entertaining.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Yup, Scarlett Johansson, bobbleheads, and dubstep...I'm in :biggrin: That has to be one of the most creative research notes ever.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I think it's interesting to think about how Tesla EV and Self-Drive future will be disruptive to the industry. But perhaps the bigger effects are with the disruption to what the market will be based on the new dynamics with human needs. If the true cost of moving the vehicle mirror Electrical costs (vs fuel consumption)- especially assuming Electrical costs are largely Solar-Storage (very low costs looking forward)- then the cost of moving the vehicle are nearly the same as the cost of a stationary vehicle. This is similar in concept to a moving-home or moving personal environment I think will be the transformation we see eventually. If so, one of the biggest transformations we might see is a reduction in the number of cars (market size reduction). Once a car is self driving and as cheap to move as sit in place, there's reduced demand for cars per household. It's moving to household member's daily schedule for transpiration. Other factor may interfere with this and it may not come to pass, but it's a vision I've had for a while regarding where we might be headed. Been coming across some articles surfacing recently that are now talking about some of that as well as the self-drive and EV benefits begin showing themselves. Here an interesting take for example.
    Self-Driving Vehicles Could Cut Car Ownership Nearly in Half, Report Finds

    nothing going to happen quickly of course- but I find long term predictions a more interesting mental endeavor - and this is the long term thread :)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    We live in a convenience society, not having my personal car would be an inconvenience.
    Maybe in the distance utopian future it will be different.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Kenliles, I think you have the consequence backwards. Self-driving EVs will reduce the cost per mile both financially and in terms of time taken from other more desirable activities. If you reduce the cost of something, then basic economics suggest that consumption will go up, not down. People will become much more mobile. For instance, commuting several hours to work will not be so costly. Many people will find they can get more work done in during their commute than in the office. So work 4 hours in the car, 4 hours face time in the office, and done. The rest of your time is for family. In this kind of work from commute world, more people will enjoy living in the exurbs. So miles driven per year per capita will go up. Moreover, the connected commuter will benefit from having their own vehicle set up just the way they want it. People will want to own their own space and not have to load and unload all their stuff and devices everyday just so they can rent a crappy little Google car. This is a workspace and a home space. Now suppose vehicle usage goes up from 12000 miles per year to 15000. This is going to wear out vehicles about 20% faster, so new car sales go up, not down. It all goes back to the same theme, as the cost per mile goes down, consumption goes up. Welcome to the hyper-mobile society.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    This is genius and the more I think about it I realize you're absolutely correct.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    hmmm... so you're saying that the workforce will migrate quickly to one that is not location dependent (work from car more than half the time). Not sure I believe the bulk of work force will apply to that, but if so- a good point that the car per person is afforded. To the extent however that the work force remains largely site specific (8 hours required on-site), the car is free to self drive to spouse or other and return automatically at prescribed times rather than staying immobile (un-useful) most of the day.

    I like your picture better if we achieve it as a society- however, currently we (at least USA) are moving in-opposite to that as 90% of the workforce is required on-site and has less and less disposable capital -
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Even if you have to be onsite for 8 hours, self-driving cars will make your commute more enjoyable. For example, you could just kick back and post comments on TMC while your Tesla Gen3 SUV takes you to work or back home. One of the basic motivations for taking a long commute is so you can afford a nice home in a nice neighborhood. A nice home in a nice neighborhood close to a major employment center is usually much more expnsive. So for many there is an economic tradeoff between a shorter commute and a more affordable home. So if your choice is between a $350k home with a 30 minute commute or a nicer home for only $250k with a 60 minute commute, a really nice self-driving car could make the longer commute worth it. Saving $100k on housing can free up a little more capital for other things in life.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I'm pretty much in the same boat as you Johan. Unfortunately, I cashed in about half my stock in May or early June of 2013 to buy my Model S. Unfortunate because, if I'd waited a few months I could have sold less of my stock at a higher price. However, I couldn't make myself wait any longer to buy the car. That part of it I've never regretted. However, all I have in my brokerage account now is enough to buy about 1/2 a share. The best I can do is just keep waiting.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    that's a fair point- and I agree; I think the free up of capital will also come from 2 cars reducing to 1. As the car can on it's own return home for use during the day- or transport both household members with equal comfort and convenience.
    I like your idea of the driverless commute itself changing where we live in relation- good point
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    To be sure, I do think it will be hard to anticipate how society will adapt to self-driving cars. No doubt driverless cabs will bring down the cost of cars for hire. Currently there are 791 vehicles per 1000 inhabitants in the US. This is very high on the global scale. Most of Europe is 400 to 500 vehicles per 1000 inhabitants. So the US could probably stand to dial back it's motorization rate. Still others will travel more miles per year as the cost comes down. We can have all sorts of responses happening at the same time. So it becomes uncertain how it will net out. I do believe that miles driven per person per year will go up, but ownership and lifestyles can change in unpredictable ways. The irony of our current society is that telecommunications has never been cheaper or more capable, and yet monthly expenditure on telecommunications is very high and we've never been more connected. So as cars become cheaper to operate, more connected and more capable, does that mean we'll lose interest in vehicles and buy in to transport as a service models, or will we find new ways to make connected transport part of our lifestyle. The next generation could well be both hyper-connected and hyper-mobile. Our children might think nothing about traveling all night to wake up 500 miles from home just to visit some friends and return the next day without losing any sleep, worrying about cost or lodging along the way.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The US has super-expensive telecoms, by the way. They're cheaper almost everyhwere else.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    [?IMG][?IMG]
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    My expectation is that the future society will be much less car dependent than we are today. I also expect future citizens to be less keen on car ownership than we are today. I already see the emergence of such trends and these may strengthen going forward.

    Developments that will feed into undermining the dependence on personal car ownership:

    1. Education is migrating online; video classrooms or video one to one tutorials may replace current setups; perhaps future little school people will congregate on a need basis, for learning and excursion trips. Such group travels are unlikely to be done with personal cars.

    2. Options to work from home; The increasing number of jobs will require connectivity and a workstation that can be anywhere. Many employees already have the option to work from home from time to time.

    3. Business to business video conferencing is reducing the need for travels and visits. This is a great time-saver (and petrol saver). Suppliers can provide a video feed of their goods and services. Even job interviews are increasingly happening over a video link or skype.

    4. Migration of numerous face to face services and over the counter services to online contact and service. Banking, health, real estate, professional consultations, etc. Use your imagination...

    5. Online shopping and deliveries

    6. Environmental concerns and changing values; many people will opt out of a car ownership if they can go through life without one.

    7. Preference for fun rides on a single or two person craft, like hover fly machine, powered rollers, powered bikes, etc.

    8. Share rides, share ownership

    The single strongest factor feeding into cutting out the need for personal cars is connectivity. Changing values, consequent different lifestyles may also have a considerable impact.

    On the other side of the argument, we have increased affordability and cheaper transport costs.

    It might be that in the near future, increased affordability and cheaper running costs might push ownership up, until the long term trends 1 - 8 further develop and prevail in the long term.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Auzie, all these trends are certainly in play right now. They are mostly consequencies of the internet and moble internet devices. So welcome to the hype-connected world.

    Most of these trends are rooted in decoupling economic activity from the location of the economic participant. This decoupling is mediated by informational connectivity that presents lower cost alternative to being physically present. There is an economic tradeoff between the cost of travel (both financially and in terms lifestyle) and the richness of physical presence. Our culture will need figure out what physical presence is really worth. I think we are headed to a crisis of place. We all have to ask ourselves where do we really want to be. If all our economic needs could be satisfied with electronic connectivity, why would we go anywhere? Sure, I could travel to Paris, but I could also absorb all kinds of media online that gives me a sense of what I might find in Paris. Moreover, in a hyper-connected Paris, what would I find. Maybe all the cafes, restaunts and markets have closed down because virtual businesses have replaced them. All the museums have been digitized and shut down. Music streams from every device, so there's no need to go to a concert or show. If all I want to do is smell flowers, I can enjoy my own little garden at home. So is it possible that there is no place worth going to? I suspect the next generation will discover that the hyper-connected world is not worth living in, and rediscover the value of place, not because they are driven by economic needs to travel, but cultural needs to be physically present. But they will want physical contact with all locations. So as the many layers of the cost of travel come down, they might just become a hyper-mobile generation always going somewhere, just as millenials have become the hyper-connected generation, always connected somewhere else with moble devices.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Some good questions there jhm.

    I tend to disagree that the hyper connected world is not worth living in, I find connected world far better place than disconnected one. Connectivity fosters transparency. Transparency acts as a powerful social ethics enforcer. If anything we do leaves a digital trail, transgressions are just too risky and expensive.

    Your question, if one can easily be anywhere, where does one choose to be, that is personal and depends on personal preferences. One of the places I like is this forum, so I keep coming back to it, so many fun people are here:biggrin:

    Today's youth out of school tend to travel a lot, 'to see the world', but they do not go around the world with a car. They seem to prefer 'gypsy' way of travel whilst discovering physical places.

    I already see strong trends of car ownership avoidance in that generation. That seems to be driven by both different values and economic reasons.

    It may be decades before we see the car sales numbers reflecting these trends.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Regarding cities:

    I took a class on this at University...and University was a lot more recent for me than most people on these boards. But basically the class dealt with cities. One thing that's been happening for decades is that people have surmised that, as the world gets smaller due to improvements in telecommunications and transportation, city population would decrease as people found it less necessary to live in cities. However, over that time period, in fact city population has *increased*. So much so that, as of this moment in time, over half the population of the world lives in cities. The crossover happened a few years ago and the trend shows no particular sign of decreasing.

    Will self-driving cars change that? Maybe. But cellphones, videoconferencing, airplanes, trains, automobiles, etc. were all supposed to change it and didn't really. So I don't think this will change.

    I see miles driven per car and per capita going up or staying stable (on the one hand, self-driving means more miles driven, but on the other hand more people in cities and hopefully better public transport means less miles driven), and number of cars owned per capita (or maybe per mile driven?) going down. People will still own cars in significant numbers, but there will be less cars owned by individuals as uber-self-driving-taxis start to exist, and as people continue to migrate towards cities, which I expect will keep happening. I don't think there will be a flight from cities. City migration has been driven by advances in agriculture more than anything. Cities are more interesting and people generally like to be around people, so if we have less demand for farming (as farming gets more efficient, and transportation networks can more efficiently deliver that food to cities), we have more demand for city living.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    This is all very true and the tendency for humans to cluster together in cities has been ever increasing since the start of your civilizations so I agree with you: It's very hard to find any reasons as to why city dwelling would decrease in the future. It's not really like people are forced, against their will but driven by the need to find work, to move in to the cities. If there really were enough people who wanted to live in sparsely populated areas I'm sure they'd find ways to do that and support themselves, but there are few who choose it.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I am all for citi living, as long as the said citi has great food places at every corner
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest

    I foresee the age of the automobile is just getting started, and that combustion powered automobile are mere prototypes for the real deal.

    Autonomous cars, will they make more taxis, or will they extinct the Taxi?
    EVs, will they encourage more public transport, or do they extinct public transit?

    consider USA, public transport is limited because it generally sucks unless parking sucks more.
    now allow vehicles to drive themselves and make fuel costs a no issue.
    RIP public transport.

    Autonomous, electric cars make the road system even more useful and more valuable, people judge the future of vehicles as if they are ICE vehicles. How many mass transit trains would still be allowed if they were not already electrically powered?

    There is a reason why the far left in France abhors Bollore blue car, while the far right have toned their skepticism of the Bollore blue car. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/france-paris-autos-idUSL5N0D53GX20130419
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Driverless vehicles: Fewer cars, more miles | UMTRI - University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute

    This study looks at the potential for families to share self-driving vehicles with return-to-home functionality. This is a rather limited scope, but shows potential to reduce private ownership by 43% while increasing annual mile per vehicle by 75%, not counting the return-to-home miles required to make the car sharing scheme work. Depending on the proximity of non-home destinations, I figure that return-to-home trips could add an extra 50% to 100% to annual miles per vehicle. Thus, annual miles per vehicle could go from 12k to 20k, excluding return-to-home trips, to 36k including those trips. This sort of study assumes no change in the demand for trips.

    I think the basic implication of this sort of study for Tesla investors is that miles per vehicle potentially goes way up. Thus, a low cost per mile to operate and maintain a car will be quite attractive. Moreover, the ability of a self-driving Tesla to avail itself to free charging at Superchargers or other locations is compelling as well. Putting 30k to 40k per year on a car also means you want that car to last more than 200k miles. Cars that fall apart after 120k miles will be quite undesirable. Longevity is potentially a plus for Tesla. Batteries with a long range and fast charging will be advantageous when average daily use is more than 100 miles and when the turn around time between trips can be short. And finally, these cars must be programmed very well, highly connected and enjoyable to ride. I think on all these points Tesla can compete quite well. Gas vehicles are too expensive to fuel and maintain. They also cannot fuel themselves, and engines tend not to last 200k miles or more. A short range EV like the LEAF does not have the range or charge rate to handle this kind of daily load, and the battery may wear out too quickly with excessive deep cycling. Finally, only Tesla has free Superchargers, and as a bonus, self-charging Teslas solve the urban charging problem. So why would Tesla not want to lead the industry to fully autonomous vehicles?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    EVs lower the cost of transportation services (or, they will once capital costs come down), so it increases the quantity demanded of transport services. But self-driving tech increases the amount of transportation services each vehicle can supply. So we are left with an uncertain impact on the quantity of cars demanded.

    I don't underestimate the value of ownership/control of a car. I'm always anxious when I've called a cab about when it will get there (an anxiety that tech is helping to address, now that Uber and some cab companies have apps that let you see where exactly your cab is). There's a clear anxiety reduction in having your faithful car waiting for you, not having to figure out exactly when you'll be ready to go, etc. So, I don't think car ownership evaporates into a "all taxis, all the time" model.

    The self-driving feature will be particularly helpful in reducing the number of cars a family needs. The car can take Mom to work, return and take the kids to school, and then be back to take Dad to the gym. One car can do what today would use three.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    One thing I never see mentioned (though I've mentioned it a few times), is the disruptive factor when it comes to how we age. I imagine there are a great deal of people on this forum dreading the day that they will take keys away from an aging parent. Imagine if, instead, you were able to hand them their independence by handing them keys to a self-driving car?

    Then think about reasons why people end up in assisted living and other senior facilities ... they have to leave their homes where quality of life is highest, usually because even though services can be brought to them, it's difficult for them to get out and still have some of a social life (necessary for healthy aging). Depression is a common outcome when seniors lose their independence. Imagine all of that ... gone.

    Self-driving cars will have a HUGE impact not only on how people age, but will totally disrupt the market that provides support to the aging. More long-term care will be in the home, less will be in facilities. Care in the home is cheaper than care in a facility, quality of life is higher. It's going to be huge.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Cabs are a problem but so are cars. I am anxious about scratches, these are so expensive to fix and easy to get in parking lots. Car as a capital investment is one of the worst investments there is as most cars quickly loose value. As investment, car is heavily underutilized for most owners as it is used only occassionaly. Most assets need to be used most hours of the day to pay for themselves.

    This will be resolved as a personal trade off, which anxiety is greater for individuals.

    That is helpful if kids go to physical rather than online school and there is no school bus, mum does not run business from home and dad prefers gym to jogging or biking:wink:
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    This is a great observation. Autopilot features may also ease the transition as well as vision, attention and reflex issues begin to emerge. I would love to see infrared included on Teslas to help with nightvision issues. All these active safety features can help avoid accidents before a person comes to realize that they should no longer drive. Moreover, if they are comfortable with autopilot features first, they may become much more ready for ceding even more control to the car. I would think that feeling safe with the car self-driving while feeling more in control and independent about where the car goes would make this whole transition easier.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I tend to disagree with both of those statements, preferring natural spaces with low population density, but I guess the growing trend of urbanization means I get more of both :wink:
    Wouldn't the caregiver in the home be able to drive them anyway? Or do you mean an individual who can still care for themselves without help but just can't drive any longer?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Sure, but that's not what happens on a regular basis. Loss of independence is a huge issue for the aging. Relying on someone else to give a ride is something most people would rather not do. Isolation leads to depression.

    A full-time caregiver in the home is not usually needed. As an example, my mom is 94 and I've arranged for someone to come by daily both to dress her for the day and then help her settle in for the night. Someone stops in midday to ensure she has a meal on the table and hasn't forgotten any meds. I monitor her apartment for appropriate movement. She would hate having someone hovering about full-time. And she HATES having to rely on relatives to pick her up for family get togethers or friends to take her to a doctor appointment (small town, no other options).

    But there are many classifications of 'seniors'. It's not just the 94 year old needing help with basic tasks like dressing. Let's say you're not capable of driving, but you're capable of taking care of your daily needs. Maybe it's your eyesight that isn't so great. Or maybe you need a walker and shouldn't drive. But you'd still like to meet friends at a restaurant for lunch, maybe go on a short weekend trip with a close friend, etc.

    Use of technology to enable aging in place is becoming a huge industry. Self-driving cars will solve a problem.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I think she means the latter, even though in reality it would be more efficient for society as a whole to have people move through different developments according to need.

    Anyway, as an anecdote my wife's grandmother gradually declined, and went through a couple of years where although she lived somewhere where she depended on a car, she could no longer drive, which made it harder to function.

    Over time I think that the impact of this will decrease as an increasing proportion of people use the Internet, which has helped physical isolation not be social isolation.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Agree somewhat, but the last 15 years of my career have been focused on the impact of technology on the aging process. It may be more efficient, as you say, to move people through different developments according to need ... but it's a quality of life issue. The further someone moves from the home (home - senior community - assisted living - nursing home - hospice), the lower the quality of life and the more expensive it is to deliver care. We're not warehousing the aging, at least not yet. :) They're people with the right to make decisions about their future, not a commodity to be handled in the most efficient manner.

    The internet has an impact on people like you and I, but internet usage is just not as high worldwide (nor will it be) as people think. And certainly delivery of health care services cannot all be done online.

    What's the most powerful lobbying group in the US? Yep, AARP. People underestimate the size of this population, but the largest bolus of US population, the baby boomers, are entering this group right now. Huge market and just having access to the internet does not solve all the issues. Nor will a self-driving car, but it's obvious to those in this industry that returning independence to seniors will have a huge impact.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I agree with you 100% on this. My 89 year old grandfather, who sadly passed away a few weeks ago, had leg problems for years and made it hard for him to walk. He slowly cut back on his driving to the mall year by year and wouldn't drive at night. This past Christmas was the first time they didn't make it to the family gathering, which is like 45 minutes from their house, because he couldn't drive anymore and didn't want his 80 year old wife driving at night. He also hated others having to come pick them up and didn't want to use a wheelchair because of his pride.

    This would have been a great example where they could have put in the destination address and let the car take them there to enjoy the holidays with family.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    From AARP, published Jan 2015 (http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal-technology/info-2014/google-self-driving-car.html)

    Don't underestimate the size of this market ...
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Also driving autonomous driving research in Japan: Self-Driving Car Demand Seen Boosted by Japan�s Aging Population
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Just to point out the obvious, there are all sorts of conditions and disabilities that can interfer with driving. Just recovering from an injury, surgery or serious illness can leave a person temporarily unable to drive. So none of us knows when a self-driving car might suddenly make a huge difference for us or a loved one.

    Oddly enough, one of the reasons I bought a Model S after autopilot sensors came out is that the car tells me how close I can get to something when I park. I've got 20/20 vision, but because one eye is slightly nearsighted while the other is slightly farsighted, my depth perception is poor. I don't see in 3D, and this makes something as basic as parking in a garage a dicey proposition to me. So when I saw how the Model S could tell me just how close something is to the front of the car, I knew I wanted that.

    So every autopilot feature Tesla rolls out potentially makes a difference for somebody at some point in their life, and accessibility is a really great way to create demand. Some day the blind will be able to drive wherever they choose to go. Persons with Parkinson's, paralysis, or no arms will be able to take the wheel.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    My six year old daughter says she doesn't want my Model S when she grows up, because she wants a self-driving car. Someday a younger generation will have access to them and think it is strange that old people just love to manually drive around for some reason.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I would like to think that the medicine will make even more advances than the cars. It might be more difficult to develop self driving cars technology than to develop visual and other aids that eliminate or reduce some disabilities.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Obviously, that would be the ideal. And as much as I'd like to think that would be the outcome, that's not what I believe.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    With all these bright prospects for the potential of self driving cars, I cant help but to think how much more congestion there will be. not only because of increased consumption, but also empty cars driving to pickup someone else in the family somewhere else. the cars will get much greater utility but will add so much more volume to the traffic on roads...

    There must be a tipping point at which ICE drivers of non-self driving cars will all opt for an electric self driving car - cost and efficiency. I enjoy driving and car hardly imagine not being able to drive but I think I can find other stuff to do while being driven... in all day traffic.... -_-"
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The utopian vision of self-drivivg vehicles is that congestion will be curtailed by vehicles driving in tight formation. I really doubt this view. I expect congestion to go up as vehicles spend more time on the road. Some particularly bad behvior may emerge. Why pay $20 to park your car when you can just let it cruise until it finds free parking? Self driven cars are infinitely patient waiting for a parking spot to open. Part of what makes the economics of taxis work is not having to pay for parking in congested areas, bur self-driven cars virtually eliminate this advantage over taxis, whether self-driven or with human drivers.

    Another problem are people who will basically live in their vehicles. As long as they keep their home rolling, they can live rent free on public roads.

    So the distopian view of self-driving vehicles is that the roads become crowded with zombie cars crawling everywhere, going nowhere for no purpose other than to avoid paying rent. I would thoroughly expect laws to be proposed to curtail cruising, but technology will make this quite futile.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    You can tax based on time on the road. You can have very high taxes for downtowns.

    You can mandate sufficient parking. Humans will not drive to the 100th floor of a parking structure to park. An autonomous car has no problem.

    You can legally mandate software parameters.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Sure,.you've just taxed away and regulate out most of the economic advantage of self-driving cars. You can't exactly mandate sufficient parking without solving the problem of who pays for it. Charge too much for parking and self-driving cars will simply avoid using it. So the cost of parking has to be low. If it is lower than the cost of real estate then parking garage owners are forced into subsidizing parking. This is essentially a tax on building owners. To work around this, cities could use the congestion taxes to pay for "free" or heavily subsidized public parking. The tricky issue here is that whatever the tax and legal scheme it has to be smart enough that intelligent self-driving cars can't game it.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    In this particular vision of utopia, the self-driving car rents itself out to other humans while it is waiting for the return trip; instead of paying to park somewhere, you are being paid to provide transportation services.

    On a different point, while the elderly may be well-served by a car-sharing arrangement, all of them grew up with the idea of cars-as-assets rather than cars-as-a-service. There will always be some (probably significant) fraction of those who don't feel comfortable relying on "someone else's" car.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    If congestion becomes a big enough issue, we will have to build underground highways. That only BEV can go on... :) because it doesn't expel exhausts.

    If there's going to be underground highways, might as well dig some bigger ditches as car parks. With charging facilities.

    So IF people end up living in their self driving cars, they wouldostly dwell underground, in car parks. Like a mobile apartment building with public washrooms and free WiFi. And sad food vending machines.

    If cars are expected to drive themselves, its very possible that the layout of the car could just be a small room with a pillow and tv. And making the sharable car less likely. I wouldn't want strangers in my private space. Family yes. Strangers. No.


    Inspiration for this vision came from documentary about the rising number of net cafe refugees in japan(2015). People LIVE in internet cafes because 38% of the workforce is temporary. It felt like a possible distant dystopian society. But its happening right now in some areas. I just hope it gets better.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    People, particularly citizens of large cities, will prioritize quality of life not making sales of autonomous cars easier.

    There are parking requirements i.e. cost now including sometimes large allocation for handicap parking for small business owners. There is already that tax. With autonomous cars it will be easier to pool that expense. Maybe a straight tax on business in lieu of their own parking spaces for large efficient parking structures.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Uh some disagreeable visions there - people living in self-driving cars, and to top it, paying taxes for parking:scared:

    I would like to think that the future will be much better, eg. there is no paying taxes anymore.:cool:

    Current tax system is rigged and full of holes. Contribution rules are easily gamed.

    In some better future, we may have much-improved contribution system, that could be time and skill based, rather than monetary.

    It might seem far-fetched now, but all that is needed to have more efficient and more pleasant system is that we grow from self-centric oriented society into one that is a bit more concerned for a common good. Connectivity might facilitate that slight shift that is required.

    Back to cars, I do not expect that they will be fully extinct, there will always be people who like and enjoy going places in fancy cars. However, the big chunk of people who are now forced into car ownership will have a choice and might decide to opt out of ownership if the need for ownership is reduced.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    So all that is needed is a complete change in human nature :wink:
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Yes, and in that new world, people won't have to work as long as now, because of higher levels of automation. So people will have more time for leisure, and learning, and other such meaningful pursuits. Soon after, crime will start to drop, and wars will finally end, because of increased prosperity and more concern for the common good. And everybody will contribute to society according to their ability, and will be sustained by society according to their needs.

    Oh, wait.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

    I am laughing at myself
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Human nature isn't interested in the common good? Why do we have governments at all in that case (since governments are explicitly humans banding together for the common good)? I don't agree that human nature precludes a community-oriented society in the slightest.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Right you are. Humans have a lot of solidarity in out genes. We are definitely by nature programmed to work for the common good. This has been the success criterion for humanity as a species and sets us apart from other animals. "What's good for the group is likely good for me as an individual as well, even if I can't say how right here and even if it might cost me something at this moment". Otherwise how do we have law and order, contracts, a school system, taxes, criminal justice, social services etc etc etc? It's not like someone forced it on us.

    So even if the first post on this subject was kind of a parody you have to agree in all honesty that this is the direction humanity has been heading all along (less poverty, less wars, more equal rights and opportunities, less racism, etc).
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    In case you didn't notice, governments are populated by self centered individuals acting in their own self interest, which is why most governments are a completely inefficient, corrupt, mess. Governments only exist because people know it's in their best interest to have some checks and balances on the short sighted self serving behavior of individuals. If people were really interested in the common good governments would not be necessary.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    That was exactly my point, when we grow up as a species there will be no need for government and taxes. I am glad we agree on that.

    Can't wait to grow up
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)