[Captainstabbin]

(05-11-2017 04:46 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Quote:

But the punchline is all the roof costs are net of, drumroll, federal tax credits, also known as subsidies to the producer in this case Elon Musk, who has made a living off capitalizing on state and government generosity. Here is the bottom line: every Tesla roof would be eligible for a roughly $15,500 federal tax credit.

If Trump ends these ridiculous tax credits, Tesla will go out of business in a week.

[Kona]

If you guys are gonna buy any of this solar bullshit make sure you have a lawyer look over all of the paperwork before you give them any money. Get all the lead times in writing, and if they miss, get your deposit back.

You need to get the engineer that draws it, the lead installers, the assistant installers, the sales fuck, and the managers phone number of wherever you buy it. Make sure these are direct cell phone numbers, unless you speak Tagalog or Bangladeshi. Also have all the contacts ready for your local power company.

It would also beehive you to have your own engineer look over the plans before its installed, and the system right after.

Understand that what you buy will be obsolete in a year or two. That's the game. Mine could be so much better if I buy the $5500 battery upgrade that magically becomes available every other month.

Don't trust these rat bastards. Its taken so long to get my crap functioning properly.

The technology moves too fast.

Aloha!

[debeguiled]

The best thing to do is set your house up passive solar first, and then use solar water heating tech. Worry about panels last.

This is the site to visit:



http://www.builditsolar.com/

[IvanDrago]

(05-11-2017 05:06 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 04:46 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Quote:

But the punchline is all the roof costs are net of, drumroll, federal tax credits, also known as subsidies to the producer in this case Elon Musk, who has made a living off capitalizing on state and government generosity. Here is the bottom line: every Tesla roof would be eligible for a roughly $15,500 federal tax credit.

If Trump ends these ridiculous tax credits, Tesla will go out of business in a week.

^^^^

I am confused every time this thread gets bumped seeing how some guys here fawn over Telsa. I guess this forum is more accepting of socialism and welfare queens than I thought. Some guys like to jack off to shiny logos without thinking things through I guess.

Kudos to musk for getting rich with the scam though. I just get worked up that every time he sells a car or things like this, money gets taken out of my pocket through subsidization.

(05-11-2017 06:04 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

The best thing to do is set your house up passive solar first, and then use solar water heating tech. Worry about panels last.

This is the site to visit:



http://www.builditsolar.com/

I always wondered how much more heat a passive solar heater would make compared to just have sun facing windows in your house.

[debeguiled]

Skepticism about Musk and solar from an engineer:


https://www.facebook.com/dmitry.orlov.94...nref=story

Quote:

Elon Musk is annoying. We knew that, but here's why: he is trying to turn a commodity product (electricity) into a designer product: Wall, racy little cars, roofs that produce (expensive) electricity and other crap. And here's an article that spells it out, finally. Point is, if you want a roof to generate electricity (when the sun is shining in the right direction) then put up an asphalt shingle roof (cheapest option) and put up solar panels on top of it (cheapest option). And if you want to fart around with Musk's nonsense, combine the two at several times the cost. And if you want an electric car, get yourself a golf cart. It's a mature technology.

He links to a pretty comprehensive article from Forbes article about the nuts and bolts of solar, regular roofs, and whether or not Musk's roof will actually save you money.

Their summing up isn't pretty:

Quote:

Everyone needs electricity. Everyone needs a roof. Everyone does not need the Tesla Solar Roof.

In fact, the Tesla Solar Roof is the gold Apple Watch Edition of the energy industry.

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.or...-roof/amp/

[IvanDrago]

(05-17-2017 02:23 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Skepticism about Musk and solar from an engineer:


https://www.facebook.com/dmitry.orlov.94...nref=story

Quote:

Elon Musk is annoying. We knew that, but here's why: he is trying to turn a commodity product (electricity) into a designer product: Wall, racy little cars, roofs that produce (expensive) electricity and other crap. And here's an article that spells it out, finally. Point is, if you want a roof to generate electricity (when the sun is shining in the right direction) then put up an asphalt shingle roof (cheapest option) and put up solar panels on top of it (cheapest option). And if you want to fart around with Musk's nonsense, combine the two at several times the cost. And if you want an electric car, get yourself a golf cart. It's a mature




He links to a pretty comprehensive article from Forbes article about the nuts and bolts of solar, regular roofs, and whether or not Musk's roof will actually save you money.

Their summing up isn't pretty:

[quote]Everyone needs electricity. Everyone needs a roof. Everyone does not need the Tesla Solar Roof.

In fact, the Tesla Solar Roof is the gold Apple Watch Edition of the energy industry.

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.or...-roof/amp/

Dingbats pay 7 dollars for a 2 dollar cup of coffee, 9 dollars for a 2 dollar "craft" beer (whatever that is), buy Apple products even though there are better options out there for a quarter of the price, buy $700 juicers that don't actually juice anything and pay 2500 dollars a month for a 500 sq ft studio apartment at Sodosopa. Why not pay 4 times as much for electricity? All the cool kids are doing it!




Don't even get me started on avocados.

[Engineer]

(05-18-2017 08:45 AM)IvanDrago Wrote:  

snip

Dingbats pay 7 dollars for a 2 dollar cup of coffee, 9 dollars for a 2 dollar "craft" beer (whatever that is), buy Apple products even though there are better options out there for a quarter of the price, buy $700 juicers that don't actually juice anything and pay 2500 dollars a month for a 500 sq ft studio apartment at Sodosopa. Why not pay 4 times as much for electricity? All the cool kids are doing it!
Don't even get me started on avocados.

Also, they won't get off your lawn!

[Aurini]

(05-17-2017 02:23 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Skepticism about Musk and solar from an engineer:


https://www.facebook.com/dmitry.orlov.94...nref=story

Quote:

Elon Musk is annoying. We knew that, but here's why: he is trying to turn a commodity product (electricity) into a designer product: Wall, racy little cars, roofs that produce (expensive) electricity and other crap. And here's an article that spells it out, finally. Point is, if you want a roof to generate electricity (when the sun is shining in the right direction) then put up an asphalt shingle roof (cheapest option) and put up solar panels on top of it (cheapest option). And if you want to fart around with Musk's nonsense, combine the two at several times the cost. And if you want an electric car, get yourself a golf cart. It's a mature technology.

He links to a pretty comprehensive article from Forbes article about the nuts and bolts of solar, regular roofs, and whether or not Musk's roof will actually save you money.

Their summing up isn't pretty:

Quote:

Everyone needs electricity. Everyone needs a roof. Everyone does not need the Tesla Solar Roof.

In fact, the Tesla Solar Roof is the gold Apple Watch Edition of the energy industry.

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.or...-roof/amp/

Great links. This article is very much related:

Quote:

I’m off out the door to ship some gaskets I cut to a business 130 road miles away, London is closer to them than I am, and yet I get the work, that should not be fucking possible in a healthy economy, they should have a choice of suppliers within 50 miles.

*I* had to go 100 miles in the OPPOSITE direction of this customer to get the actual gasket material, from someone who *only* does gasket material (so they know their shit) *and* carries stock…

Also worth considering is the degeneration of the Alt Right: an acquaintance of mine recently went to a Spencer meet up, and all of his fashy internet friends whom he met there started making fun of him for being opposed to pornography.

What does all of this have in common? Consider this quote from the author of the Forbes piece in another article, where he was describing Flex, a legacy company in the push for solar power:

Quote:

While Tesla’s solar shingles and Powerwall reflected their aspirational luxury brand, Flex’s pitch was about your real life. It was about connectivity and intelligence. About the challenge of balancing comfort, convenience, cost and conservation.
Recommended by Forbes

Instead of telling their own story, they told the customer’s story. And they gave their partners a roadmap for the customer journey.

People are buying a lifestyle: they're cosplaying at being someone else.

Roosh has started selling a shirt with the RoK logo on it. This shirt tells your story; even the comedic ad copy reflects your journey as a Red Pill man, increasing your bench press and testosterone levels. Contrast to the alt right personalities who've begun selling t-shirts with their own face on it. This is the height of cucky behaviour, giving tacit permission to your girlfriend to sleep with the man whom your worship, and yet we're supposed to believe that the Alt Right is anti-cuck.

Flex is selling solar power solutions. Tesla is selling an environmentally friendly dildo. Us old thinkers on the alt right were selling a way to revitalize Western Civilization through erudition and self-actualization; the new leaders are selling fashy haircuts. Wimminz mentions a publishing business which went defunct because their hardware was pathetically out of date; they were pretending to be old school publishers, instead of running an actual business.

People are so incredibly empty inside that the only source of identity they can find is by cosplaying as someone else; whether it's thirty year old nerds dressing up like Ironman at Comicon, or 1488ers pretending to be Brown Shirts in their mother's basement, or iDildo fanboys pretending that they're living in Star Trek because they bought a shitty phone in fancy plastic, or environmentalists who pay for an environmentally-destructive battery in their car instead of being frugal and driving a small commuter - people are paying for identity, not for the product.

Today's big winners aren't going to be the ones who offer the best product, it's going to be those who allow their customers to create an identity for themselves by 'wearing' the product. This is true of industry, politics, you name it.

There is a great culling coming, and I, for one, can't wait.

[debeguiled]

Agree with you mostly. I wouldn't compare Roosh's shirt to the solar wall though.

It is more of a cross between a secret handshake and a zero effort trigger-unit.

[IvanDrago]

^^^
And I don't have to take money out of my wallet to subsidise Roosh every time he sells a shirt.

[worldwidetraveler]

Guys, I decided to do my part and make this a better world. I had the Power Wall installed yesterday. I don't know if it is me, but it looks a little different to the images I saw on the internet. I appreciate IvanDrago paying for this. Thanks bro.

[debeguiled]

(05-19-2017 12:53 PM)IvanDrago Wrote:  

^^^
And I don't have to take money out of my wallet to subsidise Roosh every time he sells a shirt.

We could get congress to pass a law subsidizing "emotional support" shirts.

[IvanDrago]

(05-19-2017 01:00 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Guys, I decided to do my part and make this a better world. I had the Power Wall installed yesterday. I don't know if it is me, but it looks a little different to the images I saw on the internet. I appreciate IvanDrago paying for this. Thanks bro.

GAME....CHANGED...BITCHES!!!

[PharaohRa]

When solar panels are 50% efficient in converting solar energy to power, I will then pay attention.

[Captainstabbin]

(05-20-2017 12:00 AM)PharaohRa Wrote:  

When solar panels are 50% efficient in converting solar energy to power, I will then pay attention.

That's not going to happen with solar cells.

Rectennas might get there but that research has been stalled for years. There was some work being done on nanotube rectennas but I haven't read about any breakthroughs. Carbon nanotubes were a huge buzzword a few years ago and the corresponding studies might have just been a play for research money.

[Genghis Khan]

If you take into account multijunction solar cells, we're actually pretty close to 50%.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:...encies.png

   

Multijunction solar cells, despite almost having 50% efficiencies, are extremely expensive to scale and produce. Still, the space industry is interested in them since volume and weight of materials are more important to them than cost. Historically, a lot of research funding for solar has come from the space world for this particular reason despite solar being uneconomical for decades.

But most utilities and regular consumers don't have that kind of money to blow. The real issue isn't efficiency, it's cost - more specifically levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Ultimately, what matters is if your solar panel setup (arguably while including a storage system) beats the cheapest alternative.

I've argued this before, but to address PharaohRa's question: in many places, solar already is competitive without government subsidies. You don't need to wait for 50% efficient solar cells. And it could be worth the investment of putting panels on top of your roof - though it depends on where you live, the angle and positioning of your roof, etc.

But these solar shingles or the PowerWall - as posters have pointed out, at that point, it's far more about a lifestyle than economic considerations.

I for one hope to see the bankruptcy of Tesla much sooner than later. In my opinion, they are Solyndra except 100x more impactful. They've sadly positioned themselves as the poster boy for renewables despite having inferior products. If and when they fail, they will set the entire renewable energy sector back a decade or two. I really hope that happens very soon, so the rest of the renewable industry can finally move on from this cancerous curse.

This is why I hate government subsidies. I support renewables, but they need to stand on their own legs and not have taxpayers' money go to useless ideas like Solyndra's panels or Tesla products. It just makes the entire industry look bad.

[mhnd]

(05-11-2017 05:06 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 04:46 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Quote:

But the punchline is all the roof costs are net of, drumroll, federal tax credits, also known as subsidies to the producer in this case Elon Musk, who has made a living off capitalizing on state and government generosity. Here is the bottom line: every Tesla roof would be eligible for a roughly $15,500 federal tax credit.

If Trump ends these ridiculous tax credits, Tesla will go out of business in a week.

Incorrect.

People who buy an EV do not need a $7,500 tax credit. Particularly Tesla buyers. Even the mass market Model 3. If gas prices go up at any point, demand increases. The innovation within these cars is unmatched on multiple levels whether you are talking about safety or self driving capabilities.

[mhnd]

(05-20-2017 02:45 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

If you take into account multijunction solar cells, we're actually pretty close to 50%.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:...encies.png



Multijunction solar cells, despite almost having 50% efficiencies, are extremely expensive to scale and produce. Still, the space industry is interested in them since volume and weight of materials are more important to them than cost. Historically, a lot of research funding for solar has come from the space world for this particular reason despite solar being uneconomical for decades.

But most utilities and regular consumers don't have that kind of money to blow. The real issue isn't efficiency, it's cost - more specifically levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Ultimately, what matters is if your solar panel setup (arguably while including a storage system) beats the cheapest alternative.

I've argued this before, but to address PharaohRa's question: in many places, solar already is competitive without government subsidies. You don't need to wait for 50% efficient solar cells. And it could be worth the investment of putting panels on top of your roof - though it depends on where you live, the angle and positioning of your roof, etc.

But these solar shingles or the PowerWall - as posters have pointed out, at that point, it's far more about a lifestyle than economic considerations.

I for one hope to see the bankruptcy of Tesla much sooner than later. In my opinion, they are Solyndra except 100x more impactful. They've sadly positioned themselves as the poster boy for renewables despite having inferior products. If and when they fail, they will set the entire renewable energy sector back a decade or two. I really hope that happens very soon, so the rest of the renewable industry can finally move on from this cancerous curse.

This is why I hate government subsidies. I support renewables, but they need to stand on their own legs and not have taxpayers' money go to useless ideas like Solyndra's panels or Tesla products. It just makes the entire industry look bad.

Wanting a company to bankrupt is beta.

Solyndra was 'thin film' solar, a retarded technology that nobody wanted.

Tesla's solar tiles on the other hand, people want. It is more expensive than a normal roof initially, but produces energy for 30 years, so is actually cheaper in many instances.

Power walls people also want. The cost is lower than initially expected. How many Americans would take the option to be self powered/grid independent. Have you ever been to Texas?

[Genghis Khan]

(05-21-2017 09:51 PM)mhnd Wrote:  

Wanting a company to bankrupt is beta.

Solyndra was 'thin film' solar, a retarded technology that nobody wanted.

Tesla's solar tiles on the other hand, people want. It is more expensive than a normal roof initially, but produces energy for 30 years, so is actually cheaper in many instances.

Power walls people also want. The cost is lower than initially expected. How many Americans would take the option to be self powered/grid independent. Have you ever been to Texas?

1. Regarding tiles and the power wall:

I don't recall anyone here claiming people don't want a PowerWall or the Tesla solar shingles. What we have been arguing is that the value of these systems isn't worth the price. People would be better off buying non-Tesla products to get the same value.

As debeguiled pointed out: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidlevine...-roof/amp/

Quote:

According to HomeAdvisor, the average roof, fully installed, costs $7,060. The average roof is 3,000 square feet, meaning the cost of a new roof is $2.35 a square foot.

The average home will support a 7 kilowatt solar array, which currently costs about $3.20 per Watt installed, for a total cost of $22,400. Add that to a $7,060 roof and your solar energy system plus your new roof costs $29,460.

That’s significantly less than the Telsa Solar Roof cost of $65,500, which is a 3,000-square-foot roof at $21.85 a square foot.

Based on Dow’s experience with the Powerhouse solar shingle offering, the power capacity of solar shingles is likely to be less than that of standard solar panels. Dow gave up on their offering because manufacturing photovoltaics is a cut-throat business. The winners have to constantly cut prices and increase power capacity by making manufacturing every more standardized and efficient. You simply can’t compete on a commodity basis with a unique, differentiated product.

2. Regarding Solyndra and thin-film PV:

As for thin-film solar, it is not a 'retarded' technology as you so put it. Efficiencies for both CIGS (Solyndra's tech) and CdTe (the tech behind FirstSolar, the largest US PV manufacturer) have been increasing steadily over the past several years. Although crystalline silicon has a massive advantage right now, it is not inconceivable to imagine thin-film or another technology (for example perovskites) to win in the long run.

3. That doesn't change the fact that Solyndra was a massive setback for the entire renewables industry. Funding was really hard to get for startups after Solyndra, and skepticism was extremely high. Now imagine the impact Tesla going bankrupt will have. Not to mention the amount of investment money Tesla has guzzled up that could've gone to other startups. For that reason, I rather see Tesla fail sooner than later. The longer it takes, the worst the impact on the entire industry will be.

4. You mention how people who can afford an EV don't need $7,500 tax credit. Yet, of course, those people aren't going to refuse a tax credit. Most people cannot afford a Tesla car, meaning the average American is subsidizing the rich's lifestyle with his tax dollars. That's a whole lot of hard-earned tax money going down the drain if Tesla fails, money that could've been used to support R&D to generate real value. Wanting what's best for people (in terms of value per (tax) dollar) and what's best for the renewables energy industry (which employs hundreds of thousands of people) isn't beta. Making knee-jerk reactions without reading the thread, while offering little substance, shilling for Tesla and calling other people beta on the other hand...

[Genghis Khan]

New article on Tesla-SolarCity

https://www.fastcompany.com/40422076/the...he-planets

Quote:

Musk’s announcement is about saving the planet. But it’s also about saving SolarCity, the company his cousins, Peter and Lyndon Rive—who are in the audience—launched with Musk’s support in 2006 to bring solar power to the masses. The business, an industry-rallying success for nearly a decade, had recently run into challenges. Its stock, once unstoppable, had dropped roughly 77% since its February 2014 peak. Its debt had mushroomed to $3.4 billion, sales growth had slowed, and it faced a cash crunch. Last June, Musk proposed that Tesla acquire SolarCity in a deal valued at $2.8 billion. Today’s event was staged largely to win over Tesla and SolarCity shareholders, who would be voting in three weeks on whether to approve the merger.

Musk's personal connections to SolarCity may end up being his downfall.

Quote:

Tesla’s and SolarCity’s boards and investors represent a weave of overlapping interests, both financial and familial. Six of Tesla’s seven directors have clear ties to SolarCity. Tesla’s board includes SolarCity’s former CFO, a SolarCity director, and two VCs whose firms also have seats on SolarCity’s board, along with Musk’s brother, Kimbal. Musk chairs both companies and is SolarCity’s largest shareholder. He has taken out $475 million in personal credit lines to buy more shares in SolarCity and Tesla when advantageous. SpaceX, his aerospace company, has purchased $165 million in bonds issued by SolarCity. Some analysts cautioned that Musk might be self-dealing, rescuing his own investments and his cousins’ company through this purchase. Hedge-fund manager Jim Chanos, who had shorted Tesla and SolarCity, called the acquisition a “shameful example of corporate governance at its worst,” a “bailout” of SolarCity that “strikes us as just the height of folly.”

So basically he's connected all three of his companies: Tesla, SolarCity and SpaceX. So if one of them fails, it can potentially take the other two down.

Quote:

Even so, within Tesla, there were serious doubts about the merger. “There was almost no understanding for what SolarCity was inside the broader company, and that includes Elon,” says a knowledgeable source. “They didn’t understand the business.” Yet Musk is famous for mastering information quickly, and again, who’s going to bet against him? If he’s wrong, SolarCity could prove to be a serious strain on Tesla’s resources. Solar power might be an undeniable part of our future—the industry created double the amount of jobs as coal did last year and accounts for nearly 40% of new electric capacity added to the grid, more than wind or even natural gas—but SolarCity itself isn’t.

If anything, at least Musk is partnering with Panasonic, which does know what it's doing with its battery and solar panel businesses.

Quote:

“The key is to make solar something desirable,” Musk said onstage, so “you want to put it on the most prominent part of your house, call your neighbors over, and say, ‘Check out this sweet roof!’ ”

I can't say I disagree with this. One of my doctors once told me he refused to put up solar panels on his rooftop (despite the financial benefits for him) as they were ugly and would ruin the aesthetics of his house. Looks are perhaps the biggest impediment to rooftop solar.

Quote:

Solar is a massive market, the company notes, with about 5 million new roofs built every year in the U.S. alone, and SolarCity hopes to capture 5% of that business, or 250,000 homes annually, an ambitious goal considering the company only made 325,000 solar installations in its decade of operation before the merger.

Perhaps the one thing that annoys me the most about Musk - the wildly overambitious goals. Though ultimately so many game lessons here: be irrationally confident, sell a dream and look at how people will give you money hand over fist (same as how women will put out for an irrationally confident alpha).

Quote:

The customer would pay back SolarCity and its financial partners over the course of a 20-year lease, ideally at a monthly cost that would be lower than their traditional utility bill. (This financial model was feasible in part thanks to a 30% federal solar tax credit, which SolarCity could claim on the value of each installation.)

Quote:

SolarCity’s business model had by then become more complicated. To help fund its ballooning installations, the company turned to an array of instruments, such as tax-equity financing, bonds, and debt securities. Google, for example, invested $300 million to fund some of SolarCity’s residential installations (in part for the associated tax credits). “The reality of solar financing was that most of the cash started coming from investors like Google months after installation,” says a source familiar with SolarCity’s financials. “We started having huge gaps in cash flow as the business grew.”

There's a lot more. It's a pretty good read.

[weambulance]

I missed this Musk gem from last month:

Quote:

CEO Elon Musk told shareholders this week that through the magic of physics, he will revolutionize the auto industry to increase production by 1,100 percent, and profitably.

Musk stated on May 31 annual shareholder meeting that the Tesla team will employ “physics-first-principles” to shape a new mode of industrial production. He promises to bring “factors of 10 or even 100 times” to improve efficiency.

Lambasting the world’s top automotive factories for using outmoded and inefficient systems, Musk said, “We can make dramatic improvements to the machine that makes the machine. A lot of people will not believe us about this, but I am absolutely convinced this can be accomplished.”

The story is from Breitbart. Same story from LA Times:

Quote:

In a freewheeling talk before shareholders Tuesday [May 30, presumably], Musk said he and his Tesla team will completely rethink the factory process, hoping to bring “factors of 10 or even 100 times” in improvements in efficiency to the manner in which “you build the machines that build the machine.”

Musk, returning repeatedly to the idea of “physics-first principles,” said he no longer uses an office at Tesla, but spends all of his time on the production line.

That exercise has shown him methods by which production capacity could be increased exponentially, he said, by applying those principles.

“The most important point I want to make is … that we’ve realized that the true difficulty and where the greatest potential lies is in building the factory,” Musk said.

Charging the world's best automotive factories with using outmoded and inefficient systems, Musk said, “We can make dramatic improvements to the machine that makes the machine. A lot of people will not believe us about this, but I am absolutely convinced this can be accomplished.”

I suppose he's going with the "aim for the stars and you'll at least hit the moon" approach. Or, in less charitable terms, the "over-promise and under-deliver" strategy.

Talk about hubris, though. Humans have been refining assembly line manufacturing since the early 19th century. Musk is basically saying he's enormously smarter than everyone who was ever involved in manufacturing engineering, because they were too stupid to see this low hanging fruit that will yield such huge returns.

-------

On another note, for all everyone talks about the blazing performance of Tesla vehicles, I found out recently that they're actually total shit for anything but short straight line acceleration. They overheat and go into limp mode in less than a lap on a track. So there goes the only reason I would even consider buying one.

[The Beast1]

^^I've heard the complaints about Teslas before. EVs are yawn machines and Teslas were designed for American roads and commutes. The track numbers are pitiful and the fact the batteries heat up so fast is pretty weak.

What terrified me in that video was his brakes failed temporarily. The pedal collapsed to the floor when he was braking at 125mph. If you've ever experienced brake failure, this is a terrible mark for a nearly brand new car especially one in the $100k+ range.

[weambulance]

I think the brake problem was related to the regenerative braking system. I believe regen can be turned off preemptively, but I really don't want a car that takes awhile to figure out the difference between hard braking and normal, regen-appropriate braking in typical driving conditions. A tenth of a second could be the difference between avoiding a crash and dying.

[dicknixon72]

The TL;DR version of what you'll see now that this much-ballyhooed Model 3 is hitting the streets is that the Emperor indeed has no clothes and Tesla is NOT a competent automaker.

The Model S was a success for a handful of reasons:
1) Development was walked-through by lots of competent auto industry veterans who have since departed Tesla for myriad reasons.

2) The car exists both as a premium luxury flagship and a boutique vehicle. No one owns a Model S as their only means of transportation and anyone who is financially able to purchase a Model S can afford to beta-test it in real life.

3) Early-adopters and brand ambassadors/fanatics will accept a higher attrition rate and problems as 'quirks' of the car. Like a Range Rover, a classic MG, or an exotic like a Ferrari or Lotus, this is NOT their only vehicle and they can gloss over its inherent faults and shortcomings because of their adoration of the vehicle and what it says about them as an owner.

The Model X in contrast arrived TWO YEARS behind schedule and has experienced lots of baked-in problems - aside from it being aesthetically disgusting. The signature Falcon Doors - something DEMANDED by petulant Musk - don't work properly and often fail. Build quality is questionable, illogically worse than the Model S. They still brick. Glass distortions, paint finish quality, braking and steering issues - these are JV problems and, quite frankly, unacceptable in a vehicle with such a low-rate production process.

Again, keep in mind Tesla buyers are flexible early adopters, but they're still trading in highline cars like Audis, Lexus, Volvos, Mercedes, BMW, and hard-loaded Toyotas for these things. Expectations should be met and Tesla is burning through lots of tolerance and goodwill with these people.

Tesla also lacks transparency and that has everything to do with Musk. Tesla is extremely cagey about releasing monthly sales figures broken out by model; they say the methodology doesn't reflect the true relationship between orders and demand and false equivalencies can be dawn. Well, its funny that quite literally every other automaker from Lamborghini to GM releases monthly sales figures. What Musk is trying to cover up is Tesla's inability to manage a cohesive production process and mask that problem by simply not releasing sales figures.

And Tesla probably wouldn't be having such a hard time if Musk didn't think he was superior to everyone else in the auto industry. Remember the short-lived partnership with Toyota where Tesla would supply Toyota with batteries for RAV4 EVs and share knowledge while Toyota would likely imbue Tesla with knowledge and practice of The Toyota Way and JIT production. This 6-year partnership fell apart a few months ago, largely attributed to 'culture clashes' between the two companies and I will give you one guess as to which side that fell on.

Tesla also tries its best to keep a tight control on pre-owned inventory by eschewing the traditional dealership model in order to artificially inflate residual values on Tesla cars. Electric cars as a whole depreciate worse than any other segment in the market, including high-end luxury sedans - traditionally the worst segment. This is due to the modern electric car being in its infancy and each model change brings about a generational advancement in range, capacity, longevity, and technology.

Problem is, Tesla's Model 3 is now going to make its way into the hands of the average American motorist, someone who might indeed own a $35k Tesla as his or her only car. Tesla hasn't proved its ability to mass-produce a car with consistent timeliness or quality, nor has it qualified how its going to support whatever dizzying figure of Model 3s Musk is bloviating about retailing by the end of MY17 because remember - TESLA DOES NOT HAVE A TRADITIONAL FRANCHISE DEALER NETWORK! When you Model S or X breaks now, a Tesla rollback comes to pick it up and provides you with a Tesla loaner. That works fine with the limited number of owners of a $80-120k car. But with a $35k mass-market car?

Throw in the fact that the Model 3 HAS to work and HAS to work without a hitch. Tesla has no other automotive offering to fall back on if sales slide or problems crop up. General Motors lost money on every EV1 it leased and then crushed; they lost money on every 1st-gen Volt, on every ELR just so they could get to where they are now. Toyota lost money on the 1st-gen Prius, too. But they are full line manufacturers with incredible economies of scale and vast, global resources. And when Tesla first fired the opening volley, they only other EVs on the market were the Volt and Nissan Leaf. Now, Mercedes, Fiat-Chrysler, GM, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, VAG, Mitsubishi, BMW, and Volvo are coming strong with countless PHEV and full EV offerings in the near future. AND have the sales and service network in place already across the United States to back up their cars.

Tesla - despite what high-functioning Aspie Musk wants to believe - is not a real automobile manufacturer.

[weambulance]

^

Tesla suffers quite a lot from being steeped in Silicon Valley culture. Musk plays the hype game, but it's like he forgot the point of the hype game is a big IPO or getting acquired and leaving the technical debt and impossible promises for someone else to deal with.

I suppose maybe he was banking on a Hillary win and climate change madness distorting the market even more. But if that's the case, it was a huge gamble.

Or maybe he's just way, way out of his depth and doesn't realize it. A lot of these tech billionaires believe their own press, so to speak, and forget that there was a huge element of luck in their initial success. Successful people rarely want to admit, even to themselves, how much luck mattered in getting them where they are.

I don't pay enough attention to him to guess what his deal really is.