Teslag said:
And yet Teslas margins are better than the legacy carriers.
They are helped a lot by not having union labor and all of the legacy costs (caused largely by the unions)
I will never buy an electric powered vehicle.
514,411 Views |
7787 Replies |
Last: 23 hrs ago by techno-ag
They are helped a lot by not having union labor and all of the legacy costs (caused largely by the unions)
The reason this was so unexpected is lower prices almost never occur at that scale in the new car market. It destroyed resale value for those who bought at the higher price points, particularly corporate fleet buyers who are usually very lucrative customers.Kansas Kid said:techno-ag said:… At the expense of profits? They're HODL to their market share by cutting prices right and left. Hertz and other fleet buyers are abandoning them because they can't get their money back on the trade in market.Teslag said:DDub74 said:
https://www.wsj.com/business/earnings/toyota-motor-reports-rise-in-quarterly-net-profit-as-sales-grew-5324042e
Save you the trouble of reading it but Toyota made record profit led by HYBRID vehicles. What do you know if you offer the consumer a reasonable product That's reliable and doesn't get you stranded people will buy it.
Is that why Tesla has two of the best selling cars in the world and US?
Far from the first company to take advantage of scale to dominate their market. Anyone who didn't realize prices of new products was going to come down in a relatively new market with rapid innovation and rapidly growing scale didn't use their brain. Musk was clear from a long time ago that his model was to start with high prices and then drop them as the production costs went down.
What Hertz was thinking is beyond me. Putting EVs into a rental fleet other than a few token cars is corporate malpractice.
Trump will fix it.
Talk about a Liberal joust....Tesla vs Subaru?! Somewhere, lesbians, hipsters and tree huggers are preparing for battle.techno-ag said:
A Subaru outdoes the Cybertruck off road in almost every way.
https://www.themanual.com/auto/tesla-cybertruck-vs-subaru-crosstrek/Devastating. Funny, but devastating.Quote:
In a recent YouTube video posted by VoyageATX, the stainless steel monstrosity struggled with inclines, terrain features, and even basic offroad functionality. Despite having the option to lock the rear differential in its menu, Tesla has yet to enable this feature. When the YouTuber attempted to lock his Cybertruck's diff, he was instead met with an error message and a promise he would be able to perform the action at some point in the future. The same restrictions applied to front diff locking when that was attempted.
Another nagging fault with the Cybertruck is more of a quality of life issue, but an extreme one at that. Every time the driver left the vehicle, the offroad mode would be disengaged. Said driver would then have to go through the menus and re-enable it before setting off again. As with the differential problems, a lot of these issues will likely be fixed with a software update. But given the marketing for the Cybertruck saw it doubling as a boat and blasting across rivers - its inability to handle a trail is likely a slap in the face to the customers who spent years sitting on a pre-order.
The Subaru, which again starts at just over $30,000, ate every challenge thrown at it without any problems. Its performance was so good that it received compliments from the video host and the Tesla Cybertruck owner himself.
techno-ag
Joined:
Mar 12, 2010
Posts:
47,030
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Welcome to the knowledge that EVs are not combustion vehicles and are not following the price trends of ICE. This price reduction has been occurring for over a decade, you just haven't been paying attention and presume you have an actual understanding of the market by dipping your toe into the topic on a quarter by quarter basis.
Tesla's prices today are functionally the same as they were 4 years ago despite improvements in their vehicles and ridiculous inflation. Their margins despite stagnant prices over a 3 year period and 30% inflation are exactly the same as they were in 2021.
The "price cuts" you've seen in the price of Teslas were a result of shortages in the auto market that Tesla navigated better than most, increasing their volumes in a market where most automakers saw reductions in sales. That allowed them to raise prices to the point they were making Ferrari like margins. Legacy auto had a similar thing occur, but the increases in prices were at the dealership level (sales over MSRP) so the increases in prices and margins were not localized on the publicly traded company side. That's why you don't see anyone complaining about depreciation of Broncos and F-150's despite the same thing occurring.
Cost reductions are expected to continue, price reductions will likely continue as volumes increase and new models (specifically a sub 30,000 possibly as low as $25,000 vehicle) are expected to be released in the latter half of 2025.
Zoom out on your field of view and you won't be so certain that your perspective is correct.
Tesla's prices today are functionally the same as they were 4 years ago despite improvements in their vehicles and ridiculous inflation. Their margins despite stagnant prices over a 3 year period and 30% inflation are exactly the same as they were in 2021.
The "price cuts" you've seen in the price of Teslas were a result of shortages in the auto market that Tesla navigated better than most, increasing their volumes in a market where most automakers saw reductions in sales. That allowed them to raise prices to the point they were making Ferrari like margins. Legacy auto had a similar thing occur, but the increases in prices were at the dealership level (sales over MSRP) so the increases in prices and margins were not localized on the publicly traded company side. That's why you don't see anyone complaining about depreciation of Broncos and F-150's despite the same thing occurring.
Cost reductions are expected to continue, price reductions will likely continue as volumes increase and new models (specifically a sub 30,000 possibly as low as $25,000 vehicle) are expected to be released in the latter half of 2025.
Zoom out on your field of view and you won't be so certain that your perspective is correct.
The car market is different from consumer electronics though. Tesla has an identity problem as we've discussed here. They want to be seen as a cool tech company but … their product is a car.
Trump will fix it.
Like I said, Musk was clear what his strategy was and gave ideas as to how he was going to keep lowering costs. He did it with the model S for a number of years before Hertz or any other recent buyer purchased. The Ludicrous mode was about $150k when it first came out. It is $80k with plaid mode and a whole lot of other features. Even if the new car price didn't go down, the used cars would have dropped faster than normal because the EVs including Tesla keep adding features and improving performance such as longer range and better acceleration.techno-ag said:The reason this was so unexpected is lower prices almost never occur at that scale in the new car market. It destroyed resale value for those who bought at the higher price points, particularly corporate fleet buyers who are usually very lucrative customers.Kansas Kid said:techno-ag said:… At the expense of profits? They're HODL to their market share by cutting prices right and left. Hertz and other fleet buyers are abandoning them because they can't get their money back on the trade in market.Teslag said:DDub74 said:
https://www.wsj.com/business/earnings/toyota-motor-reports-rise-in-quarterly-net-profit-as-sales-grew-5324042e
Save you the trouble of reading it but Toyota made record profit led by HYBRID vehicles. What do you know if you offer the consumer a reasonable product That's reliable and doesn't get you stranded people will buy it.
Is that why Tesla has two of the best selling cars in the world and US?
Far from the first company to take advantage of scale to dominate their market. Anyone who didn't realize prices of new products was going to come down in a relatively new market with rapid innovation and rapidly growing scale didn't use their brain. Musk was clear from a long time ago that his model was to start with high prices and then drop them as the production costs went down.
What Hertz was thinking is beyond me. Putting EVs into a rental fleet other than a few token cars is corporate malpractice.
This shouldn't have been unexpected if any basic due diligence was done. Making an assumption that a recent technology market is going to perform like the old technology is just plain ignorance. They also should have known repair costs for damage would be higher because the data showed it but they probably just looked at operating and maintenance costs which are lower.
Kansas Kid
Joined:
May 22, 2018
Posts:
6,019
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Actually, this is performing like the ICE market when it was at the similar stage in its life cycle.techno-ag said:
The car market is different from consumer electronics though. Tesla has an identity problem as we've discussed here. They want to be seen as a cool tech company but … their product is a car.
The Model T was the first mass-produced car that was affordable enough for a wide audience. In 1909 a new Model T cost $850, but by 1924 the price had gone down to only $260. The average assembly line worker could purchase one with four months' pay in 1914.
https://detroithistorical.org/learn/encyclopedia-of-detroit/model-t#:~:text=The%20Model%20T%20was%20the,four%20months%27%20pay%20in%201914.
The most amazing thing about this thread is how the 1st page debate is the same as the 119th page debate and nothing has changed.
You guys have way more time and patience than I have. Carry on waiting on the 200th page with the same debate to nowhere.
Sometimes is more manly to know when to stop.
You guys have way more time and patience than I have. Carry on waiting on the 200th page with the same debate to nowhere.
Sometimes is more manly to know when to stop.
It's a good discussion. Nobody is being mean. There are a lot of political implications involved with EVs and they are worth exploring.Medaggie said:
The most amazing thing about this thread is how the 1st page debate is the same as the 119th page debate and nothing has changed.
You guys have way more time and patience than I have. Carry on waiting on the 200th page with the same debate to nowhere.
Sometimes is more manly to know when to stop.
Trump will fix it.
Agreed
Cost reductions are dependent upon the novelty of the technology being produced. It's a concept called a learning curve that results in a fairly predictable rate of reduction in cost relative to a fixed unit of measure. For a traditional automobile you could benchmark costs against something like horsepower per dollar and by that metric the cost of a basic vehicle has been in perpetual decline since the inception of the internal combustion engine, cost increases for vehicles have been a result of additional technology (touchscreen, seatbelts, airbags, ABS etc.) rather than the inflation surrounding it.techno-ag said:
The car market is different from consumer electronics though. Tesla has an identity problem as we've discussed here. They want to be seen as a cool tech company but … their product is a car.
There is overlap between the production of an electric vehicle and ICE vehicle in terms of body panels/body/wheels/brakes which slows the rate of cost reductions (but does not eliminate differentiation because the benefits of materials varies between vehicle types), but there's also significant differentiation in the primary source of costs, most importantly associated with battery costs. Between the introduction of the Model S in 2012 and present day there has been a greater than 90% reduction in the cost of a battery per kWH, which is the metric many people benchmark cost declines for electric vehicles against. That rate of reduction is possible, because the first lithium-ion battery was not commercialized until the early 90's and didn't begin significant demand until laptops became popular (and then smartphones, and then electric vehicles that greatly increased the market for batteries/increased scale of production).
To give you an illustration, a 2013 Model S Signature Performance (the top-of-the-line Model S in 2013) had
85 kWH battery
265 miles EPA Range
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
Price: $109,000
The current base Model S today is
100 kWh battery (vs 85kWh)
405 miles EPA range
0-60 in 3.1 seconds (vs 4.6)
Price: $74,490 (vs 109,000)
Public chargers have increased in charge rate from 75 kW to now 350 kW for currently available chargers, and the theoretical maximum of the chargers being deployed by Tesla without any hardware adaptations to the actual charger is 600 kW. Meaning that we're reaching a point where the charging infrastructure is mature from the technology of the individual stall and won't have to be replaced as battery sizes and/or technology improves to allow for faster charge rates and the requirement is just building and installing them.
So you're getting a significantly better car for about 68% of the cost and over that period the CPI inflation was 33% and the average car price increased from around 31,000 up to the present average of around 49,000 (58% increase relative to the broader 33% of inflation). If the Model S inflated along with the broader market it would be 145000 based upon the CPI number or 172,000 based upon the increase in average car prices. Instead, it FELL by 32%. And lest you think that was just a trick of an early start up exploiting the desires of rich people those differentiations in vehicle price increases have occurred over the last 3 years with the Model 3 and Model Y.
This is a price tracker of Tesla's Models over the years. You can look at the initial prices, the decline in prices, an increase in prices during vehicle shortages in 2022, and then a return to the reduction in prices in 2023 as the broader auto market caught up to pent-up demand in part due to higher interest rates.
As far as looking at the market as it exists today the volume of production of EVs relative to ICE vehicles is so small that any variation in production cadence is going to be readily and glaringly evident in the growth numbers. If Tesla, as an example, stops production to improve production capacity on some of their lines it's going to appear in the total number of vehicles produced, as they did in Q3 of last year in Shanghai (their most productive factory) which is why there was a significant drop off in marketshare in Q3 that largely returned in Q4. If they stop production to refresh their vehicles in Q4, as they did at their Fremont factory for their Model 3 production it is going to reflect in the data, like in the post Nortex made earlier in the thread showing 5,000 fewer vehicles delivered in California in Q4 compared to Q3, because the production lines shut down towards the end of Q4 and Tesla backloads California deliveries towards the end of quarters because the deliveries are closer to the factory and they can squeeze in more vehicles.
Those can be indicative of a true slowdown in demand of EVs, and there has been some, but that's in part due to Tesla saturating the market for really only two vehicle models they sell and the fact that every major auto manufacturer is building vehicles that will be obsolete in a year as they have not yet gained access to NACS charging ports for integration into vehicles and every vehicle they produce today will be subjected to using a charging adapter any time they use a public charger long term. It's an Osborneing of their current vehicle slate, which is probably part of why they've pushed their growth plans into 2025. That and high interest rates have cooled the market and those disproportionately impact EVs because they are at present more expensive.
Well if the EV proponents would just admit that EVs suck and they're a losing proposition that would happen. But, they just don't know when to stop.Medaggie said:
The most amazing thing about this thread is how the 1st page debate is the same as the 119th page debate and nothing has changed.
You guys have way more time and patience than I have. Carry on waiting on the 200th page with the same debate to nowhere.
Sometimes is more manly to know when to stop.
The UK Govt's Version of EV Facts
Interesting take on the UK side.
Interesting take on the UK side.
Quote:
Yesterday's BBC article about the Lords bemoaning "misinformation" about EVs mentioned this govt website, which supposedly offers us the truth.
In fact it is pure gaslighting, trying to convince people that the facts say something which they don't:
________________________________________________________
"Citizens are deceived en masse but enlightened one at a time."
Yes when governments lament 'disinformation' it is really just a modern version of the charge of 'heresy', in another time on the British isles.
Tea leaves are out there.
https://fortune.com/asia/2024/02/07/tesla-sells-one-ev-south-korea-in-january-china-charging-battery-fires/amp/
"But it's the best selling car in America. Yeah everybody buys trucks and SUVs, but it's the best selling car!"
https://fortune.com/asia/2024/02/07/tesla-sells-one-ev-south-korea-in-january-china-charging-battery-fires/amp/
Quote:
Tesla Inc. sold just one electric vehicle in South Korea in January as a raft of headwinds, from safety concerns to price and a lack of charging infrastructure, weigh on demand.
"Most Koreans who wanted to buy Tesla's cars have bought one," Lee said. "Some people don't like Tesla recently after finding some of them are made in China," with consumers concerned about the quality of manufacturing, he said.
"But it's the best selling car in America. Yeah everybody buys trucks and SUVs, but it's the best selling car!"
Trump will fix it.
Ever read an article that you have an understanding of and think "These people are totally full of *****" That doesn't just happen when you're reading something you disagree with.
This is misleading.
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 7, 2024
Tesla had one car sale in South Korea in January 2022, 2023 and now 2024. This is because there are no incentives for EVs in January, which is why people wait until February to buy in the country. pic.twitter.com/wYcJilGusj
You're right. I thought you zealots would compare Korea's sales to America's. Instead you went with the "But it's nuanced!" approach.hph6203 said:
Ever read an article that you have an understanding of and think "These people are totally full of *****" That doesn't just happen when you're reading something you disagree with.This is misleading.
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 7, 2024
Tesla had one car sale in South Korea in January 2022, 2023 and now 2024. This is because there are no incentives for EVs in January, which is why people wait until February to buy in the country. pic.twitter.com/wYcJilGusj
Trump will fix it.
techno-ag said:
Tea leaves are out there.
https://fortune.com/asia/2024/02/07/tesla-sells-one-ev-south-korea-in-january-china-charging-battery-fires/amp/Quote:
Tesla Inc. sold just one electric vehicle in South Korea in January as a raft of headwinds, from safety concerns to price and a lack of charging infrastructure, weigh on demand.
"Most Koreans who wanted to buy Tesla's cars have bought one," Lee said. "Some people don't like Tesla recently after finding some of them are made in China," with consumers concerned about the quality of manufacturing, he said.
"But it's the best selling car in America. Yeah everybody buys trucks and SUVs, but it's the best selling car!"
The Model Y outsells every SUV in the US but the RAV4.
hph6203 said:
Ever read an article that you have an understanding of and think "These people are totally full of *****" That doesn't just happen when you're reading something you disagree with.This is misleading.
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 7, 2024
Tesla had one car sale in South Korea in January 2022, 2023 and now 2024. This is because there are no incentives for EVs in January, which is why people wait until February to buy in the country. pic.twitter.com/wYcJilGusj
DEVASTATING to Techno's argument
If a market can only be supplied by one company with a handful of products, it's not really evolving to be a take-over product, or dominant one.techno-ag said:You're right. I thought you zealots would compare Korea's sales to America's. Instead you went with the "But it's nuanced!" approach.hph6203 said:
Ever read an article that you have an understanding of and think "These people are totally full of *****" That doesn't just happen when you're reading something you disagree with.This is misleading.
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 7, 2024
Tesla had one car sale in South Korea in January 2022, 2023 and now 2024. This is because there are no incentives for EVs in January, which is why people wait until February to buy in the country. pic.twitter.com/wYcJilGusj
It's interesting we started at least a few dozen pages back with arguments from the pro-EV crowd they wanted to see a diverse/large field of EV competitors, and now it is just harping on about model Y and x or something sales. Well, it's not surprising, but it is interesting, imho. And even so, again in bellweather communist state of California, Tesla's share of EV sales shrunk, and they did overall vs. total vehicle sales, in Q4 2023.
Fascinating, and devastating.
Having a hard time figuring out if this is an act and you're doing it on purpose in a failed attempt at being irritating or if you're really this bad at critical thinking. Not thinking EVs are going to replace combustion vehicles is a totally reasonable perspective, it's an uphill climb against an entrenched technology, but believing that demand for them fell by 80% in a country overnight while it didn't occur in any other market and believing that Tesla's sales fell by 99.9% for the same period without a more reasonable explanation is pretty wild. Doubling down and claiming the reasonable explanation is indicative of zealotry is doubly wild. I hope it is just a troll, but I think that's a false hope.
The biggest takeaway from me is how pervasive government incentives/subsidies have to be, in various ways/mechanisms all over the world, for them to sell.
nortex97 said:If a market can only be supplied by one company with a handful of products, it's not really evolving to be a take-over product, or dominant one.techno-ag said:You're right. I thought you zealots would compare Korea's sales to America's. Instead you went with the "But it's nuanced!" approach.hph6203 said:
Ever read an article that you have an understanding of and think "These people are totally full of *****" That doesn't just happen when you're reading something you disagree with.This is misleading.
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 7, 2024
Tesla had one car sale in South Korea in January 2022, 2023 and now 2024. This is because there are no incentives for EVs in January, which is why people wait until February to buy in the country. pic.twitter.com/wYcJilGusj
It's interesting we started at least a few dozen pages back with arguments from the pro-EV crowd they wanted to see a diverse/large field of EV competitors, and now it is just harping on about model Y and x or something sales. Well, it's not surprising, but it is interesting, imho. And even so, again in bellweather communist state of California, Tesla's share of EV sales shrunk, and they did overall vs. total vehicle sales, in Q4 2023.
Fascinating, and devastating.
For most markets, I agree having only one or two producers isn't healthy. I think there will be 4-6 players that have the lions share of the EV market in 5 to 10 years just like the current car market. That said, there will be a lot more failures than successes just like in the ICE market back when it was emerging. The fact that Tesla is losing market share is devastating if they are selling fewer vehicles than they had previously. If they are losing share while selling more, that is proof the market is getting more mature and growing.
Does anyone expect any company to maintain a 70-80%+ market share in the car market forever? The model T had over 60% market share at one time. Now Ford has 13% market share.
PS. I think the cybertruk will be one of the failures. I really don't see what market that is serving. It reminds me of the Pontiac Aztek that was supposed to revolutionize the market and was a total failure.
Tesla backloads shipments to California later in the quarter, because their factory is located in California and requires less shipping time. They can't count a vehicle as delivered if it isn't in the customer's hands. Two things happened at the end of Q4. One, they shut down a significant proportion of production to upgrade the Model 3 production lines and refresh the body/interior of the vehicle. There was also a shift in the realization of the EV tax credit from being a refund at tax filing to a point of sale credit meaning in the last several weeks of the quarter a buyer could delay delivery/ordering of a vehicle to Jan 1, 2024 and get the credit at the time of payment rather than having to wait to file taxes and then get the refund while maintaining a higher payment after the refund was received.nortex97 said:If a market can only be supplied by one company with a handful of products, it's not really evolving to be a take-over product, or dominant one.techno-ag said:You're right. I thought you zealots would compare Korea's sales to America's. Instead you went with the "But it's nuanced!" approach.hph6203 said:
Ever read an article that you have an understanding of and think "These people are totally full of *****" That doesn't just happen when you're reading something you disagree with.This is misleading.
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 7, 2024
Tesla had one car sale in South Korea in January 2022, 2023 and now 2024. This is because there are no incentives for EVs in January, which is why people wait until February to buy in the country. pic.twitter.com/wYcJilGusj
It's interesting we started at least a few dozen pages back with arguments from the pro-EV crowd they wanted to see a diverse/large field of EV competitors, and now it is just harping on about model Y and x or something sales. Well, it's not surprising, but it is interesting, imho. And even so, again in bellweather communist state of California, Tesla's share of EV sales shrunk, and they did overall vs. total vehicle sales, in Q4 2023.
Fascinating, and devastating.
hph6203 said:Tesla ships to California later in the quarter, because their factory is located in California and requires less shipping time. They can't count a vehicle as delivered if it isn't in the customer's hands. Two things happened at the end of Q4. One, they shut down a significant proportion of production to upgrade the Model 3 production lines and refresh the body/interior of the vehicle. There was also a shift in the realization of the EV tax credit from being a refund at tax filing to a point of sale credit meaning in the last several weeks of the quarter a buyer could delay delivery/ordering of a vehicle to Jan 1, 2024 and get the credit at the time of payment rather than having to wait to file taxes and then get the refund while maintaining a higher payment after the refund was received.nortex97 said:If a market can only be supplied by one company with a handful of products, it's not really evolving to be a take-over product, or dominant one.techno-ag said:You're right. I thought you zealots would compare Korea's sales to America's. Instead you went with the "But it's nuanced!" approach.hph6203 said:
Ever read an article that you have an understanding of and think "These people are totally full of *****" That doesn't just happen when you're reading something you disagree with.This is misleading.
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 7, 2024
Tesla had one car sale in South Korea in January 2022, 2023 and now 2024. This is because there are no incentives for EVs in January, which is why people wait until February to buy in the country. pic.twitter.com/wYcJilGusj
It's interesting we started at least a few dozen pages back with arguments from the pro-EV crowd they wanted to see a diverse/large field of EV competitors, and now it is just harping on about model Y and x or something sales. Well, it's not surprising, but it is interesting, imho. And even so, again in bellweather communist state of California, Tesla's share of EV sales shrunk, and they did overall vs. total vehicle sales, in Q4 2023.
Fascinating, and devastating.
Shipping later in the quarter would have no impact on their quarterly sales.
While some people might delay to get a refund when they purchase the car, I don't think that would affect most people buying Teslas. They could just reduce their quarterly estimated tax payments or adjust withholding at their job if it is that big of deal.
You're overestimating the sophistication of consumers and it absolutely impacts deliveries.
hph6203 said:
You're overestimating the sophistication of consumers and it absolutely impacts deliveries.
Actually, I think you are overestimating the sophistication of consumers. Most people buy things when they feel the urge or have a pressing need. Are there some who delayed, of course, but then you need to look at the incentives Tesla was offering in Q4 such as transferring unlimited supercharging to a new vehicle purchased before Dec 31 that accelerated sales.
Quote where I said that?hph6203 said:
believing that demand for them fell by 80% in a country overnight while it didn't occur in any other market and believing that Tesla's sales fell by 99.9% for the same period without a more reasonable explanation is pretty wild.
Quote:
Doubling down and claiming the reasonable explanation is indicative of zealotry is doubly wild.
No. I said you guys are zealots, not that a "reasonable explanation" (by your standards) is indicative of zealotry. You guys really are. Heck, Salute the Vaccine even changed his username to Teslag. Come on, you gotta admit that's fanboy level zealotry right there.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. You're allowed to be zealous about whatever in this country. But an analysis of your arguments, even prognostications as to which tack y'all will try, is certainly within the bounds of civil discourse.
Trump will fix it.
Stock keeps sinking.
https://qz.com/tesla-worst-stock-performer-musk-1851227426
Devastating.
https://qz.com/tesla-worst-stock-performer-musk-1851227426
Quote:
Poor Tesla. All those recalls, a CEO whose drug use is allegedly so bad his rich friends on the board reportedly want him to head to rehab, increased competition at home and abroad. And as Valentine's Day approaches, it keeps getting broken up with again and again and again: Investors are ditching its stock en masse, sending it down 24% for the year - a year that's barely in its second month.
The EV manufacturer's stock is the worst performer this year in the S&P 500, which as an index is up 4% so far. That's worse than Boeing, where the "Max" in its 737 Max plane series seems to indicate the number of things that can go wrong, and Etsy, one among the many tech companies laying off staff like mad because business is bad (and not just because they want to keep all their profits to themselves).
Devastating.
Trump will fix it.
I'm one of the few who are fairly 'meh' on cybertruck. I don't think they intend for it to sell in Silverado etc. numbers, and it's more targeted for a 'halo' effect vehicle outside of normal EV buyers. If they had any intention of it being a high volume vehicle they would have made a non-hideous version.
To that extent, I'd say it is likely to succeed. Some of the tech/components they worked on for it will no doubt bleed over in large/small ways to other vehicles like the small car/vehicle from Mexico etc.
To that extent, I'd say it is likely to succeed. Some of the tech/components they worked on for it will no doubt bleed over in large/small ways to other vehicles like the small car/vehicle from Mexico etc.
techno-ag said:Quote where I said that?hph6203 said:
believing that demand for them fell by 80% in a country overnight while it didn't occur in any other market and believing that Tesla's sales fell by 99.9% for the same period without a more reasonable explanation is pretty wild.Quote:
Doubling down and claiming the reasonable explanation is indicative of zealotry is doubly wild.
No. I said you guys are zealots, not that a "reasonable explanation" (by your standards) is indicative of zealotry. You guys really are. Heck, Salute the Vaccine even changed his username to Teslag. Come on, you gotta admit that's fanboy level zealotry right there.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. You're allowed to be zealous about whatever in this country. But an analysis of your arguments, even prognostications as to which tack y'all will try, is certainly within the bounds of civil discourse.
Zealot definition
"a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals."
The people like you that are anti EV seem to be zealots for ICE. Everything you post is anti-EV, pro ICE with absolutely no room for entertaining the idea that there is a place in the marketplace for EVs. The other side readily admits there are limitations to EVs and they aren't for everybody and the market needs to have multiple options for the consumer.
I think there's a place for EVs. They make for ok golf carts.Kansas Kid said:techno-ag said:Quote where I said that?hph6203 said:
believing that demand for them fell by 80% in a country overnight while it didn't occur in any other market and believing that Tesla's sales fell by 99.9% for the same period without a more reasonable explanation is pretty wild.Quote:
Doubling down and claiming the reasonable explanation is indicative of zealotry is doubly wild.
No. I said you guys are zealots, not that a "reasonable explanation" (by your standards) is indicative of zealotry. You guys really are. Heck, Salute the Vaccine even changed his username to Teslag. Come on, you gotta admit that's fanboy level zealotry right there.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. You're allowed to be zealous about whatever in this country. But an analysis of your arguments, even prognostications as to which tack y'all will try, is certainly within the bounds of civil discourse.
Zealot definition
"a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals."
The people like you that are anti EV seem to be zealots for ICE. Everything you post is anti-EV, pro ICE with absolutely no room for entertaining the idea that there is a place in the marketplace for EVs. The other side readily admits there are limitations to EVs and they aren't for everybody and the market needs to have multiple options for the consumer.
Trump will fix it.
Ok Zealot. You prove my point.
Featured Stories
See All
FINAL from Reed Arena: No. 13 Texas A&M 92, Abilene Christian 54
by Richard Zane
A&M's season ends with microcosmic second-half collapse in Las Vegas
by Olin Buchanan
Learned, Loved, Loathed: USC 35, Texas A&M 31 (2024 Las Vegas Bowl)
by Olin Buchanan