Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Tesla Q1 2021 Results (thron.com)
181 points by marc__1 8 months ago | hide | past | favorite | 573 comments

Whatever you may think of Tesla and Musk, you have to agree that they've accomplished something rather incredible.

Few would have thought this possible not that long ago:

* 185K vehicle deliveries in Q1, +109% versus a year ago [a]

* 2.7K supercharger stations, +41% versus a year ago

* 24.5K supercharger connectors, +44% versus a year ago

* 92 MW of solar generation deployed in Q1, +163% versus a year ago

* 445 MWh of solar storage deployed in Q1, +71% versus a year ago

* Revenues of $10.4B in Q1, +74% versus a year ago

* EBITDA of $1.8B in Q1, +94% versus a year ago

* Over $17B in cash on hand

* New S, X, Roadster, Cybertruck, and Semi models on the way

* Berlin, Texas, and Shangai-expansion gigafactories coming online

* Four additional gigafactories already in development

Wow. Just... wow.


[a] And that figure understates growth, because it includes a 10K decline in S and X deliveries due to the upcoming launch of new S and X models.

I had to look it up but for reference in Q1 2021 the big auto makers delivered the following.

Ford: 521,334 GM: 642,250 Toyota: 2.46 million VW: 2.5 million

If Tesla holds up they'll be larger than Ford in 2 years and be the largest automaker in the world in 4 years.

And they'll produce more cars than there are atoms in the universe before the end of this century.

If the singularity happens on schedule they'll all be paperclips long before then.

Now I imagine God looking into the petri dish watching car and paperclip forming entities fighting each other over the measured resources of the experimental culture medium, seeing the beauty of balancing forces, having naturalistic fallacies touch him where he likes to be touched, a lot.

Universal Paperclips reference for anyone wondering. An absolutely wonderful little game.


Though I think the comment is more about https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/paperclip-maximizer

Sound prediction! Do you have an MBA?

Yes, for the looks, but this was based on old Intel.

this right here. this is a spot data point. momentum, inferential analytics, etc. are beholden to error and volatility

That's how you end up with 400 husbands: https://xkcd.com/605/

* 4 dozen == 48

Only if other companies aren’t growing faster. VW tripled electric car sales in 2020 compared to 2021: https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/2021/01/Volkswagen-bran...

When you sold 1 car yesterday, and sell 2 today, you have doubled your sales. It's misleading to talk about growth in terms of percentage points (or doubling/tripling, etc), if it's somewhat low numbers.

VW has just started selling their first "real" electric cars based on their all new platform.

If that platform works out then Tesla is going to compete not against one or two new models, but they'll suddenly compete against two dozen models.

Unless VW fucks something up in the next year, I just don't know how Tesla expects to compete with them. Tesla only has a handful of high end cars; they have no family cars, no vans, no compact cars, no busses.

VW is great at building models for every niche and at every price point. No matter what kind of car you want, VW (or Skoda or Audi) has multiple options for you.

Tesla is currently still ahead, but I'm not sure they can match the breadth of VWs upcoming model palette (if VWs new platform works out).

As a German, I don't see VW getting it together rapidly.

Germany doesn't get life in #Neuland. VW and most of the German industry are respective leaders in some niche by being good at through mechanical engineering IP. Electrical cars are simple. Innovation is in software, DRM business models and battery tech which is all completely foreign to the German industry. People here get Teslas for the charging infrastructure alone, as the alternative is a huge mess. Don't forget, VW is still trying hard to lobby for their known turf, pushing for hybrids and hydrogen combustion mechanical marvels...

Germany doesn't get it. The pandemic has shown, the era of old white me... industrialist has forced the country between a rock and a hard place.

While Musk is shooting consumer internet into space, our leaders had long, exhausting talks, recognizing Germany's need to modernize and embrace technical progression and they fearlessly concluded: It's time to let go of fax by 2030.

German here as well. In general, I share your pessimism.

One thing to point out about VW is that their CEO, Herbert Diess, seems to get it. To name two anecdotal pieces of evidence, Elon had asked him to become CEO of Tesla back in 2015 [1] and he had conversations with Chinese battery supplier CATL about car batteries as far back as ten years ago [2].

[1] https://electrek.co/2021/04/13/ceo-elon-musk-reportedly-hire...

[2] https://www.teslarati.com/volkswagen-herbert-diess-ev-cell-p...

I don't know... This year I lost all hope for Germany's future. This goes beyond VW. Until now, I kinda thought everything is going to be alright, Germany is a rich country and all. I wasn't aware of the extend of moral corruption in the CDU. They really eroded the whole country for personal gains. I've never been this disappointed and disillusioned by politics and society as I am for the last few month.

True, hopefully that'll motivate the CDU to clean up their act / code of conduct.

On the bright side, two of the leading companies in the mRNA vaccine space are based in Germany (BioNTech and CureVac), so there is still some ability to innovate.

> they have no family cars

Why can’t you use a Tesla for a family car? Most of them have four seats. What else do you need for most families?

With "family car" I meant something like the VW Touran. A somewhat affordable car that still has enough space for all the stuff you might want to take along, like strollers, backpacks, scooters, kid bikes, skis, helmets, boots whatever. (Not all of that at the same time obviously)

There isn't really a great EV in that category yet, but I hope it's just a question of time.

Obviously you can use any car as a family car, but my impression is that Teslas are more targeted at commuters (except maybe the Model X, but that's so expensive that it's not really an option for any family I know).

I see plenty of families in Teslas; it turns out there are lots of families who can afford it.

A new Model S was too rich for my blood, so I picked one up used. Great family car. Massive amounts of storage. We're out of the stroller years but it would be great with a stroller.

That’s exactly what the Model Y and Model X are. Both beat an ID4 in cargo volume without even counting the frunk (which VWs don’t have).

Even the smaller Model 3 is plenty for a 4-person family, while it doesn’t beat in liters because of ceiling height the trunk is very spacious.

I guess I should have avoided the term "family car", since there are lots of different types of cars that are suitable as a family car.

So I searched Wikipedia and the types of car I was thinking about are apparently called "Compact MPV" [1]. My thinking was that these cars are mostly targeted at families, so I called them "family cars", but apparently people have different ideas what a family car is.

My point was that VW is going to end up building a large number of different EVs in the next couple of years, and Tesla will face the problem that each of their models will have to compete with 3 models from VW.

No matter what model Tesla your interested in, there will be a car from the VW group with slightly more space, and one that's cheaper, and maybe one that's a bit sportier. It's going to be very different from now, where there's very little competition to Tesla (if you want an EV)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_MPV

We need VW to do this. But Tesla isn’t going to be standing still in the next few years either. Their platform and lead in technology and integration, let alone the lack of legacy costs, provides genuine competitive advantage.

A non-touchscreen way to operate windshield wipers. VW makes a car with an electric drivetrain, Tesla makes an electric drivetrain with a place to put people and things.

I don’t really get what you mean, sorry? Why does a family need different wiper controls to a single person? And obviously you can put people and things in a Tesla.

So the person responsible for keeping their family alive doesn't look away from the road trying to perform a very common task. A car is designed around the idea that maintaining the driver's attention on the road is the primary function. I am not sure what is driving the design of Teslas for the newer models.

I like Teslas in general, but their decision to remove things like buttons and stalks from their vehicles is both dangerous and stupid, and people have already died because of it.

You’d imagine they would have engineers think about this stuff. Such dummies!

Looking forward for that link of a death caused by operating the wipers. I haven’t touched mine (not Tesla) for years since they work automatically, maybe other families have special windshield wiper adjustment needs?




Tesla resists efforts to prevent distracted driving, and also resists the consistent call from regulators properly set expectations for the capabilities of its autopilot feature. People are dying as a result. You'll notice that you won't find the same articles about GM's SuperCruise feature, because they don't oversell the feature and have more safety measures in place to make sure drivers aren't distracted.

Waymo's CEO even claims that Tesla isn't a competitor. There is an obvious conflict here, but he's not the only one saying that 1) Tesla will never have a fully autonomous driving system and 2) their existing autopilot feature is falsely advertised and dangerous.

Hold on, you were talking about the danger of operating the wipers on the touchscreen. That is completely unrelated to autopilot.

You’re just pushing your agenda here. By the way, a tip on that: that first site completely discredits any kind of safety discussion as soon as it’s mentioned. It scares you with a long list of accidents when only 6 are potentially related to autopilot in a decade of its existence, vs 1.3 million deaths happening every year for all car brands.


> Remember that BMW and Audi combined had 9 driver fatalities in nearly 900,000 vehicle years? Clearly, 11 Tesla driver fatalities in 265,000 vehicle years is not a good start. But even those numbers likely understate the danger of driving a Tesla...

> Even without making any adjustment whatsoever for missing fatality data, Tesla drivers are much more likely to die than their peers driving other luxury cars. Eleven deaths in 265,290 vehicle-years is a stunningly high driver fatality rate of 41.46. That’s quadruple the rate of Audi and BMW, and more than triple the rate of all luxury cars combined.

The issue is whether design decisions by Tesla are leading to fatalities. They are, if you compare them to the luxury segment they are in. Advertising an autopilot feature which does not work, and moving standard controls to a distracting, inconsistent touch screen interface is leading to more crashes and more deaths.

Tip of the hat: don't discredit information because you don't like it.

There's a really great video about the cockpit design of fighter aircraft. Basically, everything is color coded and feel the same in every plane to avoid mistakes like what telsa is introducing.

They’re saying that it’s not a real “car” unless there’s physical wiper controls.

Or reins. Steering wheels are inaccurate and a dangerous invention, people have already died because of it.

Teslas have a physical button that controls the wipers when needed. They also can run automatically. Finally they also can be operated via the touch screen, but I never use this last option. You seem to think it’s the only option, but that’s not the case.

In every safety system, there is a point where human intervention can override automated activity. In almost every car these systems have standard tactile controls so you can override through muscle memory in an emergency without taking your eyes off the road. (If you haven't noticed, even the icons used on stalks and buttons are standardized across the industry as a matter of safety). In a Tesla, overriding the auto sense wiper feature is available through an interaction with the touch screen at the precise moment when a driver should not be distracted (ie, when they are having trouble seeing through the windshield). As far as I know, they are the only auto manufacturer that doesn't stick with standard stalks for things that affect visibility (wipers/headlights/turn signals, etc).

This is why I don't think a Tesla is a feature complete car -- it simply lacks the common set of safety features found in every other modern vehicle.

> available through an interaction with the touch screen

Not exactly. It’s on the stalk as a physical button.


> On Model 3 and Model Y vehicles, Tesla didn’t install normal windshield wiper settings through a steering wheel stalk.

> Instead, the automaker is detecting the rain through its Autopilot cameras and automatically adjusting the speed based on the strength of the rainfall.

> If the driver wants to adjust the speed, they need to do it through the center touchscreen.

> The driver in Germany was adjusting those settings when he lost control of the vehicle and crashed.

The wiper can actually be activated via the stalk on Model 3 and Model Y. Not every fine grained setting, but the actions you need.

> The driver in Germany was adjusting those settings when he lost control of the vehicle and crashed.

Yes, user error. He should have used the physical button or voice controls instead. I mean, when driving, the first rule is pay attention to the road.

Anyone can snipe and nitpick, but in actual use with responsible drivers the system works great. With irresponsible drivers, all bets are off, as with any car.

They are adding features all the time through software updates. I hope it is never feature complete, because I enjoy getting these updates!

My X has wiper controls on the stalk. Does that make it a real car for you?

That doesn’t take away the fact that the physical controls are there for the using.

As well as automatic and voice controls.

As with any car, if the driver chooses to look away from the road for any reason, they have to be responsible about it, and they did have other options here.

As I said in another reply, Tesla is the only company advertising automated driving and other features that don't work in edge cases which is bad news for staying alive, even if you aren't the person driving a Tesla. They are also actively removing standard physical controls that have been around for decades, and through design, they are training people to rely on a touchscreen device that is not consistent or reliable.

Sure there are people who also hit cruise control on a 96 Accord and expect it to drive itself, but Honda never told them that would work. These are the kind of realities Tesla should responsibly deal with as a mass market manufacturer, but they don't want to take the PR hit to accept accountability and potentially have to refund millions of dollars for a feature that doesn't work as advertised. They'd rather blame the drivers for as long as they can get away with it.

> training people to rely on a touchscreen device that is not consistent or reliable.

This is a common misconception, easily avoided by getting some firsthand experience owning a Tesla.

We literally do not use the touchscreen for driving. And for that matter, almost not at all while driving.

As with any tool there will be those who misuse it and put others at risk. I look forward to hearing you give even a single example where a human driver was not to blame. And, preemptively so you won’t waste your own time, I don’t mean citing links where if you dig in you find that the link does not support your case.

It’s true that over time people will learn to rely on controls less and less. The world has been through similar transitions with horse and buggy -> car for example. There will be accidents along the way but the end result will be a world with far fewer accidents.

Its possible there is a better way to get to that world, but I haven’t thought of one. Perfect systems do not just spring up out of nowhere.

> This is a common misconception, easily avoided by getting some firsthand experience owning a Tesla.

So a software update has never changed the order or location of user interface elements?

> I look forward to hearing you give even a single example where a human driver was not to blame


There are at least 3 known cases where autopilot failed and someone died. (Also note that no one has died from the failure of Waymo or SuperCruise driver assist tech.) Here are a few articles in the past few days on the same subject.




The NTSB has also outlined the many issues with Tesla's autopilot feature.


> The investigation identified the following safety issues:

> - Driver Distraction.

> - Risk Mitigation Pertaining to Monitoring Driver Engagement.

> - Risk Assessment Pertaining to Operational Design Domain.

> - Limitations of Collision Avoidance Systems.

> - Insufficient Federal Oversight of Partial Driving Automation Systems.

> - Need for Event Data Recording Requirements for Driving Automation Systems.

As far as I know, Tesla has not even responded to this report. A good place to start heading towards that better world is for Tesla to demonstrate some accountability.

>There are at least 3 known cases where autopilot failed and someone died.

Depending how you falsely define "failure," Autopilot can be falsely said to fail all the time.

If you set an unrealistic bar, it can fail each and every second of every drive, according to some fallacious definitions.

Fully replacing the driver is not a claimed feature of the current system.

Future systems, sure. But current systems? Nope.

Therefore, as has been clearly stated in many places, the human driver is responsible for maintaining safe operation of the vehicle.

So, the human is to blame in these cases, not Autopilot.

Why are you getting into the definition of fallacious? Read the NTSB report.

> The Tesla Autopilot system did not provide an effective means of monitoring the driver’s level of engagement with the driving task, and the timing of alerts and warnings was insufficient to elicit the driver’s response to prevent the crash or mitigate its severity. Requirements are needed for driver monitoring systems for advanced driver assistance systems that provide partial driving automation (SAE Level 2 systems), and Tesla needs to develop applications that more effectively sense the driver’s level of engagement and that alert drivers who are not engaged...

> Despite the system’s known limitations, Tesla does not restrict where Autopilot can be used. Tesla should incorporate system safeguards that limit the use of partial driving automation systems (Autopilot) to those conditions for which they were designed...

> The Tesla’s collision avoidance assist systems were not designed to, and did not, detect the crash attenuator. Because this object was not detected, (a) Autopilot accelerated the SUV to a higher speed, which the driver had previously set by using adaptive cruise control, (b) the forward collision warning did not provide an alert, and (c) the automatic emergency braking did not activate. For partial driving automation systems to be safely deployed in a high-speed operating environment, collision avoidance systems must be able to effectively detect potential hazards and warn of potential hazards to drivers

Autopilot 1) failed to detect a distracted driver and engage them, 2) is not limited by Tesla to areas where it actually works, and 3) depends on collision avoidance which does not work. Tesla is claiming they will solve these problems without LiDAR. Volvo, Waymo, GM, VW, and many more claim that even semi-autonomous driving isn't possible without it. We'll see how many more people have to die before Tesla changes their mind.

We have to be careful about moving the goalposts to measure Autopilot according to supposed qualities it never claims to have.

It’s likely that implementing the suggested solutions would add more problems than it solves. For one thing some of them would exacerbate one problem you seem to be concerned about, driver overconfidence and over reliance on the system.

So while these bureaucratic opinions are fascinating, like many such committee driven conclusions they should be taken with a grain of salt. Tesla has thought things through pretty well.

Ultimately the best solution for now imho is to keep full responsibility with the driver.

If autopilot allows itself to be activated in an area where it doesn't work, who is accountable for that? If it depends on collision avoidance that performs far worse than other solutions, who is accountable for that? When Tesla sells a $10k package that calls itself autopilot and then people die when they have it turned on, who is accountable for that?

> So while these bureaucratic opinions are fascinating, like many such committee driven conclusions they should be taken with a grain of salt. Tesla has thought things through pretty well.

Every other driver assist technology limits its own scope to prevent over-reliance. That's because those companies (Subaru/Toyota/GM/Ford/Volvo/BMW/VW) are working with regulators across the world to develop and adhere to standards. If Tesla's solution was better, you'd have some numbers to back it up instead of a bizarre assertion that industry experts are suddenly clueless when they are part of a regulatory body.

Tesla has created an unreliable semi-autonomous system and made it available before it's ready against the advice of the NTSB and other regulators. That is irresponsible and people who would have otherwise been paying attention have died because they, like you, assumed that "Tesla has thought things through pretty well."

Much like an IT department that fights tooth and nail against a third party security audit, it should be obvious why Tesla is so dedicated to pretending that there isn't a problem. They don't want to admit autopilot isn't ready, and will likely never be dependable until they have proximity sensors in addition to cameras like every other solution does. They'd rather blame the drivers for relying on the technology they just paid for. It's a ridiculous defense that will ultimately fall apart.

You don’t seem to be reading the clear onscreen warnings about this stuff from Tesla. There is a lot of misinformation out there, so I can understand how you could form negative opinions about them. My personal, first hand experience of their stance, as the owner of two Teslas both with the FSD option paid for, has been different from what you describe.

BTW about FSD I don’t expect it anytime soon. I paid for it (yes twice!) to support the company at a time when it was in a fragile financial state. It does give me some small benefits for now but I do look forward to more in the future. I don’t know how it will turn out but I’m thrilled to help do a small part to enable awesome futuristic technology! And to support a company that is not brain-locked sticking to the playbook of a committee of fuddy duddy old world car thinkers.

>Tesla has created an unreliable semi-autonomous system and made it available before it's ready

Can you think of a better way?

Really. The obvious (bad) answer people come up with here is "just wait until it's perfect and release it then, and only then."

But I don't see how that's realistic. How, in your mind, could that possibly work?

There are plenty of technologies that are working in a limited scope for driver assist, and functioning reliably if not perfectly. Tesla's death rate (measured in vehicle years) is three times that of their competition in the luxury segment.

Step 1 is to not sell something called Full Self-Driving/Autopilot when it can't do either of those things. Step 2 is to develop a reliable system (per NTSB advice) to make sure the driver is paying attention. Step 3 is to make sure it's only active in the domain where it can be trusted. Step 0 is to not do anything else until your collision avoidance works as well as your competitors.

Consider these differences:

"Subaru EyeSight Driver Assist Technology" -- with disclaimer about not being optimal in all conditions

"GM SuperCruise hands-free driving-assistance" -- with a similar disclaimer

"Tesla Full Self-Driving" -- and their disclaimer is "Full Self-Driving is in early limited access Beta and must be used with additional caution. It may do the wrong thing at the worst time, so you must always keep your hands on the wheel and pay extra attention to the road. Do not become complacent."

The marketing bait and switch is pretty common, but this is "Thanks for the $10,000 USD for Full Self Driving. It doesn't work. Don't trust it. In fact, pay extra attention while it's on."

I have never seen the tech community so excited about paying to be alpha testers for technology that is literally killing its users.

I understand what you’re saying but you missed the question. It was how do you develop an FSD system? The systems you mention are not FSD, and only one of the three (Tesla) is working toward FSD. Do you see a better approach to get to FSD?

I don’t agree that the system is killing its users of course. That kind of inflammatory wording doesn’t help anything imho. The users are possibly contending for Darwin awards… they are doing it to themselves.

Maybe you misunderstand. My Tesla doesn't have touch screen wiper controls at all. Does that make it a real car now?

They won’t be able to compete on price, because they’ll be bidding for batteries on the open market along with everybody else. Takes another 5 years to build out capacity, and who knows what Tesla will have accomplished by then.


Are you seriously writing it under a comment that just linearly extrapolated tesla’s production?

I am not even downvoting that comment because it seems to be such a great example of the blatant cognitive dissonance Tesla and Musk evoke in many people.

VW already sold 134k in 2020, of which 56k were the id.3 that effectively was available since september 2020.

In Norway, where 54% on new cars sold in 2020 were electric, Volkswagen group sold more than twice as many electric cars (mostly Audi e-Tron and VW id.3) as Tesla.

Same goes for extrapolating Tesla results, no?

Tesla has already lost marketshare in almost every market so they won't be bigger than Ford in 2 years. They will likely lose their regulatory credits some time this year because VW, Audi, Porsche and Ford have strong offerings.

If the market expands faster than your market share shrinks, your business still grows.

Examples: IBM with IBM PC, Apple with iPhone.

Examples: IBM with IBM PC

And we all know how many IBM PCs IBM has sold over the past decade.

I think that IBM might actually be the most apt analogy for Tesla. 20 years from now Tesla will be a niche player in the market they built basically from scratch.

I mean, as a TSLA shareholder I'm...fine with that? A few years ago people were predicting the company would go bankrupt before they ever became profitable, now the bear scenario is that they become the largest company in their sector by a huge margin until settling into dominant complacency.

IBM PC was released 40 years ago, in 1981. They sold their PC division in 2004, after 23 years of run, when PCs were on every desktop and every server rack.

If Tesla goes out of business and sells itself to an Asian automaker when EVs have completely conquered the transportation landscape, I'll be OK with that :)

Oh, completely agree. No matter how the future of Automotive transport plays out from here, Musk and Tesla have undeniably etched themselves permanently into the history books.

I still think they will end up as a subsidiary of one of the laggards.

Why? Which companies will be the main players in that scenario?

VW, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Geely perhaps? Or some other Chinese company we haven't really heard of yet?. I don't see Tesla turning itself into the sort of company that can (or wants to) successfully compete in the top 5 carmakers by volume or revenue. I think they'll be happiest playing in the high performance niche and leave making the EV Corolas and Polos of the world to Toyota and VW

All that being said, I'm far from confident enough in this prediction be to be actively betting against Tesla.

How does Tesla lose market share while achieving record (+ 109%) sales? The market certainly hasn’t been growing faster than Tesla has.

When you define the market as electric vehicles instead of passenger vehicles. In Europe, the electric vehicle market is growing very fast.

But all these EV sales come at the expense of gas/diesel sales, so I think it is a bad idea to consider EV's as a separate market.

Because the EV market grew much faster, e.g. +260% for Germany (from 108k in 2019 to 395k in 2020).

Sure, but market share should be considered as a percentage of the overall car market, not just electric sales.

It's unrealistic to expect that Tesla would continue to dominate the EV market forever. It is realistic to expect that Tesla will become a significant player in car sales globally.

> It's unrealistic to expect that Tesla would continue to dominate the EV market forever. It is realistic to expect that Tesla will become a significant player in car sales globally.

How could Tesla become a significant player in the overall market without being much more significant in the EV market, which is a small subset of the former?

EV sales are growing rapidly as a portion of the overall vehicle market, and will continue to do so.

Eventually, virtually all vehicle sales will be electric. This will happen faster in some regions than in others.

What are you saying?

How can Tesla be a significant player in car sales globally, when as a percentage of EV car sales, they are decreasing?

Think about it for a second and it will come to you. As more cars turn EV, unless Tesla maintains their marketshare, they will become less and less significant. They've lost marketshare in the first year that the major car companies have introduced reasonable EVs. Their 2nd derivative is negative.

Tesla is valued at 3X Toyota with having a fraction of the sales. What happens when the EV market becomes fully realized, but Tesla isn't the market leader but a small player. Do they still deserve to be 3X Toyota's market cap?

> "As more cars turn EV, unless Tesla maintains their marketshare, they will become less and less significant."

No, that's not neccessarily true at all.

Let's imagine that in 2021, EVs are 2% of car sales globally, and Tesla has 50% of the EV market. That means that Tesla has 1% share of the entire car market.

Now imagine that in 2031, EVs are 50% of car sales globally. And Tesla's share of the EV market has "shrunk" to 20%. But that's still 10% of the entire car market. Even assuming no market growth, that's an enormous 10X (1000%!) sales growth for Tesla over 10 years!

Even though its share of the EV market has shrunk, Tesla is selling 10X more cars and is a far more significant company in 2031.

Right now Tesla is outperforming competition on three points:

  * 0-100km/h times
  * Range
  * Charging network
I believe most people don't care about the 0-100 speed. And most people can live with a little less range. So this leaves the network as a selling point. I believe it depends on the country how important this is. For example in the Netherlands you can cross the whole country on one charge. So you don't need a network.

Only recently competition is shifting focus to electric cars and more and more great EVs are being released. For example the new Hyundai Ioniq 5 is a car I personally would prefer over a Tesla.

So Tesla is doing great but I think they are becoming 'just another car brand'.

In the European market the range advantage might not be a big deal, but it's a major selling point in the American market. Probably the biggest concern I hear from people about going electric-only is range anxiety - the notion that they might need to drive a long distance on a whim and worry they might be "stranded" with no battery, regardless of the actual likelihood of that. With America's generally poor public transit infrastructure and car-as-default culture, it's even a fairly reasonable concern in many cases.

Maybe once the charging network becomes as saturated as gas stations are range can no longer be an issue, but we're nowhere near that point outside of major cities.

I think even in the European market it may be a factor. It's not uncommon to drive somewhere on summer holidays, I'm in the UK and sometimes drive across France or down to Spain for summer hols - or skiing holidays. It's stupid that this is a consideration when buying a car, I know. But it certainly has a chilling effect when I think about our over-night drives to get to the Alps for a Saturday morning.

Why is it stupid? If anything Europeans would be more sensitive to delays in their trip because of charge issues.

If you're going on a weekend getaway then the difference between 4-6 hours of driving and 8-10 is huge.

I live in Croatia and have dark memories of standing in front of gas stations on the highway in the summer and waiting for +30 minutes in the heat to do 3 minutes of gas pumping. I wonder what sort of problems will EV driving tourists be going through in the next few years as they become more popular.

Because for exceptional peak usage you could also just rent a car, and then optimize your car choice for the day-to-day usage. Driving a smaller battery around takes less energy, so it is cheaper to buy and cheaper to drive.

Buy an electric car for everyday stuff, hire a car for holidays?

That's not really a thing in Europe.

Renting a big nice car for a 1 week holiday (so ~10 days) sets' you back 1000$, which is a bit over the average net monthly income over here. You can rent a small shitty car for much less, but then you might as well just use your own car.

If money is not an issue, renting a car, picking it up, etc. is a bit of a pain. Since money is not an issue, you might as well spend more on a better car that doesn't force you to do this.

Very very few are going to buy a car that forces them to spend one month full of salary to rent a different car for larger trips.

I don't think your number is accurate, at least not for western europe. Also you have to compare what you save in terms of purchase price (and electricity cost, because you drive a lighter car) with what it costs for renting over the lifetime of the car. The salary level doesn't really factor in directly.

The real reason more people don't do it, is that a car is a status symbol and most people like wasting money on it. Musk knows that and uses it for his PR. And of course still not many people are used to the new cost pattern of electric cars.

You can buy a used VW Golf 4 years old with <50k km for < 10.000 EUR.

You can probably re-sell it 4 years later with 100k km for 6k EUR.

There isn't an electric car that can compete with this today.

You could buy a Tesla 3 for ~30k EUR, and then rent at 500 EUR every 3 months (being extremely cheap), and in those 4 years, just the renting almost matches the entire price of the VW Golf.

For the numbers of the electric car to even make sense long term you'd need cheap ass electricity, which at least in central Europe you only get if you charge at home. The moment you charge outside, gas is almost always cheaper than electricity.

That still leaves insurance, repairs, etc. on the table. Repairing a popular car like a Golf is dirt cheap.

The rental part is unnecessary and can be removed from your calculations. That being said, yes a Golf is cheap, if not considering the incremental long term cost to the environment and the future. It’s the tragedy of the commons.

I was comparing a big electric car with a fat battery vs a cheaper electric car with a smaller battery + a rental car for holidays. Of course buying a used ICE car is currently still cheaper.

Wow. Thats expensive. I just checked and in LT there is a car sharing network, where you use cars on demand, and here one week rent for VW T-Corss is 125€. 379€ for month. +0.2€/km (fuel is included in price)

> In the European market the range advantage might not be a big deal,

It wouldn't be a big deal if charging time was < 5 minutes.

I do occasionally (once per month or two months) go somewhere that's 800km away.

Driving at 180-200km/h avg speed and refueling once that's a 5 hour trip.

If I have to drive at 120 km/h and charge multiple times I'm looking at > 8h trip or more.

I also drive to some places at 300km distance or so for the weekend, and these places might not have a charger close, and/or harsh conditions (e.g. some small village in the Alps).

I'm a bit skeptic that I can do a round trip to those without charging, and even if I charge, i'm skeptic that at very cold temperatures the battery will hold up well for the last 50-80km part of each way in which there might not be any charging stations (e.g. holding charge for 200km over the weekend or a full week at less than -20 C).

Also, in Europe, a significant chunk of the population rents and lives in apartment buildings, often without parking spots, which means you can't charge an electric car over night. Combine that with few charging stations and waiting at a charging station at 6 am for 1 hour is something people having electric cars actually do talk about. So if your commute is 80km, you probably want 800km of range to only have to charge the car once per week.

Also, charging in the street (there are very very few parking spots outside that do have charging) is extremely expensive (much more than just using gas).

Maybe all these fears are unfounded?

But in a nutshell: battery kilometers at high speed, battery holding at very cold temps for a week, and the ability to cheaply charge at night are what I see people talking the most about, when discussing electric cars.

In pretty much all discussions, diesel cars just sound like the better deal (they are cheap right now).

Have you stopped to think about the insane infrastructure that goes into supporting car driving? There are millions of gas stations across the planet, that had to be built, then continually supplied. Not to mention the billions (?) of km of asphalt roads. We did all that in the 20th century. What's so impossible about building chargers? I don't get it.

As for driving at 200kph, that's just dangerous (unless you're in a no-speed-limit autobahn, where at least other cars expect you to go fast), not to mention fuel inefficient. By all means, please go ahead and crash your car, that's your risk, I guess. The snag is that you share the road with other users and you can kill them too. So don't be a selfish prick and please drive safely. Either way let's assume most people just want to go at 120kph.

Uh, not to be too much of an Internet nitpicker, but according to [1] there's around 168,000 gas stations in the US. That's a pretty big car-using market right there.

Numbers for China are harder to come by, a quick search yielded [2] which states around 120,000 stations in 2019.

So, extrapolating from those two data points, I still think "millions" is a bit too many-sounding.

1: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/quizzes/answerquiz16.shtml

2: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190226005504/en/Chi...

> We did all that in the 20th century. What's so impossible about building chargers? I don't get it.

I never said its impossible, I said that right now they are not there.

In the 18th century, without proper roads, between the choice of a car with wooden wheels and a horse, I'd have 100% of the time would have bought the horse.


> As for driving at 200kph, that's just dangerous

No, it isn't. Driving 120kph in the autobahn is more dangerous than driving 200kph. You are forcing everyone that wants to drive at the recommended speed of 130kph to overtake you with 10 kph speed difference, blocking 2 lanes. Add a truck to the situation to block a 3rd lane, and you have just created a big blockage in the highway, which is what causes most autobahn accidents. This makes _you_ one of the biggest dangers to others on the high way.

> Not to mention fuel inefficient.

It is, however, very time efficient.

If you want to trade fuel efficiency over everything else, walking is better than using a car.

The moment you decide that walking is not "fast enough" you are already making a trade-off between time efficiency and fuel efficiency.

Just because your time is worth less than most people's time and you prefer driving at 120kph, 10kph below the recommended speed, does not mean that most people agree with you. The traffic guidelines actually disagree with you, which is why they recommend at least 130kph.


> Either way let's assume most people just want to go at 120kph.

The recommended autobahn speed is 130kph. The slowest lane usually goes at 140-150 kph.

I don't see the point of making an assumption that's clearly incorrect.

> By all means, please go ahead and crash your car, that's your risk, I guess.

If you think that driving at 200kph is dangerous, I have to assume that you never took highway driving classes as part of your driving license, most of which force you to drive at high speed. A consequence of doing this is that your comfort speed goes up with enough training, so when you are actually driving at 160kph or so, you are driving 20% slower than what you are trained to drive, which makes it actually much safer.

If you only were trained to drive at 120 kph, and have never received trained to drive substantially faster than that, you are always driving at 100% of your training / skill level, which means small mistakes have larger consequences than if you have a 20% buffer of error.

So arguably, _you_ should be driving at 100 kph through national roads, instead of driving on the highway until _you_ receive proper training.

> In the 18th century, without proper roads, between the choice of a car with wooden wheels and a horse, I'd have 100% of the time would have bought the horse.

There were no automobiles in the 18th century.

> No, it isn't. Driving 120kph in the autobahn is more dangerous than driving 200kph.

Yes, it is. Data shows accidents increase with speed, yes, even in autobahns, let alone in highways with speed limit.

Also, you were talking about motorways/highways in general, the overwhelming of which have speed limits, and not about autobahns in particular.

> 130kph has to overtake you with 10kph difference

I used 120 as it's the highway speed limit in most of the world. Replace 120 with 130, the point is driving at the speed limit. You are talking about going 200kph, so I don't see what you're trying to get at here.

> Just because your time is worth less than most people's time and you prefer driving at 120kph, 10kph below the recommended speed, does not mean that most people agree with you. The traffic guidelines actually disagree with you, which is why they recommend at least 130kph.

Ahahaha, what the hell is your problem. I drive the speed limit instead of driving like a maniac because my time is not so valuable as yours?

> The slowest lane usually goes at 140-150 kph. I don't see the point of making an assumption that's clearly incorrect.

Again, simple data falsifies your assertion. Measurements taken put the percentage of people going over 130kph in German highways at between 35% and 60%. So your "slowest lane goes 150" thing is hilariously off the mark.

> If you think that driving at 200kph is dangerous, I have to assume that you never took highway driving classes as part of your driving license

Again with the German exceptionalism? Yes I did drive on the highway to get my license of course. No, I didn't drive nearly twice the speed limit in those lessons.

> training, I'm such a good driver, stick to taking the bus until you git good

Nothing you can say changes the fact that higher speed means more risk of crashes. This is documented, and you are no exception. Everybody thinks they're great drivers so the rules don't apply to them.


Finally: in your previous posts you complained that electric cars can't travel at 200kph when the temperature is -20°C. Well if you're such a good driver you should know that it's reckless (and indeed forbidden) to drive at such speeds in such cold weather.

You may or may not be exaggerating but if you aren't then you are definitely an outlier. Which kind of sucks for you because it's going to be hard to keep doing this when the rest of the world has moved on.

Outlier in which sense ?

There is a lot of people from southern Europe and northern africa (morroco, algeria, etc.) living in central Europe (France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, etc.). There is a lot of people from East Europe (Poland, Ukraine, Czec republic, Croatia, Turkey) living in Central Europe as well.

How do you think these people travel to visit their families every couple of months ? They do 1000km per way trips with the car.

If you just have to cross Germany, you are not going to be driving there at 100km/h. I do 600-800km ways in Germany a couple of times per year, and do drive 220km/h everywhere where it is allowed and condition are good. Your average speed is never that cause traffic and so on, but over 190km/h average speed is doable if you travel at the right hours which I always do because... you don't want to spend 800km stuck on traffic.

Why not flying? Because while central europe has good airports, wherever they might be flying to might have an airport 3 hours away, requiring them to rent a car, etc. which as mentioned costs one month of net salary.

In Germany, for example, ~50% of the population rents. As a renter, its up to your landlord to retrofit your parking spot with an electric supply for your electric car. That costs money, and if the landlord says no, you can't do this yourself. Is not up to you.

Electric cars are more a "social problem" in europe than a technical one.

How do you think these people travel to visit their families every couple of months ? They do 1000km per way trips with the car.

The average annual milage across the whole of the EU is 12,000Km per year, it's even lower in Eastern Europe.

Most people aren't making these sort of trips regularly.

You are an outlier.

> The average annual milage across the whole of the EU is 12,000Km per year, it's even lower in Eastern Europe.

I do these trips every 2 months.

My average mileage is 9,000 - 10,0000km per year.

I don't really know what point you are trying to make with average mileage or where you got that number from.

But average mileage doesn't say anything about the frequency and the length of the trips people do on their cars.

Most people I know don't have a car. The ones that do have a car commute to work via public transportation or bike. They only use the car on the weekends, or holidays.

800km * 2 * 6 times a year = 9600km

So you don’t use your car for anything else at all during the year?

Either you’re misreporting how many times you travel (you said “a couple times” earlier) or your yearly mileage.

So are you saying that you bought a car to use it only 6 times a year (going at 220km/h and risking to kill other people) and never use it for anything else? If you want to throw your life away at least don’t kill someone else. If you want to throw your money away it’s better to do some charity.

This is exactly the reason why I still have doubts about EVs (for now).

While hydrogen cars are less efficient I still think it will be a better option for the near future.

In a city like Stuttgart people have to park in double rows. Unless they can fully charge their EV in < 5 minutes those cars will never convert from combustion engines to a battery car. Hydrogen will solve this much faster than batteries.

> I believe most people don't care about the 0-100 speed.

You say that, but almost every single person I've given a ride to in my Model Y has come away from the acceleration portion of the trip amazed and wanting more. Older men, young kids, soccer moms, teenage girls, all get that breathy expression when you effortlessly pass someone on the expressway. And this is a Model Y, one of the slowest Tesla's on the market. A Model S P100D would have them cursing under their breath and pulling out their wallet; I know it did for me.

I don't like this direction of development. I would like to see cars in future used for transportation and not racing. There is no place for racing on public roads especially in cities. So acceleration should be irrelevant.

It's like building bigger and bigger cars than other ones on the road to "be more safe" but at the end everyone is driving around in tanks (except other traffic participants like pedestrians and bicyclists). Same with "i'm faster than you"...

It’s not for racing. It’s a safety feature that can get you out of a tight spot to avoid a collision. It’s also enjoyable.

Once we get rid of human drivers in all cars then the first part won’t be needed anymore. When that day comes, we will be safer but we will miss the fun acceleration of these days.

People usually forget that they can also use breakes to get out of tight spot, which is usually safer, and by the way it has even greater acceleration (negative though). By the way high power and high acceleration usually takes you to that tight spot. Isn't?

Sometimes it’s the high power (way higher than acceleration as you correctly point out) of other people’s braking that gets you into a tight spot.

In any case in some situations it’s good to have the flexibility of both options, not just the braking option.

Not care is perhaps a bit strong. But pay the price? Most opt out of that.

I'm sure it's great in the beginning. But is it €60k great?

People feel that way the first time they feel the acceleration of any electric car, even a Nissan Leaf.

I've ridden in a Leaf and didn't notice anything remarkable. A Tesla was entirely different.

They are perceived to be very far ahead on vehicle assist and self-driving. I can't say if they actually are technologically speaking, but I think the perception they have will give them a significant benefit for years ahead.

A part of that is the frequent software updates, and even options of updating the hardware. It makes customers feel like their car could get full self-driving eventually, even if it doesn't ship with it now. Maybe it'll never happen, but the effect on sales is real.

I would also prefer Ioniq 5 or Kia EV6. But if I cared about self-driving I would probably get a Tesla. And as the other commented pointed out, their software is generally way better than the competition, and that's really what's making me think twice about getting VW or Skoda, even though I like their new EVs otherwise. I will also make sure to go through reviews on the software and updates of Hyundai and Kias new cars before I buy them. I'm happy with my current Kia Soul EV even though it doesn't get OTA updates. They did upgrade to support CarPlay, which I was really happy with, but that's it. That's fine for a car with such simple software. But for a car with more advanced features like the ones coming out now, it's just not.

Is this really the case? Maybe in the US, but here in the Netherlands people are not very positive about Tesla's self-driving capabilities. The main reason is that Teslas don't understand Dutch roads. Another is the list of broken promises made by Elon. But of course this can change in the future.

I rented Model-3 in Norway. Self-driving just did work not on curved mountain roads unless one is prepared to tolerate constant jerks to left and right. So I quickly turned that off.

But I was impressed by how well the car could stick to the car in-front and keep the safe distance under all conditions including heavy rain at night. This is a mayor safety feature.

Yes, but ACC does work well in a lot of cars.

My Hyunadi's driver assist (adaptive cruise control, active lane keeping) is comparable if not more reliable feeling than Tesla's autopilot.

the tesla advanced driver assistance software seems to be fairly top of the line too in terms of outperforming the competition. There isn't much missing in the Wikipedia "ADAS" list of feature examples:


Charging network got me to buy a Tesla over an IONIQ 5 a few weeks ago. I used to drive a Kia e-Niro and we'd use Plugshare to find odd fast chargers at fast food restaurants or gas stations and pray they weren't occupied when we got there or else we'd hop a few minutes to the next one. It can get super frustrating if you're out of luck. Maybe next car if the network is good enough.

The efficiency (miles per kWh) of Tesla's is still quite ahead of the competition. This allows for relatively smaller/cheaper batteries.

This doesn't seem to be true. Hyundai Kona Electric 64kWh gets 3.6 Miles per kWh and the Kia e-Niro 64kWh gets 3.5 Miles per kWh in real world tests.

They are more efficient and have more range than any of Teslas offerings:


I get the definite impression that Tesla are engineering their cars to perform well in the test - their cars seem to consistently underperform the official range estimates in actual real-world testing in a way that others don't.

Tesla is a status symbol. As long as they maintain that status they will be fine. Stats don’t matter that much with regards to being a status symbol.

You forgot:

* Software

I think the software component is truly underestimated. It's been said that Tesla is really a software company that happens to build cars, and I can believe it. I'm not sure that VW, GM, or Ford will ever be able to compete on the software front, they just don't have it in their DNA.

I kinda view it like Silicon Valley; there's nothing intrinsic about the specific place on the map that makes it a great place to develop software. But other places just can't seem to replicate it. I've heard talk of Silicon Alley in NYC but it doesn't seem to compare. I'm not sure it's possible to recreate SV somewhere else, just like I'm not sure it's possible to recreate Tesla inside GM.

There is a really good example of this in the Q1 report. The chip shortage that has hit a lot of car manufacturers also hit Tesla, but they quickly changed hardware and developed new firmware. Only a software savvy company can do that.

Diminishing returns come much faster and harder for software in cars. Software not being the main focus of a car.

Especially now with Android Auto/Apple CarPlay.

> Diminishing returns come much faster and harder for software in cars. Software not being the main focus of a car.

That used to be true. With self-driving technology I'm not sure that's true anymore. Tesla has even offered hardware updates to improve self-driving of older models. I haven't heard of anyone else doing that yet.

> Especially now with Android Auto/Apple CarPlay.

Eh. That's just infotainement, and cars can still provide significant value without using that. When driving a Tesla I don't miss CarPlay, and I rarely use it in my Kia even though it's better than the built-in infotainment stuff. Mostly just for navigation if I know it's a complex route. But again, I never miss CarPlay for navigation in Tesla cars because the built-in system is very good and always up-to-date through OTA.

> That used to be true. With self-driving technology I'm not sure that's true anymore. Tesla has even offered hardware updates to improve self-driving of older models. I haven't heard of anyone else doing that yet.

Nobody has self-driving tech in production. What they do have is a combo of adaptive cruise control, lane keeping assist, lane changing assist and park assist.

Full self-driving tech is still at the basic research stage, just like cold fusion reactors. It could be out in 5 years, it could be out in 40. Nobody's going to "OTA" that.

Excuse me, what "self-driving" is that? For all of Musk's grand promises of "self-driving in 6 months time, just you see", nothing has ever happened. Why people take anything that conman says at face value is beyond me.

Do you really want software auto-updates with potentially breaking changes in your car though?

Chances are, you will end up with the iPhone situation, where a 10-year-old phone is now essentially a brick - the software 'updates' just made things slower on the older hardware, if they support the older hardware at all. Do you really want that in your car?

For comparison, you can get a 20-year old car today that would work today as well as on the day it was made - mechanical controls still respond instantly, radio still works.

And then suddenly you find that the Teslas are a lot more expensive than they seem, because the depreciation will be more severe. Not only that, but I would question their green credentials if the cars are forced to become obsolete after N years.

Your global figures for Ford and GM look wrong to me... but otherwise, I agree: If Tesla continues to grow at these rates, yes, eventually they will catch up with leading car manufacturers, all the way up to VW, currently the world's largest.

Tesla's online manufacturing capacity at quarter-end was ~1.05M EVs/year (~600K/year in California, ~450K/year in Shanghai), which works out to a run-rate of 262K/quarter, vs. 180K deliveries in Q1.

The two gigafactories already in construction, Berlin and Texas, look likely to come online within ~12 months. They should add at least 1M more EVs/year in manufacturing capacity, bringing the max possible quarterly run-rate to 500-600K/quarter.

The four gigafactories already in development look like to come online within 2-3 years, and should add at least 2M EVs/year in manufacturing capacity, bringing the max possible quarterly run-rate to 1M+/quarter.

To catch up with VW, Tesla would have to add 10-20 additional gigafactories beyond the 2 already in construction and the 4 in development. And of course, they would have to find buyers for all those EVs, most of which would have to be low price-tag, entry-level, mass-market vehicles, like Toyota's RAV4 and Corolla, and VW's Tiguan and Jetta.

It's possible for Tesla and Musk to overtake the likes of VW in volume -- if anyone can, it's them. But it's not certain that they'll be able to do it. Success is far from guaranteed, given that all automakers are going 100% electric now.

It's possible for Tesla and Musk to overtake the likes of VW in volume -- if anyone can, it's them. But it's not certain that they'll be able to do it.

It's not certain they'll want to. Much better to stay a higher end brand and focus on "fun" and exciting high end cars people (and other car makers) aspire to, rather than trying to out compete Toyota and VW in making Corolas and Polos.

Don’t forget that the VW group and Toyota very much compete in the luxury market.

Porsche, Audi, Bugatti, and Lamborghini are all part of the VW group. VW is majority owned by the Porsche-Piëch family.

Toyota has Lexus.

Selling only luxury cars sounds appealing in terms of profit margin, but the automotive industry has a lot of complex systems with high development costs where economies of scale come into play.

Sure, but the big difference in my mind is that they both started in mass market segment and then eventually added separate luxury brands to their portfolio.

Tesla started pretty high end and are trying to move down into the mass market.

Maybe. Scale become more and more important in the long run for sustaining market-leading, cost-efficient innovation. Whoever has the greatest scale in EVs will likely have the best and cheapest (per-unit) batteries, cameras, sensors, software, etc.

That assumes the other car manufacturers aren't growing too. Most of the car industry has had their best growth in 1st quarter sales for nearly a decade.

It will be interesting to see Q2 numbers - March sales seemed to be contributing most to the quarterly growth, but the chip shortage may effect production.

Most manufacturers selling EVs have had decent sales on those. They are basically flying off the shelves. Plugin hybrids are popular as wellof course but they are more complex to build and maintain than a simple battery EV: they have a cost disadvantage.

And that's a problem in a market with low margins that is about to be flooded with ever cheaper EV models. Petrol and Diesel cars are still important to a lot of manufacturers and that's market that is looking pretty grim right now.

Short term there are those manufacturers that have been planning and building giga factories (to build batteries and assemble cars) for the last few years and are bringing more online. And there are those who did not do that and are now struggling to secure battery supplies to match their ambitions. It will take them many billions to fix that. All while their existing ICE product lines are under increasing pressure.

The likes of Toyota, GM, VW, etc. will be very dependent on their ICE production for the foreseeable future. Of those, VW and GM are very serious about ramping up production capacity of course. Particularly VW looks like a solid contender for the #2 position behind Tesla short term at this point (that's their own stated ambition even). But still, most of their sales is still ICE vehicles and that's just not a growth business at this point. Lower margins, lower volume, and the threat of obsolescence decimating the second hand value.

However, the real threat to manufacturers is coming from China. Cheap mass produced EVs are already a reality there. There are multiple manufacturers there producing very high quality products that are looking to start exporting. 10-15$K EVs in the current market would be highly disruptive to companies depending on selling lots of 15-20K ICE vehicles. That's why Tesla is looking to produce a 25$k vehicle in China.

Yeah, and yesterday I wrote a line of code. Today I wrote two. This means in about three weeks I will write the linux kernel from scratch.

I expected Musk-hype in this thread but nothing quite so ridiculous as these idiotic "analyses".

Famous last words.

Reminds me of this:


I don't see the connection.

> I expected Musk-hype in this thread but nothing quite so ridiculous as these idiotic "analyses"

Of course there is a ceiling which any product maker will hit eventually, but the OP made a prediction that Tesla could become the worlds biggest car manufacturer and the response to that was to label this an "idiotic analyses".

This reminds me of how Ballmer was laughing at Apple and literally 12 months later Apple was the leading smartphone maker and has been the most successful smartphone company to date and the first company in human history to even cross the 1 trillion valuation mark. So yeah... I wouldn't write off Tesla as becoming the largest car manufacturer in the near future and certainly not call it an idiotic analyses.

Do you see it now?

I'm pretty sure Samsung is leader in sales, maybe second when it comes to profit though.

In any case, issue with Tesla is that's it's priced to just not be the leader, but the whole car market and then some.

If there are already trends that other car manufacturers area outselling Tesla, clearly trajectory is not towards even market lead.

It is an idiotic analysis on the basis of a couple cherry-picked data points: the performance of rival companies on this particular quarter, plus the performance of Tesla in the past year, plus the assumption that all future growth will be extrapolated from each single data point.

Tesla cars are not interesting for many customers in EU (except maybe nordic countries), they will go with VW/Audi/BMW or other brands. You can't easily extrapolate the growth from US to EU or other parts of world.

Teslas are too expensive. The average selling price for a car in the EU is lower than in the US (for developed countries) and much lower than in the US (for the developing countries).

Let's see what happens after the Berlin factory opens up; this will reduce both delivery time and costs (tax/tariff etc), and make it cheaper and easier to ge the Tesla. Also, the car built in Berlin would be better suited to European moods, regarding quality etc...

> Let's see what happens after the Berlin factory opens up

Which most probably won't happen in 2021. Meanwhile, Tesla already dropped to third place in total EVs sold in Germany (a bigger EV market than the US), and place 4 and 5 have nearly the same numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla drops out of the top 5 in 2021.

> this will reduce both delivery time and costs (tax/tariff etc),

There are no tariffs between US and EU for car sales, and tax (vat) will be the same as before.

That’s a bold statement. Here in Berlin I am seeing the model 3 a lot these days.


Less Tesla's are getting sold while other car makers have massive growth in their sales.

Zoe is smaller and cheaper than Model 3. In the market of upper middle class and upper class vehicles (like BMW 3, 5 7 series, Mercedes C, E class, Audi A4 and above), Tesla was outselling the others combined for a year in a row.

The real question is if Tesla has real plans to grow down into the Zoe category. the mass production of Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi, or Volkswagen group or Toyota is another ball park from what Tesla does today. Each of them produces about 10 Mio vehicles y/y, and the margins really are in the high volume there.

My personal bet is Tesla stays in the upper middle class and upper class vehicles, and is not the new VW/RNM/FCA/Toyota/FMC, but the new BMW, Mercedes, Audi. And Porsche.

My comment cited anecdotal evidence so defer to your link with facts.

The Porsche Tychan is a really compelling threat to the Model S, too.

Or phrased in a different manner:

Tesla needs to double their car production, every year, the next 4 years to get to the size of Toyota or VW.

How realistic is that?

Ford has being down for the past years, closing factories worldwide. I think their focus now is on the SUV/Pickup trucks and exiting other markets.

Obligatory xkcd https://xkcd.com/605/

Not quite to the point, as the growth of Tesla isn't just a single data point, but the growth is pretty constant over many years.

Because it’s the initial phase of the curve? COVID is exponential until it isn’t, on what basis do you think it’s fair to extrapolate?

About 8 years of growth following the exponential curve? Just look at all the quarter numbers.

Of course, at a certain point Tesla is going to stop growing exponentially. The competition is growing, the total car market is limited. But if Tesla is continuing on the current trajectory for 2-4 more years, they have a chance at becoming the largest car manufacturer in the world.

Nissan has sold more of the Nissan Leaf worldwide than Tesla has sold all its models combined.

Edit: it has been pointed out that this is incorrect. Apparently, Leaf sold as much as Tesla sold in 2020.

I quick bit of Googling finds that just the Model 3 has sold ~800k while the Nissan Leaf as sold a total of ~500k

This is factually incorrect.

I have two separate and (mostly) unrelated feelings.

Musk has done something remarkable as you say.

At the same time, the market cap is nuts and a portent of doom.

Bigger than all car companies combined, by market cap?

A market crash could take down Tesla and set back electric car adoption by 20 years.

I think the cat is out of the bag for EVs: enough people have tasted them and wouldn't go back, and enough manufacturers got into the game, that even if Tesla was to fail, enough people would be asking for it, and enough manufacturers would already be advanced enough in their plans to keep the ball rolling.

Basically, Tesla's mission is 99% accomplished.

In Europe there is still too few charging facilities.

Basically an EV only makes sense if you own a house and can get your own charger.

The V2 supercharger still needs around 20 minutes for an 80% charge, while the new BMW iX3 needs around 30 minutes for 80%.

The Tesla V3 supercharger is promising, but the killer feature will be a unified charging platform and not one for each car maker.

> Basically an EV only makes sense if you own a house and can get your own charger.

New houses in the UK have required chargers as part of planning permission for 5 years. Most people have, or can have, a 3KW socket installed in their driveway, very cheaply (like 2-3 tanks of fuel)

73% of cars in the UK are parked on private property overnight. Most cars do under 8,000 miles a year, or 160 miles a week, 77% of cars passing an MOT in 2019 did under 10,000 miles/year, or 200 miles a week.

At 5 miles per KWh, that's 15mph of charging, or 200 miles in one overnight charge.

> 73% of cars in the UK are parked on private property overnight.

Define "private property". Is a private, shared (like in tens/hundred of vehicles shared) parking a "private property" by this statistic?

I found a study [1] based on the results of a survey (2021) from the European Union that states:

> Several conclusions can be derived in terms of the significance of driving patterns in relation to the potential use/substitution of a larger portion of the car fleet with electric drive vehicles. In particular, the average distance that is daily driven in 6 members states ranges from an average of 40 km (UK) to an average of 80 km (Poland). Such distances can be comfortably covered by battery electric vehicles that are currently already available on the market. Further R&D improvements in battery systems could ensure that the “range anxiety” factor is minimized. Considering the long recharging time of the energy storage systems of an EDV, the duration of the parking profiles is a good indicator for the estimation of potential recharge time availability. In our survey it has been revealed that the parking time after the last trip of a day amounts to more than 16 hours per day. This duration is more than sufficient to comply with the potential need for a full slow recharge of an average EDV battery. Also, almost 10% of the drivers in the survey park in a private garage or their home, places where a recharging point could easily be installed. The active parking time, defined as the parking periods between which the car is used during a day for several purposes, amounts to 6 hours.

[1] http://publications.europa.eu/resource/genpub/PUB_LDNA25627E...

When you say "in their driveway", you are already excluding everyone who doesn't have a driveway. I can recall maybe two or three people I know who have their own driveways.

If the GP's statistics are correct, how does your anecdote changes anything? More than 70% of all car owners is a very viable market.

"More than 70%" does not mean "More than 70% have their own driveway". Apartments don't have driveways and underground garages are often hard to retrofit.

I used to live in a block of flats with, I was a director of the management company. We nominally had 1 parking space each, but it wasn't allocated.

We looked into putting in outside sockets, it was fairly low cost, the difficulty would be apportioning the metering as we didn't have allocated parking spaces, but with allocated parking spaces it's not a problem.

On my own housing estate in a typical British town almost every house has a drive. Those with two cars and just one drive that park 1 car on the drive and one on the street, but that's fine, just swap them occasionally (or better yet get rid of the extra car)

I can't think of seeing underground parking anywhere in the UK, other than commercial ones in cities like NCP etc.

> "the difficulty would be apportioning the metering as we didn't have allocated parking spaces"

There are already various technical solutions to this. Most chargers now days are "connected" - ie have a WiFi chip or cellular modem built in to the charging unit. Identification/billing can be apportioned via a RFID card or app interface.

In future, "Plug & Charge" will make it possible for the vehicles to securely identify themselves to the charger for automatic billing, doing away with the need for an app or RFID.

If cost of the chargers is an issue (ie you want a large number of outlets but it's initially split between only a few EV owners who are willing to pay for them), then consider something like Ubitricity (ubitricity.com) where the outlets are "dumb" and the billing smarts are built into the cable which EV owners purchase.

73% parking on private property doesn’t mean 73% have their own driveway, and it was only mentioned that it’s cheap to install a charger in a fairly recent driveway.

I suppose GP’s question is how does that 73% figure change when you look at people who can realistically have a charger installed in their parking spot.

>>> Most cars do under 8,000 miles a year, or 160 miles a week

It's not a useful stat - the only useful one is how many journeys per year can I not do in an electric vehicle in the UK with one 30 minute stop or about 15 mins of charging.

I think the answer is very few because the UK is small, but averages don't really cut it when you plan a drive to Scotland and can't get there without 2 extra hours of delay compared to a petrol vehicle.

I wouldn't drive 500 miles in my corsa either, I'd rent a car more suited for the task

There are large city areas with no off-street parking.

I'm currently sitting in a terraced house in East London.

37% of cars in urban areas are parked on the street. There's a whole separate question about why so many people in urban areas have cars of course.

The direction of travel is that it will be uneconomical to keep a petrol car in London in 10 years time, even if they were still available for sale, so it's fairly meaningless. People will have to adapt.

" People will have to adapt"

I think that's a particularly unhelpful way of framing it, when actually we are trying to help people adapt new technology.

"it will be uneconomical to keep a petrol car in London in 10 years time"

Just means that people will hold on to their old cars, because they can't plug them in - and be a bit poorer. Now, if "people will have to adapt" means that there needs to be a massive effort to provide in-street charging infrastructure, you might be right.

> ”the killer feature will be a unified charging platform and not one for each car maker.”

In Europe there is already a single unified charging standard: CCS.

The entire industry, including Tesla superchargers, use this same charging standard.

I don't disagree but I think your point doesn't contradict what I'm saying about there being enough momentum already. It's not perfect right now but it's still already good enough to keep going, and the weather forecast shows clear improvements are coming.

No, a market crash would not touch Tesla as the stock and the company are two different things. The fact that a lot of people want to pay top dollar to own a share of the pie is not the Tesla operations churning out cars (or not.)

This is correct. To add TSLA took advantage of it's massive stock price rise to pad it's coffers with a number of stock offerings.

They now have a warchest of billions of cash and cash equivalents (like BTC) that they can use to expand without going back to the public market for cash for a while. Especially with their cash flows looking a lot better now.

Yes. A lot of the stock rockets do this now, so sure - that connects the stock to the company.

Tesla doesn't _need_ to raise more money now though. They may do so to accelerate factory buildouts etc, but it's cash-positive.

So a stock crash would be inconvenient, but unless it leads to a shareholder revolt or something, wouldn't really matter.

A few years ago I'd agree it would be a major EV setback but there are so many other options now I don't think that's the case any longer.

I'm very optimistic about Rivian. It's Tesla but without the ego thinking they are smarter than 50 years of manufacturing lessons.

I think that if Tesla were to go belly-up because of some sharemarket issue, that it'd be very easy for all the other manufacturers to back off their BEV plans. Not necessarily outright cancel them, but just not push for it and possibly let it fizzle somewhat. They'd have the excuse that "Well, Tesla failed, and they were more valuable than all of us combined at one point, so... we'll just be more cautious"

One major issue is adoption. While there's a whole lot of people who want BEVs, price is still a major concern, as is infrastructure.

Tesla make it dead simple with their supercharger network - find a charger, plug in, fast charging happens. The find a charger thing is integrated into the car, and often has feedback about what chargers are busy or unavailable.

Unfortunately, outside of Europe and the UK, the BEV charging story is pretty terrible.

Volkswagon, who arguably have the biggest incentive to make this work, have a pretty atrocious charging experience in the US, as demonstrated by Engineering Explained[1] with their latest and greatest model the 'ID.4'

Europe and the UK have put down standards and basically forced some level of interoperation between charging network systems, which reduced friction for EV owners.

The other issue is getting dealers onboard. If you're someone for whom an EV might make a whole lot of sense, there's approximately zero chance you're going to get recommended an EV, even if the dealer has one to sell you (either because the dealership dont' keep units to test-drive, or the manufacturer doesn't sell a BEV). Dealers hate them, because there's little to no after-sales servicing requirement. I've seen many stories about people basically having to argue or beg a dealer to let them buy or even order an EV.

Perhaps Manufacturers could go with direct sales a-la Tesla, but there seems to still be a lot of political power left in the dealer networks, so that isn't necessarily going to be possible any time soon.

What will convince me that EVs are here to stay is when dealerships are pushing BEVs right alongside their ICEs.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EotuxCptcM4

> Europe and the UK have put down standards and basically forced some level of interoperation between charging network systems, which reduced friction for EV owners.

They standardized the connector, but the problem (at least in my area in Austria when I looked into it 2 years ago) was that there are so many competing charging networks with different contracts and pricing models that it was basically unusable.

Near my house there were 3 chargers from different companies, each with space for two or three cars. If I wanted to use either of them, I would have to sign up with three networks, pay monthly fees for two of them, and have vastly different prices on each of the chargers.

The fast charging prices were also so high that I'm not sure it's any cheaper than a gasoline car.

I don't know if it's gotten any better since then, but as far as I could tell EVs only make sense if you can charge the car either at your home or at your workplace.

I was under the impression that all, or at least most, EV charging networks in the UK and EU allowed a PAYG model, where you tap your credit/debit card against the machine.

> The fast charging prices were also so high that I'm not sure it's any cheaper than a gasoline car.

While it being cheaper than gasoline is a nice perk, I think it's more important to get a wider deployment of fast charging infrastructure (and that is dead easy to use).

Without massive deployments of charging infrastructure, it won't matter what it costs - people will not buy EVs if they've got no way to rapidly recharge.

Governments should also be incentivising deployment of on-street charging infrastructure for areas where off-street parking is difficult or uncommon.

They drive the first two Rivian's in the Long Way Up documentary with Ewan McGregor and Charlie Boorman who ride early Harley Davidson Livewire motorcycles.

It would still be significant even today. While more good quality dedicated BEV platforms are (finally) coming to market in cars people can actually buy, with the exception of maybe the Nissan Leaf this has only really started in earnest recently with stuff like the new Ioniq 5 platform from Hyundai and VW’s MEB architecture etc in the last year.

The next 5 years will see a big change for sure, but the legacy ICE automakers are still many years behind Tesla (often by their own admission - see VW CEO remarks on state of the VW groups car software platforms etc).

No, its Tesla if Tesla could have seen the future and copied its playbook from itself. Rivian is emulating the Tesla strategy to a remarkable degree, which might make them a bit smarter than every other car company but does not make them a Tesla competitor, or even that interesting.

Tesla is still building cars in a tent, and with an alarming lack of quality assurance. Generally, Toyota Production System principles are available for anyone to use. Tesla has achieved a remarkable amount of things but manufacturing efficiency is not one of them.

Tesla is not just a car company. They are diversifying their income. Trucks, vans, are things they are planning to do but are holding back on because of a lack of battery to build those and because of continued spectacular demand for very lucrative high end cars.

And that's just vehicles. Their solar business is scaling nicely. Grid storage is a growth market as well. And of course they are pairing their solar with domestic storage as well. All rapid growth markets. That's why their market cap is what it is. Multiple rapid growth markets, a proven ability to scale and execute, etc. That's why investors love them.

A market crash would be brutal for everyone. Particularly those with struggling product lines and outdated products that are very dependent on both to secure the revenue to invest themselves out of that mess.

Most car manufacturers sell trucks, vans, etc as well.

Yeah, perhaps it's easier to understand Tesla's valuation if we look at is as a solar energy company, not just a car company.

No, that gets even harder to understand, as Tesla sucks at solar.

It wouldn’t, even traditional car manufacturers like VW are massively ramping up their electric car production. They just don’t have Elon musk for PR

They also do not have the technology, the software capabilities or the charging network. In fact all they have is PR right now. Their EV offering is at 5 to 8 years behind Tesla and and they are moving slower in R&D.

> the software capabilities

Am I wrong or the cars were running software for at least a decade? What kind of software can’t VW develop?

Traditional manufactures software sucks in every way possible

Voltswagen definitely made some noise. I think the other large car manufacturers have been learning a few tricks.

> A market crash could take down Tesla and set back electric car adoption by 20 years.

Why? Even if TSLA dropped to 1 cent today, all factories, employees, supply chain, IP, sales channels etc would remain intact.

Lets start with two assumptions. In 10 years, majority of cars sold will be electric. Majority of cars sold will have self driving capability. Tesla is a leader in both. Much of the traditional knowledge companies have about ICE engines do not help them build a better electric car. That knowledge is worthless for the future. Stock price represents future value.

> Much of the traditional knowledge companies have about ICE engines do not help them build a better electric car.

True, but look around at the electric platforms being developed by traditional car companies. Mercedes has one, BMW has one, VW has one, Nissan has one, etc.

Most of them will be transitioning. The stock price represents future value where that value is Tesla absolutely crushing everyone else, which we can now say with ~80% confidence won't happen. Irrational exuberance.

In electric cars, the battery is the only “hard” part, and that is (or maybe just was) “third-party” even for Tesla.

And level 2 is not self-driving and is just dangerous. And I don’t see how would we get to level 3, let alone higher levels.

And stock price represents.. basically hype, which is remotely may be based on some figures.

> Majority of cars sold will have self driving capability.

Self-driving is always around the corner, just 5 years away.

I kindly disagree with your critique. BUT I am also very biased. This is because I am an owner of a Model Y, but I do not own any stock in Tesla whatsoever. I do not like nor trust Elon Musk, especially with my retirement.

I think people want EV's and when they see that they only need to spend a little bit extra for that extra range and access to a nationwide supercharger network. They are willing to pay for it. I don't think a drop in stock is going to change that mentality. Other automakers keep trying to build a quality EV, but they simply do not hold up to a Tesla.

Tesla is not terribly dependent on its share price. They have 17 Billion in cash on hand so they can fund their operations for quite a few years to come, even in a market downturn (we had a market downturn last year by the way in which they continued to grow).

A large drop in shareholders certainly would disappoint shareholders but they are the ones valuing Tesla so high. Musk is on the record saying the share price is too high and it's factoring in a ton of potential future growth.

If you're still seeing tesla as a car company you're missing their home-energy business and their utility business.

Look at the australian mega-battery project. They've reduced power outages and normalized the grid.

As household solar+battery installs grow, they're going to eat into the massive utility business.

They're much bigger than cars because they are not just cars.

> If you're still seeing tesla as a car company you're missing their home-energy business and their utility business.

Tesla Energy lost a little over $100 MM this quarter. Last quarter they lost less money. Solar installs have never recovered from the 2016 peak - they're barely at 50% what they were then.

The economy of scale is working in the wrong way and Tesla is competing in a commodity space against companies who are vertically integrated and specialize in the type of batteries and solar panels in use - in fact Tesla often buys batteries from them.

This is like if Apple were selling iron ore. The fan boy consumer may pay a 100% premium, but 99.9% of the world will just buy the cheapest iron ore around.

> 92 MWh of solar generation deployed in Q1, +163% versus a year ago

This is a typo (should be 92 MW), but also made me think about how you could have fun metrics like MW/h rate of solar deployed or MW rate of storage deployed.

I find it delightful to think of EV charging rates in MPH. The original Leaf tops out at around 24 MPH, while modern Tesla super chargers are 200+ MPH charge rate.

Just reached over 1000 MPH charging at a V3 supercharger last week.

Oops. Silly me. Thanks for pointing it out. Corrected.

They can always come up with statistics like 92MW x 5 hours-per-day = 460MWh/day x 365 days = 167,900MWh = 167GWh/year. You can see marketing claim of 167GWh yearly capacity coming online for last year!

The human capacity to invent never ceases to amaze!

> New S, X, Roadster, Cybertruck, and Semi models on the way

There is also a lot of noise around the sub $30k mystery car Musk hinted about at the battery event. He said $25k, but given Tesla’s pricing history, $28-30k is more likely.

To be honest, given Tesla's pricing history and Musk's... claim-making history, $35k is more likely. But I can dream.

Musk is bad about price promises, but $10k is a huge exaggeration, you can still get the Model 3 for $39k. The Model 3 was available to anyone who preordered it for that price and was available for around $37k for some time.

You suggestion puts it around $3k below the cost of the Model 3, which begs the question of why put out a second model at all. If it’s not in the $28k or less, there really isn’t a ton of point to it.

The Model 3 is pretty close to $35k, so while the compact car might not hit precisely $25k, it should be distinctively below $30k.

They sold some of their BTC holdings right?

Doesn't even still cover enough to justify its current market cap.

If anything these figures are just what the market cap has already adjusted to & why the market is unimpressed by the numbers. So while it is amazing it is not 'wow'

> * Four additional gigafactories already in development

Where did you see this? Best I can tell, 4 new models (Cybertruck, Roadster, Semi, Unannounced) are in development but only one more gigafactory (TBD) is in the works. Perhaps you misread things?

Agree though, astounding rate of growth at this scale.

Berlin and Texas are still under construction, with neither having produced a single delivery car yet. I think they did conflate models with factories as you suspect, though.

Berlin factory is not necessarily behind the corner. Tesla is trying to cut corners there but Germany is not Wild West to let them do whatever they want.

But, don't we need less cars ? I'd be happier if Elon would actually be successful at removing cars. Why doesn't he build trains instead.

It’s easy to conflate the idea that trains need investment and that Musk is the wealthiest mad on Earth. He doesn’t have enough money or the political capital to create a meaningful rail option like, say, LA to SF at high speed. His only option are promoting much cheaper alternatives like the Boring company or (inspiring for now) Hyperloop.

Even then, all those projects are far away from profitability and heavily criticised. His car business offers both a credible option to reduce ownership (with a self-driving fleet) and finances his other ideas. Overall, he’s expressed interest in fast point-to-point transport and realism about how flying would be far more expensive, energy-wise, so I’m sure that, when he has the means, he’ll look into a rail-based option.

He builds cars because he wants to make a shitload of money and be incredibly famous. (Optimistically) you can get one or the other by building trains, but not both.

Why didn't they just quickly turn the titanic when they saw the ice berg?

i'm not trying to be snide, but it's worth noting that so much of this is fueled by government subsidies and investments into electric vehicle technology. And the current administration is looking to at least double that investment. Things are going to be great for Tesla, but what happens when the subsidies stop?

In a sense, a lot of Ford's growth was fueled by government investment in new roads. Ford kept growing after the government stopped investing, and I think it will be about the same for Tesla. but I'm not sure. The subsidies are so direct and in 15 years EVs will be the rule and not the exception.

Tesla seems like a great investment right now. just not sure how long it will last

- While government incentives (tax credits) do help electric car adoption, in the US the ran out for Tesla quite some time ago. So the current growth of Tesla in the US is not fueld by incentives. On other markets they do play an important role though.

- Negative incentives (like CO2 taxes) for fossil fuel cars are going to grow.

- Most importantly: battery prices are in a constant downfall. We are quicky approaching the point where electric cars are cheaper to make than fossil fuel cars. In the TCO they can be cheaper already.

mind you ford was in a completely different situation in the early 1900's. they made an entire new mode of transportation available to the masses that cut down travel times considerably. most people commuted on foot or by train prior to the car.

this massive change of transportation is not what is happening with Tesla.

Tesla hasn't had the Federal tax credit for all of 2020. Most of the rest of their "subsidies" are local government deals, which are common to any large manufacturer.

There are foreign governments that do have sales support, but domestic sales remain about half their total.

(Bottom line. I am a consumer that pays money for the best product. And I will buy the best product, not the hype. I dont understand why all the downvoting, you are doing it every day when you go to a market? Do you worship John Harvey Kellogg when eating the corn flakes? Probably not.)

Ok, now here is where I object. Musk hasnt done anything incredible/remarkable, YOU have done it, the STOCK INVESTORS have done it, the tesla car BUYERS have done it.

Without people trusting, investing and buying the hype, this would just be another failure. But due to the hype he got enough of resources to pull it off. He is a lair, cheater, snake oil seller that was so successful in his deceit that he was actually able to pull something off.

It was not him to be grateful for explosion of electric car market. YOU are.

And now that the market has woke up, it is time to buy electric car. But certainly not Tesla. I want a good car not the hype while on the other side I am grateful to everyone that bought the hype and I give you all the credits for doing it. I will get a good electric car out of it. You keep the hype.

aero-glide2: sure and at the end the second to the market won where the first one has created the market, shown mistakes in the product, cheated a "few" people, and allow second one to learn from them and create better product - there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Consumers get the better product. Worshiping Musk? Irrational. I worship those that gave him the money.

ryzvonusef: Nothing has changed here. I am just stating the facts. He has shown there is a market for eCars (tm) pushed others to actually start making electric cars. I am perfectly fine with that. And I will buy some car from well established company as I want quality, not words. "lair, cheater, snake oil seller" this is just a fact. Sorry, I am not into fanboyisms clouding my judgement (I also dont have anything against him - I just dont care) and I am just stating how I see the things and I think that I see them very realistic and sane.

Jesus, no one is asking you to S.elon's.C, but your assertion was that Musk was not responsible for the explosion of electric cars (heh), whereas he really was.


> Do you worship John Harvey Kellogg when eating the corn flakes

I don't live in a breakfast-cereal eating culture, so I have no clue about which cereal is better, but there is no denying that Kellogg invented the cornflakes market, just like Musk did with the eCar.

-Are there better cereals/eCars? Duh.

-Were both Kellogg and Musk absolute weirdos? Yes.

-Should their products be the default choice in their sector? No, competition spurs growth.

-Does that change the fact that they created their markets? NO. They did, and they deserve acknowledgment for that.


By all means, buy a competitor product, i don't give a damn, we don't even have regular electricity flow in my country, EV of any kind are a far dream.

But being anti-Musk does not a personality make, and frankly it's getting cringy at this point.

It just pollutes the comment stream and makes everyone's experience worse.

> Ok, now here is where I object. Musk hasnt done anything incredible/remarkable, YOU have done it, the STOCK INVESTORS have done it, the tesla car BUYERS have done it.

and none of that would have happened if Musky hadn't decided to not only invest in this little startup called Tesla... but KEEP at it... he could have at anytime cut his losses, and ditched Tesla, he had more than enough on his plate with SpaceX; fame, glory, money, whatever...

And yet he kept at it, year after year, for the past decade and a half, and NOW... after all this time and effort, here we are...

I find it hilarious when people go out of their way to slice out Musk from any Tesla/SpaceX news item; it's OK, you can both admit his accomplishments AND still consider him a dick...

Isn't that just every Silicon Valley company? Create hype with impractical demo, raise funds, and then actually build the product. I see nothing wrong with this approach unless you are Theranos.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact