Split Thread: Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Is this a case of “the perfect being the enemy of the good?”

In the US, we’re nowhere near public transport being a panacea. In certain urban and intra-urban settings, maybe feasible. But across vast swathes of rural America? Not so much.

I cannot do my job via public transport. At all. I travel all day to different locations each day, while carrying a myriad of parts and tools. I need a car, and my Tesla performs admirably.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

You don't get it. Those other car makers would have bought carbon credits from whoever had them, if they preferred to do that rather than produce compliance cars or pay fines. By buying them from Tesla they boost Tesla's profitability at the expense of their own, a losing strategy.

The other car makers still ARE buying credits from "whoever has them", in addition to the ones they're buying from Tesla, so that's neither here nor there. The fact is that there are a finite amount of credits being created, and by choosing to sell its portion of that limited pool, Tesla IS directly contributing to the manufacture and sale of more polluting ICE vehicles than would exist if it wasn't choosing to do that (or indeed if Tesla itself didn't exist to have credits to sell).

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

he's going to sell enough EVs regardless. this is all about regulatory bodies and government money. i think he realized how much easier it is to buy favor with politicians on the right if you own your own media outlet and can manipulate their base. it would take someone smart to pull it off without pissing off the left too much and i don't think he's as smart as he thinks he is.

As long as there are enough customers for that outlet to at least break even then it doesn't matter how many on the left get pissed off. And he has deep enough pockets to build up that customer base.

If pissing off the left was a losing strategy we wouldn't have outlets like Fox News or radio frequencies littered with rabid right-wingnuts.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Kinda seems to me that these endeavors as succeeding despite Musk's involvement, at least on the technical side. Musk does seem to have some general talent as a self promoter, which is certainly useful for drawing in investment and deflecting scrutiny.

[snip]

Is it your opinion that these endeavors would have been better off if Musk had not been involved in supporting them in any way?

Would we have made more progress than we have in EVs or Internet distribution or private enterprise space flight if there had been no Musk at all?

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Is it your opinion that these endeavors would have been better off if Musk had not been involved in supporting them in any way?

Would we have made more progress than we have in EVs or Internet distribution or private enterprise space flight if there had been no Musk at all?

Probably not. Like I said in my post you quoted, Musk does seem to have some skill as a carnival barker. His weird cult of personality has been very effective in drawing in investors and helping keep them patient as Tesla went through teething issues.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Is this a case of “the perfect being the enemy of the good?”

In the US, we’re nowhere near public transport being a panacea. In certain urban and intra-urban settings, maybe feasible. But across vast swathes of rural America? Not so much.

No, it's a case of the awful (Musk) being an enemy of the good (public transport). Just because the US is not willing to properly subsidise public transport and throw vastly more money at non-solutions like Tesla and the Boring Company doesn't validate Musk and his companies

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

As long as there are enough customers for that outlet to at least break even then it doesn't matter how many on the left get pissed off. And he has deep enough pockets to build up that customer base.

If pissing off the left was a losing strategy we wouldn't have outlets like Fox News or radio frequencies littered with rabid right-wingnuts.

yeah maybe. so far it's cost him tens of billions, not sure he's gotten to that break even point

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

yeah maybe. so far it's cost him tens of billions, not sure he's gotten to that break even point

Not sure I suggested that he has.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Not sure I suggested that he has.

i thought you were suggesting he was smart enough to get there.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

i thought you were suggesting he was smart enough to get there.

Please read my post again. I was pointing out that he doesn't necessarily need to be 'smart enough'.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

The other car makers still ARE buying credits from "whoever has them", in addition to the ones they're buying from Tesla, so that's neither here nor there. The fact is that there are a finite amount of credits being created, and by choosing to sell its portion of that limited pool, Tesla IS directly contributing to the manufacture and sale of more polluting ICE vehicles than would exist if it wasn't choosing to do that (or indeed if Tesla itself didn't exist to have credits to sell).

You just don't get it. That's the plan! The whole principle of giving out carbon credits is so the recipient can sell them to others! If Tesla didn't do that they would be thwarting the government's intentions. If you want to blame someone for the effects, blame the government not Tesla.

The idea of carbon credits is to reward businesses who reduce carbon emissions and penalize those who don't, in an efficient market-friendly way. Personally I prefer that to the government handing out money to some and taking it from others, which inevitably results in fraud and corruption as well as increased bureaucracy. Carbon credits effectively cut out the middle man while being fairer than a mishmash of handouts and fines.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Bogative

Yes, tax credits incentivize purchases of EVs, that's why the the government offers them, and I understand that. Your characterization of Musk sucking the government teat even though he opposed the tax credit is ridiculous.

Ha ha. Musk has always sucked at the government teat. He loves government money, including tax credits so that people will buy his cars. What he doesn’t like is his competitors getting government money.

What you have to realize is that just because Musk says something, it doesn’t have to be true.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Is this a case of “the perfect being the enemy of the good?”

In the US, we’re nowhere near public transport being a panacea. In certain urban and intra-urban settings, maybe feasible. But across vast swathes of rural America? Not so much.

Yea it is a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. In this case, the perfect would be trying to replace cars for everybody. 83% of Americans live in cities. Public transport for 83% is better than public transport for none.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

What you have to realize is that just because Musk says something, it doesn’t have to be true.

Just because you say it, it doesn't have to be true either.

Of all the American car manufacturers that "suck off the government teat", Tesla has to be the least one. The US wouldn't have a car industry if the government didn't rain money over them.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Just because you say it, it doesn't have to be true either.

Of all the American car manufacturers that "suck off the government teat", Tesla has to be the least one. The US wouldn't have a car industry if the government didn't rain money over them.

Hell, one of the nice things about Tesla is that they totally do an end-run around the notoriously scummy dealership system, instead selling their cars directly. haggling with dealer scumbags is notoriously something most people do not enjoy.

Ironically in this era of pandering to right wing grievance culture, Musk is quite unpopular among the overwhelmingly conservative group of auto dealers because he's cutting these useless middlemen out of the deal

Quote:

One major problem with this plan is a certain company called Tesla. When the electric car manufacturer started up, it refused to use dealers at all, opting instead for a direct-sales model. Buyers could check out the cars in showrooms at malls and then buy online, a heady workaround of those dealer protections. Online sales minimized interactions with oleaginous salesmen and added price transparency, which did away with the haggling. Tesla, meanwhile, ended up making more money by not having to sell its cars to dealers, who would then mark them up. Other EV startups—Lucid, Rivian—went the same way, and soon enough, legacy manufacturers started flirting with direct internet sales too. “We have all this inventory sitting around in dealers,” Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a 2022 investor presentation. “Get rid of all of it … go 100 percent online.” (He later walked back that statement.)

The dealers, of course, fought back and are fighting still. They’re in court in California, Texas, Colorado, Mississippi, and Florida, among other places, to keep laws on the books that prevent cars from being sold by manufacturers or that prevent manufacturers from servicing their own cars or otherwise encroaching on their business model. After years of litigation, Michigan, the birthplace of the dealership, recently agreed to let Tesla sell and service cars in-state. Half of states have loosened dealer protections more (red states, ostensibly “pro-business,” tend to have the most binding restrictions), but dealers are still making record profits. Even Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, despite launching his presidential bid with Tesla’s Elon Musk, has raised millions from dealers and given no indication he’d veto two restrictive, dealer-sponsored bills passing through the Florida Legislature. (These bills would make it illegal for car manufacturers to set transparent prices and allow buyers to order EVs from legacy manufacturers online.)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-desantis.html

If Tesla's model of business were to become the norm, that would be taking a large amount of money out of conservative politics that is donated by dealership owners.

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Hell, one of the nice things about Tesla is that they totally do an end-run around the notoriously scummy dealership system, instead selling their cars directly. haggling with dealer scumbags is notoriously something most people do not enjoy.

Ironically in this era of pandering to right wing grievance culture, Musk is quite unpopular among the overwhelmingly conservative group of auto dealers because he's cutting these useless middlemen out of the deal



https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-desantis.html

If Tesla's model of business were to become the norm, that would be taking a large amount of money out of conservative politics that is donated by dealership owners.

You do realize that the other manufacturers have no say when it comes to dealerships because of franchising laws? The manufacturers would love to be able to not have to use them, except as maybe certified repair shops.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Hell, one of the nice things about Tesla is that they totally do an end-run around the notoriously scummy dealership system, instead selling their cars directly. haggling with dealer scumbags is notoriously something most people do not enjoy.

Ironically in this era of pandering to right wing grievance culture, Musk is quite unpopular among the overwhelmingly conservative group of auto dealers because he's cutting these useless middlemen out of the deal



https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-desantis.html

If Tesla's model of business were to become the norm, that would be taking a large amount of money out of conservative politics that is donated by dealership owners.

For the most part, those are the "good old days", now its our price is higher than MSRP, take it or leave it.

I totally support Tesla's anti-dealership efforts, but thats out of profit motive*, not any sort of activism.

*which is generally speaking fine for a for-profit corporation

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Disbelief

You do realize that the other manufacturers have no say when it comes to dealerships because of franchising laws? The manufacturers would love to be able to not have to use them, except as maybe certified repair shops.

Yes, this is Tesla model v dealership model. Not Tesla v the "detroit" big 3. They'd love to be rid of the dealerships.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Just because you say it, it doesn't have to be true either.

Of all the American car manufacturers that "suck off the government teat", Tesla has to be the least one. The US wouldn't have a car industry if the government didn't rain money over them.

There is extensive evidence that Elon Musk lies all the time. There is no such evidence that I lie all the time.

And the whataboutery does not impress me.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

There is extensive evidence that Elon Musk lies all the time. There is no such evidence that I lie all the time.

And the whataboutery does not impress me.

This is not whataboutery. With the American government literally keeping the American car industry floating and the massive oil subsidies making gasoline in the US half the price of what it is in the other developed prices, Tesla should be the last car company you criticize for "sucking on government teat" and not the first one.

That is, if this was a legitimate criticism from you and not just a convenient club to smack Tesla with.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

This is not whataboutery.

Yes it is. You were attempting to deflect from Musk's hypocrisy on the subject of government subsidies by pointing out that other companies also receive government subsidies.

Quote:

With the American government literally keeping the American car industry floating and the massive oil subsidies making gasoline in the US half the price of what it is in the other developed prices,

That's a complex topic. Gasoline is cheap in the USA compared with other countries, because other countries tax it very heavily. For example, here in the UK, petrol (gasoline) is taxed at a rate of £0.52 per litre and on top of that there is VAT at 20%. Nearly half of what you pay at the pump goes directly to the government.

So you could argue that the US government doesn't subsidise gasoline, everybody else taxes it. On the other hand, the price paid at the pump in a US gas station does not reflect the true cost of the fuel when you take into account the environmental damage done.

Quote:

Tesla should be the last car company you criticize for "sucking on government teat" and not the first one.

I don't criticise Tesla for taking advantage of business opportunities provided by the US government: I criticise Musk and his fanboys who are in denial about the situation. It's not just Tesla that sucks at the government teat. SpaceX has taken billions of dollars from the US government. Starlink has had some subsidies (although I'm not sure if they weren't taken away again after they appeared to have overpromised). For somebody who says there should be no government subsidies, Musk sure does take a lot of them.

Quote:

That is, if this was a legitimate criticism from you and not just a convenient club to smack Tesla with.

My main problem with Tesla is that EVs are not the solution to either climate change or the problems of mass transport. Musk has made a lot of people believe that they are and this is a huge problem. We should be doing everything we can to remove our dependence on the car but that would be bad for Tesla's bottom line so Musk is sabotaging efforts to do so.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

This is not whataboutery. With the American government literally keeping the American car industry floating and the massive oil subsidies making gasoline in the US half the price of what it is in the other developed prices, Tesla should be the last car company you criticize for "sucking on government teat" and not the first one.

That is, if this was a legitimate criticism from you and not just a convenient club to smack Tesla Musk with.

Ftfy, because that's what this is really all about.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Just because you say it, it doesn't have to be true either.

Of all the American car manufacturers that "suck off the government teat", Tesla has to be the least one. The US wouldn't have a car industry if the government didn't rain money over them.

Tesla is almost completely dependent on government subsidies for its existence. First you've got grants for buying EVs which massively inflates Tesla's sales figures. Then you've got direct grants at state and federal levels which are worth billions each year. And then you've got absolute pork barrels like the Las Vegas loop where governments are paying Tesla and related companies massively above market prices to build Musk's personal ego stroking white elephant projects.

Tesla and other Musk controlled companies will never be anything other than welfare queens.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Tesla is almost completely dependent on government subsidies for its existence. First you've got grants for buying EVs which massively inflates Tesla's sales figures. Then you've got direct grants at state and federal levels which are worth billions each year. And then you've got absolute pork barrels like the Las Vegas loop where governments are paying Tesla and related companies massively above market prices to build Musk's personal ego stroking white elephant projects.

Tesla and other Musk controlled companies will never be anything other than welfare queens.

Hmmmmm….

Look, nobody is going to plausibly accuse me of an Elon Musk fan, but some of the claims here about Tesla being a failing and useless company do not pass the smell test.

There must be some reason why Tesla continues to be outselling other car manufacturers even as it was confidently predicted that they first mover EV status was all that gave them an advantage.

Besides, it is not only in the US, but as others from other counties have said Tesla is the biggest seller there (Norway and Sweden was it?)

As for welfare queenism, it’s ****** that Musk denigrates other companies that get public funding, but public funding is often needed to get new technology off the ground and to make it viable. A good recent example of that is Moderna. No doubt Musk or some of the idiot circle that he associates with see Moderna’s relationship with government funding to make it illegitimate, but reasonable people would massively disagree with that nonsense. I think people should be more objective and less knee-jerk when talking about Tesla and I need you to do this otherwise my blind Elon Musk hate is undermined with the idea that anybody doing it has no sense of objectivity.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

My main problem with Tesla is that EVs are not the solution to either climate change or the problems of mass transport.

No one thing is 'the' solution. Your insistence that EVs can't help solve these problems is illogical.

Quote:

Musk has made a lot of people believe that they are and this is a huge problem.

Evidence?

Quote:

We should be doing everything we can to remove our dependence on the car

I'm not going to give up my car to satisfy your communistic public transport fantasies.

Quote:

but that would be bad for Tesla's bottom line so Musk is sabotaging efforts to do so.

Tesla is a private company, and Musk has a legal responsibility to look after its bottom line.

He could be making gas cars and telling his customers what many gas car companies are - that their cars are less polluting and better for the environment - when that is almost entirely a lie. But he isn't. Teslas really are far less polluting than any gas car (and will get cleaner as electricity generation gets cleaner). Also unlike gas car companies, Tesla doesn't lobby the government to relax emissions standards so they can pollute more. And Musk isn't just doing EVs, he's also investing heavily in solar and utility-scale energy storage. EVs are just a part of his vision.

While your campaign to solve the World's problems by making people give up their freedom goes nowhere, Musk is making an actual difference. It may not be as big a difference as you would like, but it's way more than you will ever achieve.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

That's a complex topic. Gasoline is cheap in the USA compared with other countries, because other countries tax it very heavily. For example, here in the UK, petrol (gasoline) is taxed at a rate of £0.52 per litre and on top of that there is VAT at 20%. Nearly half of what you pay at the pump goes directly to the government.

And even that isn't enough to cover the environmental damage it's causing.

Carbon emissions from fuel duty freeze equivalent to putting extra 2m cars on the road

Quote:

20 March 2023

Yesterday’s budget announcement makes 2023 the 13th year in a row that fuel duty has been frozen. The decision to freeze fuel duty and maintain last year’s 5p cut will cost the government just over £6bn in lost tax income, making the freeze one of the most expensive items in this year’s budget. The £6bn cost of the policy is close to the amount that the government will raise this year in carbon taxes (£6.2bn) which, NEF say, indicates a government willingness to penalise carbon pollution with one hand, while encouraging it with the other.

NEF analysis has found that, over the 13-year period of the fuel duty freeze, bus fares have risen 76%, rail fares have risen 50%, while petrol costs are only up 23%.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

No one thing is 'the' solution. Your insistence that EVs can't help solve these problems is illogical.

Evidence?

I'm not going to give up my car to satisfy your communistic public transport fantasies.

Tesla is a private company, and Musk has a legal responsibility to look after its bottom line.

He could be making gas cars and telling his customers what many gas car companies are - that their cars are less polluting and better for the environment - when that is almost entirely a lie. But he isn't. Teslas really are far less polluting than any gas car (and will get cleaner as electricity generation gets cleaner). Also unlike gas car companies, Tesla doesn't lobby the government to relax emissions standards so they can pollute more. And Musk isn't just doing EVs, he's also investing heavily in solar and utility-scale energy storage. EVs are just a part of his vision.

While your campaign to solve the World's problems by making people give up their freedom goes nowhere, Musk is making an actual difference. It may not be as big a difference as you would like, but it's way more than you will ever achieve.

Teslas are not far less polluting than other cars. They still have to be built. You still have to get the electricity from somewhere. You still need roads and parking lots. They are not the solution for the 83% of Americans that live in urban areas.

Elon Musk is directly opposed to anything that reduces the bottom line. He will even go so far as to sabotage mass transit infrastructure plans so he can sell more Teslas. Teslas sell on the green thing and yet they invest in Bitcoin. They are no better than any of the other car companies and yet the fanboys defend Tesla and Musk. You think it’s a good thing but all it’s good for is propping up the lie that there is an alternative to fewer cars on the road.

[The Great Zaganza]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news...ks/ar-AA1cKDqo

Tesla has produced a total of 36 of its Semi 8's, all going to Pepsi, in more than 3 months.
Production speed is not likely to pick up this year or the next.

We know this from a Recall Notice.

maybe better if Tesla just writes off this side of the business.

[Bogative]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news...ks/ar-AA1cKDqo


Production speed is not likely to pick up this year or the next.

From what information do you base this claim on?

Quote:

maybe better if Tesla just writes off this side of the business.

MDS.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Bogative

From what information do you base this claim on?


.

A recall notice issued by Tesla.
Do you believe them?

[Bogative]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

A recall notice issued by Tesla.
Do you believe them?

A recall on a brake valve module for 35 trucks is going to prevent an increase in production speed over the next year and a half how… exactly?

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Bogative

A recall on a brake valve module for 35 trucks is going to prevent an increase in production speed over the next year and a half how… exactly?

They issued a recall notice in March for 35 trucks. They issued another recall notice in June for 36 trucks. This would suggest that between March and June they were able to produce one truck.

That doesn't mean they won't be able to ramp up production next year, but it does seem that they are having serious production issues now.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Bogative

A recall on a brake valve module for 35 trucks is going to prevent an increase in production speed over the next year and a half how… exactly?

You are missing the point: the issue is not the recall, which says it affects all vehicles, but the pathetically low production numbers it reveals.

[Bogative]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

You are missing the point: the issue is not the recall, which says it affects all vehicles, but the pathetically low production numbers it reveals.

No, you are missing the point. You claimed, "production speed is not likely to pick up this year or the next" and linked to an article that says nothing about future production speed.

So, again, on what basis do you make the claim that production speed will not likely increase this year or next?

[jeremyp]

Well this is not a good look:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...rs-were-broken

The article alleges that Tesla exaggerates the driving range of its vehicles, going so far as to rig the software that provides the driver with the estimated remaining range.

The problem was so bad that Tesla was inundated with complaints from people who thought their cars were broken and they created a special team to handle the complaints.

Car and Driver reported

Quote:

[BMW, Mercedes, Audi, and Porsche] typically provide a relatively conservative range figure, allowing us to meet or even at times exceed the range numbers in Car and Driver's real-world tests ... 400 miles of stated range for a Tesla and 300 miles for a Porsche is pretty much the same number at real highway speeds.

Instructions to lie about the range reportedly came from the CEO himself, unsurprisingly.

[Fast Eddie B]

Being discussed in the “Electric Vehicle” thread.

[dirtywick]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2384702.html

should probably question whether or not he should be afforded any defense contracts at all if this is true.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2384702.html

should probably question whether or not he should be afforded any defense contracts at all if this is true.

Real question as to whether critical military infrastructure should ever be in private hands. Generally speaking defense contractors are happy to meet whatever need the DOD has and makes them money, but you always run the risk of some eccentric billionaire deciding that they need to start exercising their own discretion with their private property.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2384702.html

should probably question whether or not he should be afforded any defense contracts at all if this is true.

I'm not a fan of Elon Musk but I am not totally against him on this. They're asking him to supply a service to be used in military operations and that is a bit of a step for a civilian organisation. It's one thing to use the service for logistics and other comms, it's another to use it to direct drones onto targets.

Personally, in Musk's place, I would allow the use for this purpose, but I understand if Musk thinks it's a step too far.

Of course, the cynical part of me thinks he is using it as a bargaining chip to get more money.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

I'm not a fan of Elon Musk but I am not totally against him on this. They're asking him to supply a service to be used in military operations and that is a bit of a step for a civilian organisation. It's one thing to use the service for logistics and other comms, it's another to use it to direct drones onto targets.

Personally, in Musk's place, I would allow the use for this purpose, but I understand if Musk thinks it's a step too far.

Of course, the cynical part of me thinks he is using it as a bargaining chip to get more money.

He's stopping the Ukrainian military from using a service he "donated"* to them at the start of war because the UA army is being far too effective against his new BFF Vladimir Putain.

*Galaxy Brain Elon has a strange definition of a donation, because he was demanding full price for the service from day one. It's only because the Pentagon stepped in and paid an agreed fee that any service was ever provided. Musk isa welfare queen first, last and always.