Split Thread Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla

[jeremyp]

Interesting, are you saying someone else should build Tesla Superchargers? Another private corporation, or should the taxpayers of the UK pay for it? Either way, I don't believe anyone can legally do so without licensing their technology.

It shouldn't be necessary for the car manufacturer to build the charging stations. Nobody criticises Ford if an area has a lack of petrol stations. For the model to work the same way as for ICE cars, manufacturers must be prevented from making their charging technology proprietary. That seems obvious to me.

 

[tyr_13]

Yeah I saw that. It's being used to deliver drinks at only short ranges. Chips at longer ranges since they'd never get to max weight anyways.

As tyr said, it's otr trucking that will be last, hence my statement
that gas/diesel stations will be around for decades. I think, in blue states anyways, we'll eventually see towns banning ice engine use in city limits except possibly on US Highways and Interstates. Long before were 100% electric. Hell I'd like to see it as reality next year, if only so I don't have to listen to all the jackasses who have nothing better to do than rev their engine at night! But political and economic reality makes me think it's decades away excepting Manhattan and SF perhaps.

Frankly for long distance haulage, the solution is electrified rail, always has been and (unless something like Star Trek transporters are invented) always will be. For short distance haulage, Tesla aren't even in the game as all their efforts are squared at long distance haulage, the cybertruck is not very useful for last few miles delivery.

Oh and on the share price falling; I'd have thought it'd shore up somewhat, on the grounds of with Musk distracted, the company might be in a position to start making sensible decisions as a manufacturer.

There are some products where distribution centers are somewhat different. Pop production is often set up to essentially have many smaller production locations work as distro as well. Frito-Lay is big on this. That's why many grocery stores will have a mixed truck come in from their distribution center but then will also have the Frito-Lay truck come in carrying chips, and a Pepsi Truck come in carrying Pepsi, rather than those trucks going to the store's distro. Frozen or cold meats are also a bit different, often coming in to stores from longer hauls than just from the store's distribution center.

At any rate, Tesla's heavy duty truck is being used like a distribution center truck, which it seems most suited for. For retail stores it's never going to max out the trailer's weight or even close to it anyway. The distance is going to be around 150ish to 200ish miles max. Turn-n-burn is never as fast as anyone wants it to be at either end, giving a built in chance to charge.

Which is very different from manufacturing or other loads. At any rate, Volvo is going to be able to deliver more heavy duty and a full range of electric trucks at volume faster. IIRC, they started fulfilling orders in November for their road legal heavy duty (as opposed to the in-port trucks they've had for fiveish years I think).

Even going diesel rail instead of OTR trucking would massively reduce the carbon emissions for transport of goods. The problem is, politics in America. Trucking is massively subsidized by use of free to use highways in which their share of diesel tax doesn't even come close to paying for wear and tear on the roads. The alternative is for a private company to build out and operate rail lines without any significant subsidies because American's view that as socialism for corporations. Even though we do the same for trucking, its not seen that way.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/06...to-128-billion-in-costs-on-society-each-year/

Tesla's market cap or P/E ratio never made sense for them at present, but its a growth stock. Which means its their potential future earnings that the market values it so highly. If they became a behemoth and all but cornered the EV market then eventually their valuation at present earnings would make sense. I just don't see that ever happening.

Private companies would have a hard time getting the land.

 

[lobosrul5]

There are some products where distribution centers are somewhat different. Pop production is often set up to essentially have many smaller production locations work as distro as well. Frito-Lay is big on this. That's why many grocery stores will have a mixed truck come in from their distribution center but then will also have the Frito-Lay truck come in carrying chips, and a Pepsi Truck come in carrying Pepsi, rather than those trucks going to the store's distro. Frozen or cold meats are also a bit different, often coming in to stores from longer hauls than just from the store's distribution center.

That is something I deal with all the time. I work for a company that both delivers to WM distribution centers AND directly to Walmart Supercenters (neighborhood markets too) for example.

At any rate, Tesla's heavy duty truck is being used like a distribution center truck, which it seems most suited for. For retail stores it's never going to max out the trailer's weight or even close to it anyway. The distance is going to be around 150ish to 200ish miles max. Turn-n-burn is never as fast as anyone wants it to be at either end, giving a built in chance to charge.

Depends on what they are delivering. For liquids, the weight will be maxed out long before volume. Ever see trailers that do nothing but beer or water or soft drinks? They are much smaller than a standard 53' trailer. OTOH you'll never get up to 80,000 lbs on a truck carrying potato/corn chips, thats volume limited. Our drivers are expected to be in and out of the dock in 30 minutes... not that that's even close to 100%.

What do the batteries on Tesla's weigh? If it starts digging into their weight limit too much, the job of one truck suddenly become two... and not many for-profit corps are going to be OK with that. I have a feeling PepsiCo/Frito Lay is using this as a test and a sort of publicity thing.

Private companies would have a hard time getting the land.

They'd need local/state government to authorize eminent domain, but its a non-starter. The US is mainly a road country, it'll take decades and political willpower that we don't have, to convert to a rail country.

ETA: just the amount of lithium-ion batteries to replace local commercial vehicles in the USA... has to be mind boggling large. Quite possibly more lithium will be needed to be mined than has been mined up to this point in history.

 

[lobosrul5]

It shouldn't be necessary for the car manufacturer to build the charging stations. Nobody criticises Ford if an area has a lack of petrol stations. For the model to work the same way as for ICE cars, manufacturers must be prevented from making their charging technology proprietary. That seems obvious to me.

If Ford built cars that would only run on a proprietary blend of fuel additives and promised their buyers that their network would be able to support their vehicles... then it would make sense to blame them when there are 6 hour waits to refuel.

 

[Ryokan]

Interesting, are you saying someone else should build Tesla Superchargers? Another private corporation, or should the taxpayers of the UK pay for it? Either way, I don't believe anyone can legally do so without licensing their technology.

ETA: FYI no other EV's can make use of them.

No, I'm saying it's not Tesla's responsibility to build infrastructure.

In Norway, there are dozens of corporations building charging stations, not just Tesla. I don't have a Tesla supercharger anywhere near me, and I manage by charging my Tesla on one of the myriad of other charging stations.

We don't put the responsibility of building infrastructure on any other car manufacturer, so why single out Tesla for it?

Oh, and FIY, in Norway, other cars can charge at Tesla superchargers.

 

[lobosrul5]

No, I'm saying it's not Tesla's responsibility to build infrastructure.

In Norway, there are dozens of corporations building charging stations, not just Tesla. I don't have a Tesla supercharger anywhere near me, and I manage by charging my Tesla on one of the myriad of other charging stations.

We don't put the responsibility of building infrastructure on any other car manufacturer, so why single out Tesla for it?

Oh, and FIY, in Norway, other cars can charge at Tesla superchargers.

Odd, perhaps Norway has forced Tesla to make superchargers available to other models

Superchargers are much more complicated electric vehicle charging stations compared to non Tesla chargers, but at present, Supercharger networks can only be enjoyed by Tesla drivers and are not compatible with adapters.

-per Elon, its coming, but as of now, no other vehicles can use the Supercharger network. They can, with adapters, use their slow chargers.

https://ev-lectron.com/blogs/blog/can-other-cars-use-tesla-chargers

Thats an article from just a couple of weeks ago.

Again the supercharging tech itself is proprietary to Tesla, so expecting 3rd parties to build them is... odd.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/universal-tesla-supercharger-network

 

[Ryokan]

Almost all Tesla superchargers in Europe are open to all electric cars.

https://electrek.co/2022/11/18/tesl...ccess-non-tesla-evs-italy-covers-most-europe/

And also said, although I have Teslas, I'm not near any Tesla superchargers, but charge at different chargers that are just as fast, if not faster.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

The problem with electrified rail is that not all of it is electrified. Even in places where it is electrified like parts of the UK, goods trains still seem to be hauled by diesel locomotives. If I was guessing I’d say this is because goods yards and quarries and so forth generally don’t have overhead wires.

The Cybertruck isn’t designed as a commercial vehicle, by the way. It’s a competitor to things like the electric F150. There are already a number of electric trucks in production that are designed for the last mile, so Tesla would have to do something it has never done before which is enter a new market with EV competitors already in place.

The problem there is that Tesla’s market cap is still too high for the size of car manufacturer it is, even If it is well run.

On electrifying rail, yes that is a problem currently. Hence, governments should be taking a chunk of the oodles of money they are spending on building new roads and use it to upgrade existing rail (and build new rail lines).

 

[Donal]

It's not really Tesla's responsibility to build infrastructure, though, is it?

Would you want your tax dollars going to support a proprietary standard so one specific company can dominate a market?

 

[lobosrul5]

Almost all Tesla superchargers in Europe are open to all electric cars.

https://electrek.co/2022/11/18/tesl...ccess-non-tesla-evs-italy-covers-most-europe/

And also said, although I have Teslas, I'm not near any Tesla superchargers, but charge at different chargers that are just as fast, if not faster.

A few points...

First they are STILL Tesla proprietary tech even if they allow other vehicles to use them. Why is this important to point out? Because they could always disable access to other car makes, and no one else can build them without their approval.

Secondly, if a third party does start building out equivalent stations... how do they recoup their costs? Remember Tesla is building them as an incentive for people to buy Tesla's. Getting access to a high voltage line from the local power company is VERY expensive like 7 or even 8 figures depending on distance form the nearest transformer. The power company is also going to have to start spending capital to increase capacity.

A total of 15 stations and 158 individual Superchargers are part of the pilot in the UK, making it the biggest fast-charging network of the country. Tesla operates two high power chargers in the UK, V2 units with 150kW and V3 units with a power output of 250kW. Thanks to the pilot expansion the Supercharger network has also become the biggest fast charging network (with units of 150 kW+) in Europe. The newly open chargers represent 25% of the brand’s 650 charger capacity in the UK.

https://www.electrifying.com/blog/a...-uk-supercharger-network-to-non-tesla-drivers

So for the entire United Kingdom there are just 650 total supercharging "plugs" and just 158 of them are available to non-Teslas.... that sounds like a tiny little pittance that will not even be close to sufficient for a country that size to switch to full electric vehicles.

Also, I'm genuinely curious, how fast can you charge at these other stations, what are there details (ie who owns them), what does it cost to charge?

ETA: while I think electric cars are a great idea for local transport, when most people can just home charge, I remain very skeptical that they are the best way forward for long distance traveling.

 

[Ryokan]

Would you want your tax dollars going to support a proprietary standard so one specific company can dominate a market?

There are far more non-Tesla chargers in Norway than Tesla ones, and none of them have been built by tax dollars.

 

[Shalamar]

Would you want your tax dollars going to support a proprietary standard so one specific company can dominate a market?

Tesla is currently trying to rebrand their connector as the 'North American Standard'. No idea if it will pan out.

I have to admit though, the availability and ease of the Tesla Supercharge network was a deciding factor to purchase a Tesla.

 

[Ryokan]

A few points...

First they are STILL Tesla proprietary tech even if they allow other vehicles to use them. Why is this important to point out? Because they could always disable access to other car makes, and no one else can build them without their approval.

Yes. However, non-Tesla electric car owners have managed fine so far without access to Teslas superchargers. Access gives them more options, though, and puts some money in Tesla's pockets.

Secondly, if a third party does start building out equivalent stations... how do they recoup their costs? Remember Tesla is building them as an incentive for people to buy Tesla's. Getting access to a high voltage line from the local power company is VERY expensive like 7 or even 8 figures depending on distance form the nearest transformer. The power company is also going to have to start spending capital to increase capacity.

Tesla built them as incentive back when people needed incentives to buy their cars. Those incentives are now being rolled back, as they're not needed as much anymore.

Note me buying two Teslas without access to one.

And they recoup their costs by selling electricity. Most chargers in Norway are run by electric companies. Selling electricity is what they do.

But as more and more electric cars are hitting the roads in Norway, gas station chains have also opened up chargers at most of their stations.

A total of 15 stations and 158 individual Superchargers are part of the pilot in the UK, making it the biggest fast-charging network of the country. Tesla operates two high power chargers in the UK, V2 units with 150kW and V3 units with a power output of 250kW. Thanks to the pilot expansion the Supercharger network has also become the biggest fast charging network (with units of 150 kW+) in Europe. The newly open chargers represent 25% of the brand’s 650 charger capacity in the UK.

So for the entire United Kingdom there are just 650 total supercharging "plugs" and just 158 of them are available to non-Teslas.... that sounds like a tiny little pittance that will not even be close to sufficient for a country that size to switch to full electric vehicles.

Here's a map where you can zoom out and see all the charging stations in Norway, Tesla and non-Tesla:

https://www.ladestasjoner.no/kart/

You can zoom in and click them, and see what company they belong to.

They are in the thousands, and most are not Tesla.

Also, I'm genuinely curious, how fast can you charge at these other stations, what are there details (ie who owns them), what does it cost to charge?

The ones in my area, northwestern Norway, in a city with 70 000 people, they range from 50kW to 300kW. The 300kW ones are built by Circle K, and charge faster than my Teslas can recieve. The nearest Tesla supercharger is only 250kW.

The older ones (remember, Norway starting adopting electric cars over 10 years ago now - 1 in 6 cars on Norwegian roads are electric, and 80% of new cars sold are electric) are the slowest, but the ones being built these days easy rival or surpass Tesla's charging speed.

As I said, they are mostly owned by electric companies or gas station chains.

Pricing varies, but charging a Tesla at a Tesla station will always be the cheapest.

But the coverage is so good now, that even if Tesla shut down all their superchargers, most people would do just fine without.

ETA: while I think electric cars are a great idea for local transport, when most people can just home charge, I remain very skeptical that they are the best way forward for long distance traveling.

I don't know why. I know plenty of people who have travelled Europe with their electric cars. This summer, I saw lots of Teslas in my town with foreign plates - from Spain, Italy, France, Estonia..

The longest drive I've had is from my hometown of Ålesund to Oslo, which is around 8 hours. I stopped 20 minutes halfway there, which I would have done with a fossil fuel car anyway. Charging while getting food.

If I had a choice to drive my Tesla or a fossil fuel car of my choice across Europe, I wouldn't even hestitate to choose the Tesla.

 

[The Don]

Mrs Don's Fiat 500E doesn't have sufficient range to make an effective long distance touring vehicle. At 80% charge, the effective range is 160-200 km and the comparatively slow rate of charge (maximum is 80kw) means that you'll likely be stopping for 20-30 minutes every 90 minutes or so but that kinda misses the point, it's not really designed for that kind of thing and it's fine for 95%+ of our journeys including trips to Bristol or Cardiff.

OTOH a friend's Jaguar i-Pace seems to be an excellent candidate. It can easily cover 3-4 hours and then only stop for 20-30 minutes, a perfectly reasonable rhythm for long journeys IMO.

 

[Robin]

The thing holding me back from buying a Tesla is not the fact that the company is owned by Space Karen, but simply that I can't afford one. The lowest price in Australia is $65,000. I could probably go as high as $45,000 but I'm still not convinced that the cars in that range are going to be a practical proposition. For example I d like to do a bit of travelling around Australia and I'd need range.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Two things. The two things holding me back are...

Also, the thread where we complain about charging infrastructure, and general EV cost and range is elsewhere

 

[Here_to_learn]

The thing holding me back from buying a Tesla is not the fact that the company is owned by Space Karen, but simply that I can't afford one. The lowest price in Australia is $65,000. I could probably go as high as $45,000 but I'm still not convinced that the cars in that range are going to be a practical proposition. For example I d like to do a bit of travelling around Australia and I'd need range.

The tool that helped me calm range anxiety was abetterrouteplanner. Available as an app and a web site.

Playing around with different car models, trips, weather and so on I can directly see what cars works for my trips, and what would be taking it too far.

 

[dudalb]

Apparently Musk is starting sell off Tesla shares to fund Twitter. witter could become a vampire sucking the blood out of Musk's sucessful enterprises.

 

[angrysoba]

Apparently Musk is starting sell off Tesla shares to fund Twitter. witter could become a vampire sucking the blood out of Musk's sucessful enterprises.

He's made a number of well-publicized share sell-offs, and from what I understand the last one was somewhere in the middle of the month.

In the last couple of days the share price has begun to recover a bit.

I don't really know much about this kind of thing, but could the fact that he sold a lot of shares be one of the reasons for the low share price as presumably there are more of them sloshing around out there until they find a buyer who wants to keep them?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I don't really know much about this kind of thing, but could the fact that he sold a lot of shares be one of the reasons for the low share price as presumably there are more of them sloshing around out there until they find a buyer who wants to keep them?

As I understand it, the price of a stock at any given instant reflects equilibrium between the numbers of buyers and sellers. More buyers than sellers will drive the price up; more sellers than buyers will drive the price down - until equilibrium is reached again. It’s not so much there are more shares “sloshing around out there” - the overall number of shares remain unchanged with sales such as Musk’s. But a huge number of shares being sold at once disturbs the equilibrium, and will drive the prices down, at least in the short term.