Jump to content


The Tesla trainwreck

TSLA Disaster Musk Deathwatch #YOLO EVs Electric vehicles Quality Safety

  • Please log in to reply
201 replies to this topic

indoctrinated #181 Posted Nov 22 2017 - 00:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 20187 battles
  • 2,173
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2017/11/former-gm-exec-bob-lutz-says-tesla-going-business.html

Block Quote

Following Tesla’s unveiling of its electric semi and second-generation Roadster last week, Lutz went on CNBC and claimed the event was intended as a distraction from the manufacturing problems it’s experiencing with the Model 3. The automaker has been struggling to ramp-up production of the $35,000 sedan and failed to meet its third-quarter delivery targets, and Lutz thinks the semi event was a way to drum up hype and raise capital amid hard times.

“The company, folks, is going out of business,” Lutz said. At this rate they’ll never get to 2019.”

“They are hemorrhaging cash. They’re going to have to go for another capital raise,” he added.

 

I agree 100% with Lutz. What is Tesla doing that can't be replicated by the existing automakers as it stands? The timing of the intro of those two new products is also suspicious. Seems like Tesla wanted to deflect attention away from the dumpster-fire launch of the Model 3 and also from their horrendous cash burn problem. The money for "deposits" on these new products will be used to build the Model 3? Sounds like a pyramid scheme to me. There's no info regarding how they will produce the Semi or new Roadster either- those will have more "product launches" to raise more cash for those.

View PostSpitYoYoMafia, on Nov 20 2017 - 22:09, said:

 

That was my first thought as well and how foolish it is for people to buy into this. They are taking your money for something that is not even completed yet and paying for it foolishly. Show reasonable results first, THEN you can have my money.

I'm convinced that Tesla is a religious cult with Musk as their father figure. Any sane person can see these problems after five-minutes of Google searching. If they aren't convinced Tesla is a failed automaker, then I don't know what to say.



indoctrinated #182 Posted Nov 23 2017 - 01:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 20187 battles
  • 2,173
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012
A retired trucker weighs in on the Tesla Semi:
https://www.autoblog.com/2017/11/19/tesla-semi-trucker-questions/

Block Quote

 
I only have space here to address a few issues, so we'll start with the central seating position. I don't see how that helps a trucker. I already get "a commanding view of the road" in a traditional truck because I sit six feet above traffic. What I need is a commanding view of my own truck, which the central seating position compromises. The worst blind spot in a tractor is next to the doors; in the Tesla Semi, I can't lean over to see if there's a Toyota Corolla camped out beside me. The central seating position hampers my commanding view when I need that view most: when I back up. For any backing maneuver, I watch both sides of the trailer in my mirrors to make sure I don't clobber anything, or I lean out of the truck to watch the trailer as I back. Being able to physically watch the trailer – not camera images on screens – can be the difference between making a clean back-up or making an insurance claim.

The silver, condo-sleeper truck at the presentation only had cameras mounted at the rear of the tractor. The black, mid-roof truck supplemented physical mirrors on lengthy stalks on both sides of the cab. Most new trucks come with mirrors mounted on the front fenders that provide views of the front corners – my Kenworth had seven mirrors in total, I've seen plenty of trucks with more. You'd be amazed at the number of tiny concrete and reinforced steel impediments lurking at truck stops and customer terminals. I know such mirrors would hamper aerodynamics on the Tesla Semi, but when those $8 contraptions could save thousands on carbon fiber repairs and downtime, I don't see why anyone would go without them.

I understand acceleration is a core Tesla brand value, but I'm far more interested in braking. An 80,000-pound tractor trailer needs about 550 feet to come to a complete stop from 55 miles per hour, and I spent a surprising portion of every driving shift trying not to obliterate car drivers who weren't aware of that fact. Show me how much the Semi can lop off that braking distance.
 

"Jackknifing is impossible."

This is a lie, unless the Tesla Semi and Tesla trailer can counteract physics and human error. My Freightliner weighed about 18,000 pounds, the reefer trailer added about another 16,000 pounds. That left enough for about a 46,000-pound load. When stuffed to the gills, I had 62,000 pounds ready to push me around or come around. If, either through physics or human error, the drive wheels or the trailer break loose too far, the Tesla Semi won't stop the jackknife.

 

Similar criticisms I had for the Model 3. The vehicles don't seem to be designed by people who actually drive cars (Semi trucks in this case).

indoctrinated #183 Posted Nov 23 2017 - 02:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 20187 battles
  • 2,173
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012
Discovered this just now. Doesn't look good.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/26-tesla-model-3s-parked-for-possible-quality-control-issues/ar-BBF0Yix#image=BBF0OXD%7C1

Block Quote

 I counted a total of 26 Model 3s. There were also about 45 other Teslas in this portion of the facility as well.

Turns out, it was a Quality Assurance checklist, and it revealed that this particular Model 3 had failed for a "VC Front Module to Body Contact/Rattle" issue. A few others had similar sheets tucked away.

And, upon further inspection, it looks as if the other Teslas, the Model S and Model X, also either failed inspection or had some sort of damage as one had "Structure" written across its windshield.

 

 

This appears to be some kind of facility for storing defective Tesla vehicles? What's more is that 26 Model 3s seem to be in this facility. That's a very high number of cars to put into storage due to quality defects considering their production numbers. The vehicle marked with "Structure" damage is even more disturbing. Looks like Tesla is still possibly releasing vehicles with fatal safety defects into the hands of consumers.

SpitYoYoMafia #184 Posted Nov 23 2017 - 03:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 18942 battles
  • 14,069
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012

View Postindoctrinated, on Nov 22 2017 - 17:26, said:

Discovered this just now. Doesn't look good.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/26-tesla-model-3s-parked-for-possible-quality-control-issues/ar-BBF0Yix#image=BBF0OXD%7C1

 

This appears to be some kind of facility for storing defective Tesla vehicles? What's more is that 26 Model 3s seem to be in this facility. That's a very high number of cars to put into storage due to quality defects considering their production numbers. The vehicle marked with "Structure" damage is even more disturbing. Looks like Tesla is still possibly releasing vehicles with fatal safety defects into the hands of consumers.

 

This is why you make a PROTOTYPE and perfect it before you start trying to build [edited]

 

what a waste of people's money, I would be pissed if I put money down for this



indoctrinated #185 Posted Nov 23 2017 - 03:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 20187 battles
  • 2,173
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012

View PostSpitYoYoMafia, on Nov 22 2017 - 22:43, said:

 

This is why you make a PROTOTYPE and perfect it before you start trying to build [edited]

 

what a waste of people's money, I would be pissed if I put money down for this

 

The picture of that vehicle with a "Structure" defect seems to be a Model S or X? Those vehicles have been out for years now. I find it puzzling that despite their age these vehicles are still riddled with quality defects and issues. I would expect them to get better over time (like the vast majority of other automakers) with improvements and the bugs worked out, not staying relatively the same.
With the Model 3 that's a really high percentage of the built vehicles just sitting in this facility considering they didn't even produce 250 of the vehicles in Q3 2017.

indoctrinated #186 Posted Nov 25 2017 - 00:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 20187 battles
  • 2,173
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012
Bloomberg has some decent analysis of the new Tesla products. The Semi is most likely a huge money loser and both Roadster, Semi break the current laws of physics with their battery technology.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-24/tesla-s-newest-promises-break-the-laws-of-batteries

Block Quote

 

Take the Tesla Semi: Musk vowed it would haul an unprecedented 80,000 pounds for 500 miles on a single charge, then recharge 400 miles of range in 30 minutes. That would require, based on Bloomberg estimates, a charging system that's 10 times more powerful than one of the fastest battery-charging networks on the road today—Tesla’s own Superchargers. 

 

The diminutive Tesla Roadster is promised to be the quickest production car ever built. But that achievement would mean squeezing into its tiny frame a battery twice as powerful as the largest battery currently available in an electric car. 

These claims are so far beyond current industry standards for electric vehicles that they would require either advances in battery technology or a new understanding of how batteries are put to use, said Sam Jaffe, battery analyst for Cairn Energy Research in Boulder, Colorado. In some cases, experts suspect Tesla might be banking on technological improvements between now and the time when new vehicles are actually ready for delivery.

But even if Tesla achieves record-breaking efficiency for the truck, it would still require a battery capacity somewhere from 600 kilowatt hours to 1,000 kilowatt hours to deliver on Musk’s claims, according to estimates from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Split the difference, at 800 kWh, and it would mean a battery that weighs more than 10,000 pounds and costs more than $100,000—even before you build the truck around it.
To achieve such power and range, Musk said the tiny Roadster will need to pack a massive 200-kilowatt-hour battery. That’s twice the size of any battery Tesla currently has on the road. Musk has previously said he won't be making the packs bigger on the Model S and Model X because of space constraints. So how can he double the pack size in the smaller Roadster?
 

Even Daimler could only get 220 highway miles out of a Class 8 truck. This is a new low for Tesla- now they are showcasing products with grossly overhyped specs that might (Most likely they will -not-) make it to production.


Edited by indoctrinated, Nov 25 2017 - 00:13.


SpitYoYoMafia #187 Posted Nov 25 2017 - 01:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 18942 battles
  • 14,069
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012

View Postindoctrinated, on Nov 24 2017 - 15:13, said:

Bloomberg has some decent analysis of the new Tesla products. The Semi is most likely a huge money loser and both Roadster, Semi break the current laws of physics with their battery technology.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-24/tesla-s-newest-promises-break-the-laws-of-batteries

Even Daimler could only get 220 highway miles out of a Class 8 truck. This is a new low for Tesla- now they are showcasing products with grossly overhyped specs that might (Most likely they will -not-) make it to production.

 

That's a third of what they wanted, man they are a loooonnngggggg way from what they want

indoctrinated #188 Posted Nov 28 2017 - 03:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 20187 battles
  • 2,173
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012

View PostSpitYoYoMafia, on Nov 24 2017 - 20:25, said:

 

That's a third of what they wanted, man they are a loooonnngggggg way from what they want

 

That's just range. Tesla either has some super-secret technology or is lying (most likely outcome) regarding how quickly this new Semi truck can be charged.
https://www.ft.com/content/f5593480-d29a-11e7-8c9a-d9c0a5c8d5c9

Block Quote


The US electric carmaker unveiled a battery-powered lorry earlier this month, promising haulage drivers they could add 400 miles of charge in as little as 30 minutes using a new “megacharger” to be made by the company. John Feddersen, chief executive of Aurora Energy Research, a consultancy set up in 2013 by a group of Oxford university professors, said the power required for the megacharger to fill a battery in that amount of time would be 1,600 kilowatts.


That is the equivalent of providing 3,000-4,000 “average” houses, he told a London conference last week, ten times as powerful as Tesla’s current network of “superchargers” for its electric cars. Tesla declined to comment on the calculations. Elon Musk, Tesla’s chief executive, has previously said the megachargers would be solar-powered but the company has not confirmed whether they will also have a grid connection for when it is not sunny.

This also begs the question- where will all the electricity for these new power-hungry trucks be generated? Adding more coal plants? More trash solar electric panels?



maxman1 #189 Posted Nov 28 2017 - 05:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 4239 battles
  • 2,234
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011

Quote

Take the Tesla Semi: Musk vowed it would haul an unprecedented 80,000 pounds for 500 miles on a single charge, then recharge 400 miles of range in 30 minutes.

 

Too bad trucks of that class are limited by federal law to 40 tons combined truck/trailer weight.



ChzBrgr1 #190 Posted Nov 28 2017 - 12:23

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 33741 battles
  • 827
  • [DHO-X] DHO-X
  • Member since:
    11-17-2013
Dipshet short sellers. On a tank game blog. I drink your tears in real life.

GeorgePreddy #191 Posted Nov 28 2017 - 14:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 14345 battles
  • 9,820
  • [L_LEG] L_LEG
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View PostSpitYoYoMafia, on Nov 13 2017 - 16:59, said:

 

Okay, so why did we go to war in Iraq? The government wanted oil and resources which is $$$$$$.

 

That stuff is government ran dude. You can literally GOOGLE this. The government owns that [edited].

 

https://www.wsj.com/...258541875590852

http://www.whoownsbi...d-gas-companies

http://www.economist.com/node/7270301

 

Gas and oil and the likes are government owned. Private businesses barely own any of the market.

 

Can you go troll elsewhere if you're not going to bring facts to this thread?

 

FACTS ?

 

 

The "fact" is that all 3 articles you listed are all about countries that are; Communistic (China, etc.) or despot dictatorships (Venezuela, Russia, etc.) or Kingdoms (Saudi Arabia, etc.) owning their oil reserves and "companies".

 

That has nothing to do with the USA where private companies own the vast majority of oil reserve rights.

 

The USA does not own Iraq nor their oil reserves.

 

Saying that the USA fought in Iraq in order to steal their oil is ridiculously fake "news" and none of the articles you posted say anything remotely like that.

 



SpitYoYoMafia #192 Posted Nov 28 2017 - 20:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 18942 battles
  • 14,069
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Nov 28 2017 - 05:32, said:

 

FACTS ?

 

 

The "fact" is that all 3 articles you listed are all about countries that are; Communistic (China, etc.) or despot dictatorships (Venezuela, Russia, etc.) or Kingdoms (Saudi Arabia, etc.) owning their oil reserves and "companies".

 

That has nothing to do with the USA where private companies own the vast majority of oil reserve rights.

 

The USA does not own Iraq nor their oil reserves.

 

Saying that the USA fought in Iraq in order to steal their oil is ridiculously fake "news" and none of the articles you posted say anything remotely like that.

 

 

You're delusional. Everyone already knows what the US government did in Iraq. It's not even a secret.

 

Those articles also clearly show that oil companies are not privately owned, most are owned by the government no.matter what country you go to.

 

Are you done circumventing your ban yet? Pretty sure that your alt (s) got banned meaning that you are getting around them right now.

 

 

Hey look at this, simple google search to find out that the US outsources it's oil needs. This isn't even new everyone knows this.

 

https://www.npr.org/...ay-be-surprised



indoctrinated #193 Posted Nov 28 2017 - 23:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 20187 battles
  • 2,173
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012

View PostChzBrgr1, on Nov 28 2017 - 07:23, said:

Dipshet short sellers. On a tank game blog. I drink your tears in real life.

Lol. Posting about Tesla's dirty laundry means I have some kind of financial position against them?
Again, post whatever evidence you have against the claims I made in this thread.

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Nov 28 2017 - 09:32, said:

 

 

 

The "fact" is that all 3 articles you listed are all about countries that are; Communistic (China, etc.) or despot dictatorships (Venezuela, Russia, etc.) or Kingdoms (Saudi Arabia, etc.) owning their oil reserves and "companies".

 

That has nothing to do with the USA where private companies own the vast majority of oil reserve rights.

 

The USA does not own Iraq nor their oil reserves.

 

Saying that the USA fought in Iraq in order to steal their oil is ridiculously fake "news" and none of the articles you posted say anything remotely like that.

 

Oil reserves aren't that important on their own. What matters is the rate of oil production, barrels per day.
You might not like KSA, China, Russia or Venezuala but three out of those four countries are net oil exporters while America is a net oil importer.




 

View PostSpitYoYoMafia, on Nov 28 2017 - 15:19, said:

 

You're delusional. Everyone already knows what the US government did in Iraq. It's not even a secret.

 

Those articles also clearly show that oil companies are not privately owned, most are owned by the government no.matter what country you go to.

 

Are you done circumventing your ban yet? Pretty sure that your alt (s) got banned meaning that you are getting around them right now.

 

 

Hey look at this, simple google search to find out that the US outsources it's oil needs. This isn't even new everyone knows this.

 

https://www.npr.org/...ay-be-surprised

 

What also further muddies the waters is oil is not fungible. Different crude oils can contain different constituent products (like gasoline, kerosene, diesel, etc), different contaminants (heavy metals like Vanadium, sulfur, etc). Canada's oil sands are completely different from say light-sweet crude you'd get from Libya or KSA. Remember how the shale oil boom was supposed to make America energy independent? That's a fraud, but that's a topic for a different thread.

SpitYoYoMafia #194 Posted Nov 29 2017 - 03:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 18942 battles
  • 14,069
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012
Yea as far as I know the US doesn't really have it's own gas, we have to import that stuff, that's what's in the middle east and what we were fighting for.

indoctrinated #195 Posted Nov 30 2017 - 01:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 20187 battles
  • 2,173
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012

View PostSpitYoYoMafia, on Nov 28 2017 - 22:00, said:

Yea as far as I know the US doesn't really have it's own gas, we have to import that stuff, that's what's in the middle east and what we were fighting for.

 

As I understand it America merely imports a lot of crude oil but still does the refining of oil themselves. I believe these dealings with the Middle East go far back as the 1970s with KSA. KSA accepted American weapons and protection in exchange for only accepting USD as payment for oil exports and buying US Treasury debts. This was done because America's oil production reached it's plateau in 1970 IIRC and they had to get other guaranteed sources of oil to fuel their economy. Remember, America's economy today burns 20 million barrels of oil per day. 20 million!

indoctrinated #196 Posted Dec 02 2017 - 18:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 20187 battles
  • 2,173
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012
Tesla just got removed from being eligible for government subsidies in Germany:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-subsidies-germany/germany-removes-tesla-from-subsidies-list-as-too-pricey-idUSKBN1DV4SB

Block Quote

 

Tesla customers cannot order the Model S base version without extra features that pushed the car above the 60,000 euro ($71,500) price limit, a spokesman for the German Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Controls (BAFA) said on Friday.

Germany last year launched the incentive scheme worth about 1 billion euros, partly financed by the German car industry, to boost electric car usage. A price cap was included to exempt premium models.

 

More schemes from this company to steal taxpayer money.



indoctrinated #197 Posted Dec 05 2017 - 00:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 20187 battles
  • 2,173
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012
I present this- inside the mind of a Tesla cultist:
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/03/tesla-cult-people-missing/

Block Quote

 Tesla products are often just better.

People like Tesla products and write good things about them because they offer new and better features. These products have broken numerous records, putting them at the top of their markets for performance, price, safety, new and advanced features, etc. People are inclined to write good things about such products, and also like to put them in the context of competitors’ products for useful comparison.

Tesla has a mission that hundreds of millions of people support. This is rare.

 My response to all of this? AHAHAHAAHA!
I also presented data showing that on the contrary, electricity generation in the US is mostly driven by coal and natural gas plants. How are electric cars going to stop that? All they'll do is just shift the burden of pollution onto electric power plants rather than vehicle tailpipes.



indoctrinated #198 Posted Dec 10 2017 - 23:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 20187 battles
  • 2,173
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012
A warning against buying these cars used:

Why go to the trouble of making these stupid motorized door handles that sit flush in the doors? Seriously, this is a huge embarrassment for a vehicle of this price to not be able to enter your own vehicle!

maxman1 #199 Posted Jan 10 2018 - 18:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 4239 battles
  • 2,234
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011
What manufacturer has issues while introducing a new model? Most of them,  most likely.

What kind of manufacturer calls the competition dinosaurs and throws convention to the wind, then has six months of production nightmares? Only Tesla it seems.

indoctrinated #200 Posted Jan 11 2018 - 00:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 20187 battles
  • 2,173
  • Member since:
    05-22-2012
http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1053245

Block Quote

  In Q4, Tesla delivered 29,870 vehicles, of which 15,200 were Model S, 13,120 were Model X, and 1,550 were Model 3.

So a small drop in the bucket compared to even the Nissan Leaf. Genius.

When the Model 3 starts delivery en-mass to customers, people will soon get a taste of the quality problems that bedevil all of Tesla's models.
 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users