Interesting observation (Tesla content)

Knowing a couple people in the company has given me some second hand info. They are ambitious but their vehicles are unreliable. Their tech is buggy. A majority of their successful​ image is driven by the demographic that purchase their vehicles. My friend mentioned a talented engineer hired from GM commenting how they had some driveline issues with the early Ss that would get a program cancelled at GM given the incident rate. But the Tesla customers feel like they are part of an elite team or club and so rather than tear down the company they seem eager to struggle through the bugs "together" with Tesla.

My friend asked if I thought things would start downhill with the 3. I said IDK. If you pull Prius owners maybe not, they are committed to the idea of Tesla. If you pull more general car buyers then they will probably start giving Tesla grief.

The whole logo thing is funny. It is curious if anyone on the team developing the logo added this to the risk assessment?

In reply to Advan046:

There are customers out there who more than tolerate problems if the car is really good.

But, there are not that many of them.

A good example is that IIRC, the Taurus SHO had a higher customer satisfaction rating than the normal Taurus, even though it was a very problematic car. Or a car similar to that.

THE reason Toyotas are so popular is that mostly do it right the first time. Not inspired looks, not inspired driving, nothing like that- just rock solid reliability and very few things gone wrong. Heck, Toyota and Lexus are still the benchmarks in TGW.

So given the Bolt vs. the 3, and hearing that Tesla put sub parts out, my gut tells me that the initial outlay will go strong, but the Bolt will catch in sales, and over time, surpass it.

As much at guys like Musk think car companies are behind, the industry really knows how to make cars, and at a VERY high volume. It's really hard to skirt that issue.

Iusedtobefast wrote: The nose is a little strange with no grill but those rear gull wing doors are kinda cool!

All their cars used to have grilles, but the amount of air they let in wasn't needed, so for aero improvements they simply replaced the grilles with solid panels. Now it looks like their cars are wearing surgical masks.

alfadriver wrote: As much at guys like Musk think car companies are behind, the industry really knows how to make cars, and at a VERY high volume. It's really hard to skirt that issue.

I think the tech crowd is like that; I remember when Amazon and "virtual stores" were going to make brick and mortar obsolete!

Not so much....

I once found out that the Big 3 had as many people sitting around collecting pensions and disability as they had active work force, and I marveled that they were still in business.

That's incredible know-how, and as with the march of technology everywhere, more and more features and tech get packed into the products, at pretty good reliability rates generally. Then combine that with moving huge amounts of materials through what has to be an ever more complex manufacturing enviroment.

That's a lot different than just moving 0's and 1's around.

So, I think there's a little arrogance and optimism there, but all said and done, my hat is off to the guy for undertaking it.

I think there market cap is laughable and the small number of cars they have put out have so many glitches abnormal company would be out of business.

That being said a p100d ludicrous launch mode is one of the most mind blowing things I've ever experienced. My brain balks at the idea of something that big accelerating that hard all while being silent

OldGray320i wrote:

alfadriver wrote: As much at guys like Musk think car companies are behind, the industry really knows how to make cars, and at a VERY high volume. It's really hard to skirt that issue.

I think the tech crowd is like that; I remember when Amazon and "virtual stores" were going to make brick and mortar obsolete! Not so much....

Actually that's happening to some extent, it's why WalMart is getting into online shopping, why Payless just filed for bankruptcy, and it helped to finish off Radio Shack's shambling zombie corpse.

OldGray320i wrote: I think the tech crowd is like that; I remember when Amazon and "virtual stores" were going to make brick and mortar obsolete! Not so much....

They pretty much are. Have you looked at the financials for any retail chain in the last 18 months? Outside of home improvement stores, it's really bleak. Tons of chains are closing stores or shuttering operations completely. There's too much overhead.

As you correctly noted, the lack of overhead that helps tech companies in other fields is a hindrance to them in manufacturing. The problem with manufacturing for silicon valley comes in the form of giant, costly facilities and establishing an efficient, mature supply chain, etc. The big car companies already have the abilities in place. That's why Google and Apple recently aborted their self driving car programs. Its much more profitable for them to do what they know in the software side and license it to companies that actually make vehicles.

Edit: Gameboy beat me to the punch

In reply to STM317:

Seems as if there's a difference between "brick and mortar" and big chains. I see Sears/Kmart going under, and hear Walmart moving more on line.

But the small downtown stores are doing ok.

As for the other problem with silicon valley- if you look at computer, OS, and program reliability- it's no where near what cars are. Not even close. So I don't really think they are really aware of how good cars are, or more importantly- have to be.

alfadriver wrote: As for the other problem with silicon valley- if you look at computer, OS, and program reliability- it's no where near what cars are. Not even close. So I don't really think they are really aware of how good cars are, or more importantly- have to be.

Number of blue screens/kernel panics among all my computers in 2016: 1

Number of times an engine had to come out of one of my cars in 2016: 3

Driven5 wrote: Tesla delivered less than 80k cars last year, and it's now blowing investors minds that they are on track to break the 100k mark this year. Apparently that's all you need to do to be worth more than Ford, who delivered 6.7M cars last year...Yeah, I'm shaking my head right along with those 'bear-ish' investors. But back to the subject at hand. Electric cars are essentially contraception on wheels...It makes sense that Tesla would be the IUD of BEV's.

What you're missing here (in Alternate Reality land) is by those numbers Tesla increased production capacity and sales by 25%. 25%!!1!!111 Such Growth. Wow.

Ford on the other hand only sold an additonal 16k units from 2015 to 2016 which is a 0.99756% increase in sales.

Ovbiously Tesla is doing something right!

Now what's 25% of zero dollars again?

Not saying I dislike Tesla or Musk, just pointing out that this type of rampant speculation inevitably bites the final person in the chain which is generally the consumer who has a ton of this type of stock packaged into their retirement fund by his trusty fund manager.

One thing about the SUV, If you plan on putting it in the garage you have to make sure you can open the gullwing doors, My boss' wife has one that JUST squeaks them open.

GameboyRMH wrote:

OldGray320i wrote:

alfadriver wrote: As much at guys like Musk think car companies are behind, the industry really knows how to make cars, and at a VERY high volume. It's really hard to skirt that issue.

I think the tech crowd is like that; I remember when Amazon and "virtual stores" were going to make brick and mortar obsolete! Not so much....

Actually that's happening to some extent, it's why WalMart is getting into online shopping, why Payless just filed for bankruptcy, and it helped to finish off Radio Shack's shambling zombie corpse.

Online has it's efficiencies - I order blip shift, haven't bought a funny t-shirt from a store in years - is that content? Price? I order from Pep Boys online for a discount, and pick up at the store (does it help them with efficiency, or drive traffic?).

Lots goes in to a business model.

And name any business in the last 8 years of a crappy economy that hasn't struggled (and before any pinheads go political, look up the history of commentary on the economy - 2% GDP is just stagnant, no matter who's watch it's under, and there's been 8 years of that).

Payless might be a victim of it's business model - not a shoe shopper, but there are several shoe chains that have bigger stores, maybe a better, more inviting layout, and name brands at prices that approach the cost of Payless.

Markets change. The car market is changing, too, in keeping with consumer buying habits, which also change with generations. Find a car with roll up windows (Payless?).

Radio Shack had a business model which no longer worked. New competitors or segments came about which appealed to RS shoppers more, and there went their dollars.

All Walmart is doing is following the dollars, and if trends shift, they'll be ready.

But there will always be buyers and markets to serve with brick & mortar, not just automotive.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to STM317: Seems as if there's a difference between "brick and mortar" and big chains. I see Sears/Kmart going under, and hear Walmart moving more on line. But the small downtown stores are doing ok. As for the other problem with silicon valley- if you look at computer, OS, and program reliability- it's no where near what cars are. Not even close. So I don't really think they are really aware of how good cars are, or more importantly- have to be.

I'd say it's all brick and mortar, but the reason small stores are less impacted has to do with substantially less overhead than large chains that have tons of stores and warehouses and staff to insure and pay for.

My small town is undergoing a bit of a small boom with lots of boutiques and things opening in recent months. They all offer unique things that you can't really find online. Hand made home goods and uncommon clothes. They charge some pretty hefty prices to support themselves too. People shop there to have something unique that you don't get other places, and to support a local establishment. I'm curious to see if they're still around in 3-5 years. I hope they survive, but time will reveal if they're actually making any money.

STM317 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to STM317: Seems as if there's a difference between "brick and mortar" and big chains. I see Sears/Kmart going under, and hear Walmart moving more on line. But the small downtown stores are doing ok. As for the other problem with silicon valley- if you look at computer, OS, and program reliability- it's no where near what cars are. Not even close. So I don't really think they are really aware of how good cars are, or more importantly- have to be.

I'd say it's all brick and mortar, but the reason small stores are less impacted has to do with substantially less overhead than large chains that have tons of stores and warehouses and staff to insure and pay for. My small town is undergoing a bit of a small boom with lots of boutiques and things opening in recent months. They all offer unique things that you can't really find online. Hand made home goods and uncommon clothes. They charge some pretty hefty prices to support themselves too. People shop there to have something unique that you don't get other places, and to support a local establishment. I'm curious to see if they're still around in 3-5 years. I hope they survive, but time will reveal if they're actually making any money.

Not to be a weenie (well, I am, but...):

Dick's Sporting Goods , three years of revenue growth.

Big 5 Sporting Goods , two years of no growth.

I don't know the online presence of each, but certainly both are pretty good size brick & mortar.

Operating in a bad economy. One doing ok, one not. 15 years after the discussions, still not convinced brick and mortar is going away. It certainly won't be a same same comparison to brick and mortar 20-25 years ago, and/but it will have more wrinkles still in another 15-20-25 years.

GameboyRMH wrote:

alfadriver wrote: As for the other problem with silicon valley- if you look at computer, OS, and program reliability- it's no where near what cars are. Not even close. So I don't really think they are really aware of how good cars are, or more importantly- have to be.

Number of blue screens/kernel panics among all my computers in 2016: 1 Number of times an engine had to come out of one of my cars in 2016: 3

When you are using a computer the same era as you car, then we can talk.

One thing I can say, I've never had to buy a car because it's performance took a big downturn. Or that it became obsolete.

Still, on a fleet basis, it would be interesting to see TWG's of computers. And have that tracked in years of use- just like cars.

From a technical standpoint, I can't even tell you how many times my computers have been "recalled"- AKA- had upgrades/updates pushed to them. That is hugely avoided for cars.

STM317 wrote:

OldGray320i wrote: I think the tech crowd is like that; I remember when Amazon and "virtual stores" were going to make brick and mortar obsolete! Not so much....

They pretty much are. Have you looked at the financials for any retail chain in the last 18 months? Outside of home improvement stores, it's really bleak. Tons of chains are closing stores or shuttering operations completely. There's too much overhead.

Except for Amazon, apparently...They've started opening brick-and-mortar book stores.

OldGray320i wrote: Not to be a weenie (well, I am, but...): Dick's Sporting Goods , three years of revenue growth. Big 5 Sporting Goods , two years of no growth. I don't know the online presence of each, but certainly both are pretty good size brick & mortar. Operating in a bad economy. One doing ok, one not. 15 years after the discussions, still not convinced brick and mortar is going away. It certainly won't be a same same comparison to brick and mortar 20-25 years ago, and/but it will have more wrinkles still in another 15-20-25 years.

Dick's may be on a roll but they're the biggest fish in an increasingly smaller pond

As you've said, there will likely always be a place for brick and mortar retail of some sort, but the form will surely change. Those that survive will be the ones who've adapted best.

Driven5 wrote:

STM317 wrote:

OldGray320i wrote: I think the tech crowd is like that; I remember when Amazon and "virtual stores" were going to make brick and mortar obsolete! Not so much....

They pretty much are. Have you looked at the financials for any retail chain in the last 18 months? Outside of home improvement stores, it's really bleak. Tons of chains are closing stores or shuttering operations completely. There's too much overhead.

Except for Amazon, apparently...They've started opening brick-and-mortar book stores.

I really didn't believe this. So I googled it. Holy cow... talk about irony.

In reply to STM317:

That's been true since traveling traders made way for general stores, made way for mail order, made way for malls, made way for online, will make way for another revised brick-and-mortar market again. Each time it swings from a mobile shopping experience to a fixed one, it changes form from the last time. Some companies will successfully make the leap each time, others will not. Give it another two cycles, and watch Amazon face the same struggles that Sears is now.

.

In reply to OldGray320i:

I wouldn't have believed it either, if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes first...I like to imagine what it would have been like in the meeting where that 'revolutionary' idea was first proposed.

STM317 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to STM317: Seems as if there's a difference between "brick and mortar" and big chains. I see Sears/Kmart going under, and hear Walmart moving more on line. But the small downtown stores are doing ok. As for the other problem with silicon valley- if you look at computer, OS, and program reliability- it's no where near what cars are. Not even close. So I don't really think they are really aware of how good cars are, or more importantly- have to be.

I'd say it's all brick and mortar, but the reason small stores are less impacted has to do with substantially less overhead than large chains that have tons of stores and warehouses and staff to insure and pay for. My small town is undergoing a bit of a small boom with lots of boutiques and things opening in recent months. They all offer unique things that you can't really find online. Hand made home goods and uncommon clothes. They charge some pretty hefty prices to support themselves too. People shop there to have something unique that you don't get other places, and to support a local establishment. I'm curious to see if they're still around in 3-5 years. I hope they survive, but time will reveal if they're actually making any money.

Small business is usually a function of either credit or wealth. Boutiques in general have a miserable track record of failure.. Husband typically has a successful business and in an attempt to explain the required dedication and effort funds or underwrites the start. (to be fair it would also be possible the wife has a successful....)

As for small town vs large chains, while the large chain has a massively larger overhead, they also have massively lower cost due to volume buying etc. Plus the ability to move unsold product to a location that may be selling that product.. Small town low rent may be true but as a percentage of sales it's typically massively higher.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to Advan046: There are customers out there who more than tolerate problems if the car is really good. But, there are not that many of them. A good example is that IIRC, the Taurus SHO had a higher customer satisfaction rating than the normal Taurus, even though it was a very problematic car. Or a car similar to that. THE reason Toyotas are so popular is that mostly do it right the first time. Not inspired looks, not inspired driving, nothing like that- just rock solid reliability and very few things gone wrong. Heck, Toyota and Lexus are still the benchmarks in TGW. So given the Bolt vs. the 3, and hearing that Tesla put sub parts out, my gut tells me that the initial outlay will go strong, but the Bolt will catch in sales, and over time, surpass it. As much at guys like Musk think car companies are behind, the industry really knows how to make cars, and at a VERY high volume. It's really hard to skirt that issue.

Very correct statement about customers! Look at Jaguar with extremely desirable cars like the XK120, XK-E, Early XJ-6/12,people waited for and paid an extreme premium to get those cars and various start-up issues were simply considered the cost of ownership.. A few particularly adept owners sorted issues out for the company and their solutions allowed the company to sell "improved" versions.. Look at the first series of XJ-S some years fewer than a thousand were made.. Once the second version (H.E.) came out sales took off (in spite of fuel shortage crisis)

The fact is electric cars are the future and the future started more than a decade ago.. Those who are successful early in the game will reap the biggest rewards.

frenchyd wrote: The fact is electric cars are the future and the future started more than a decade ago.. Those who are successful early in the game will reap the biggest rewards.

I'm still not convinced that pure electrics will be the future. While not really in the major game right now, to me, fuel cells solves most of the EV problems pretty nicely.

The key to the WHOLE game is to get more energy out of whatever we are using to start with. And to deliver it quickly, not for power, but for refueling.

Pure electric is a good option for many users, but not all. I'm not sure fuel cells are a great option either. Personally, I would much rather have a pure electric once the average range can approach 300 miles on a charge. But I can see fuel cell vehicles working better in areas where greater distances are traveled every trip and refilling is more frequent. But... then it starts competing with current systems with cost and convenience.

The hurdle for fuel cells is the same as other "alternative" fuel options - infrastructure for production and distribution. For electric, infrastructure is essentially a non-issue.

In reply to Ian F:

While I see the idea of 300 mile charge being enableing, the thought of how much energy that is makes me thing the charge time will be at least a half hour.

Whereas a fuel cell can refill that in about a min. And not at hundreds of amps and volts.

Right now, I can't see a good path for charging that fast.

In reply to alfadriver:

That's my point - with a 300 mile range, I don't care about charging time. Charging will be done at home. When I'm sleeping. If charging time while on the road matters to you, then electric is probably not for you and perhaps a fuel cell (or just staying with gas or diesel) is a better option.

And this is my biggest beef with all of these discussions - nobody is (or at least shouldn't be) saying electric cars are the be-all-end-all option for everyone. But they can be a viable option for a lot of people. Especially those who commute some distance, but can also have access to a vehicle better suited for long trips. This is the category I fit into. An electric car would be perfect for me. When I need to go farther than 300 miles, I have other vehicles better suited for that task.