This is basically a live shot. I have a level 2 for our Leaf that I could easily use. I have been experimentong on purpose just using the wall outlet to charge it to see if it's possible. When I plugged it in today, it was at 120 miles left, which is actually the lowest it has been. I drove 70 (rated) miles today, and 223 (rated) between Tuesday morning and Thursday night, so 293 total. I'm driving at about 75% efficiency right now thanks to cold and the fact I don't exactly drive conservatively, so that is about 220 miles in four days.

Quick math shows that in those three nights, I regained 173 miles and charged for about 34 hours total. That was helped by getting home early yesterday and not heading out.

I'm not planning on doing that much driving this weekend, so it should be back up over the weekend.

Last month I drove 1531 miles (not rated, actual miles) and other than a 37 kwh Supercharger stop, used only the wall outlet for charging all month. At that same rate, I could use a wall outlet and reasonably go 18000+ miles on a year.

If you're not having to go ultra long distances day after day, wall outlet is surprisingly fine.

Screenshot_20190111-173503 (resized).jpg

I guess the efficiency hit probably doesn't add up to much money. Hey if it works for you all the power to you. To me it's like using dial up internet just to see how long it takes before you mindlessly pound your head on the desk

i have a plug-in with 20 miles pure ev range. i plug it in nightly, as i use all of it plus a little gas every day (25miles basically round trip commute) i get about 700 miles per 9 gallon tank of gas, which is like 2-2.5months. so yeah, if you ignore the charging at home benefit you're ignoring a huge plus.

Efficiency hit isn't from charging, it's from it being in the mid 10s this week, combined with me enjoying seeing how quick I can get to the speed limit from a red light. Cost to charge is the same.

It would totally be like using dial up internet if I was sitting in it and waiting for it to gain X number of miles. At night, that's not a thing.

Can we stop with this comparison? It’s plain wrong. Sears was in trouble back in the 90s. They managed a so-so turnaround up until 2003 when they bought K-mart; but no one believed sears was going to eat everyone’s lunch. Sears had its lunch first and foremost eaten by big box stores who had way better real estate deals and who used volume to crush prices. However, Sears did have a pretty successful web business relative to the big box stores; they even had the amazon affiliate style sellers too. They just failed to execute, mostly because their CEO Eddie lampert was more interested in strip mining Sears assets to benefit his hedge fund, not actually running a successful retail operation. Having formerly worked at Sears, and also knowing a ton about e-commerce post the dotcom bubble, this whole “everyone thought sears was gonna win” argument is BS. No one predicted Amazons success because no one ever tried the whole “sell things at a loss and don’t worry about the bottom line” strategy. Turns out, Sears being such an established brand worked WAY against them. Basically since 1999 investors have preferred to give their money to new companies, not old ones, exactly because they’re new (and because interest rates are so low which means investors chased yield on risky startups rather than invest in stodgy old sears.)

Kodak is another example. Kodak was actually very early to the digital camera game. Actually slightly too early. Their digital cameras were good and came with a decent set of software for new users. Problem is, digital cameras are not like film because you only sell digital cameras once, versus selling a camera then selling film and accessories and developing and everything else. Kodak was a SERVICES company. Digital cameras killed the need for the service. Once that happened it’s a race to the bottom for margins against knockoffs and cheap imitators (which is why GoPro is also doomed, despite making a great product).

I always knew they would succeed, maybe not to the level they are today. In the early 2000's I really enjoyed the convenience and ease of being able to search for anything I needed on Ebay, but couldn't find EVERYTHING. Didn't take long for bezos to realize the same thing. Sears not only didn't innovate and keep up with times, they slowly thinned out their stores until you had no customer support. Perfect example is this kid quitting his job at Sears:

Just going to point this out. The auto industry was in trouble ten years ago. They seemed to be making a turnaround, but suddenly people believe they are in trouble, and companies like GM and Ford are shutting down small car development... Which is exactly what got them into trouble in 2008.

As for investors, as I type this, Tesla's market cap is $59.64bil. GM is $54.28bil (which I'll add today went up by about $4bil when news of them turning Caddy into an electric brand leaked). Ford? $34.46bil.

I'm not saying they are exact parallels. Eddie was the worst CEO Sears could have had, but I'd rather have the sunk costs in Sears than the sunk costs that legacy auto has to deal with.

I was referring to the loss of efficiency using 120 vs 240 you will pay a little more at 120. It may only be a few cents though I haven’t don’t the math. I’m just kidding around about charge speed. I went all in on the wall charger and max amperage and I never use it. In hindsight I could get buy with 120v and I’ll never get back the $750 for wall charger. I would still recommend it though I’m sure one day I’ll need it.

I've got a fast charger for the Leaf - with a smaller battery, I find it way more important to charge more. If I had a night like Tuesday where I only would have had six hours to charge, I would have only had about 40 miles of range Wednesday.

With a big battery, so long as I don't need to go like 200 miles multiple days in a row, no issues.

Kwh charging costs are the same. It may vary based on your utility.

What got those companies in trouble was a global economic slowdown and massive financialization. GM was a derivatives/finance/loan company with a car division at that point.

Ford got caught with its pants down worse in the earlier dot com era crash, which was preceded by ultra low gas prices which lead to everyone and their mom buying ford expeditions and excursions and other ridiculous vehicles. It was better positioned in 2008, but still suffered.

Shutting down small car development is simply Ford and others doing a calculation: they believe they cannot make profitable cars with the new EPA regulations and they don’t believe they can squeeze margins enough. They don’t really buy the electric story. I don’t know if that’s a gaffe or not. But unlike Tesla they can’t go on a multi year money-losing binge to do the R&D to convert 100% to electric. The market doesn’t reward the existing, stable businesses. Everyone is all in on “disrupters”, regardless of whtether their business models will ever be profitable. It’s IMHO a side effect of ultra low interest rates since 2008 (yes even today’s rates are obscenely low by historical standards). No one wants to invest slowly in proven businesses, everyone wants huge multiple growth.

No, "we" can't and I'll tell you why.

So you're saying that Sears got disrupted by big box stores. Thank you for making my point.

Not successful enough, it turns out. I note that big box stores are still in business.

The CEO had the backing of the board and investors or he would have been ousted. The reality is, Sears was doomed to fail in the face of disruption. It's hard to see because these gigantic companies can survive on momentum for a long, long time.

It's a little shocking that as a self-professed e-commerce expert you simultaneously argue that the innovator's dilemma does not apply to Sears and Kodak and then go on to show how actually it /does/.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovators_dilemma

Um, wut?

Now you're just trying to have a laugh, right? I and tens of thousands of people like me saw it clear as day. It was blatantly obvious from about 1999.

Yes, but not in the way you seem to think.

I think you need to read up a bit on history, the stock market and investing in general. There's just so much wrong with what you wrote there.

Once again, you are cementing my point. Thank you. Kodak: a classic case of innovator's dilemma.

No, not at all. What happened is that the camera got damn good on smartphones, so the market vanished for cameras (except for professionals). But a new market appeared for extremely expensive smartphones. It wasn't a race to the bottom at all. Or do you not think that Apple became a trillion dollar company due in large part to selfies?

I wouldn't say GoPro is like Kodak, Sears, Nokia, or Blockbuster at all. The seem more like Red Bull in that they seem to have excellent marketing and a great product, but I don't know much more than that.

In other words, they're doing exactly what Sears did. Sell off, shut down, shrink and pray.

Indeed. That's exactly what many of us here have been saying.

They CAN'T make the investments to convert to electric. Classic innovator's dilemma.

There's much more to it than that, of course, but it is very unlikely for big auto to survive this.

Jaguar i-Pace sales may be an early indication of this playing out. They sold 124 of those in December 2018. Their product costs about the same but does not offer as much as the Tesla.

Q1 will give a better picture. I don't believe that it will sell anywhere near the volumes needed to challenge Tesla for reasons cited in earlier posts.

Bolt sales give a better indication, and those are in the toilet - December sales were down more than 50% compared to last year.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the stock market operates.

The market rewards companies that show steady profit, and /also/ companies that look to dominate new industries but have yet to show a profit. The valuations of public companies reflect that, as well they should.

Extremely large investments are required to dominate new industries. FedEx, Google, Amazon, Tesla are all examples. There are many others.

That's not accurate at all. There are many types of investors. If you're talking about venture capitalists, a very small minority, of course they want huge multiples. But on the other end of the spectrum there are pension funds who want slowly proven businesses. These make up much more of the market. This is exactly why we have a stock market.

Around here we would say the GM was a Pension and Health Care insurance provider that also manufactured motor vehicles.

lol

https://www.foxnews.com/auto/cadillac-reveals-tesla-fighting-electric-suv

caddy-ev-2 (resized).jpg

You seem to be dismissing the role that gas prices doubling had on the demand for the products that these companies were making. Not just was there a major problem with their loans, but they also didn't have products people wanted to buy.

Actually, I agree with this. A lot of people think it's about "shifting tastes". I think it has more to do with a set of EPA rules that more or less punishes the production of vehicles with smaller footprints.

GM does. Ford doesn't.

As for deciding if it is a gaffe or not, you have to decide whether you think electric cars are a "segment" of the market or if they are a replacement product.

If they are a segment and they never cross, say, 10% market penetration, then they are probably doing the exact right thing. If instead they are a technology that is expected to fully replace existing product, it's a huge problem.

I know basically no one that bought an electric car because they thought it would save the planet. I didn't. They bought it because it's a better technology. That bodes poorly for it being a segment. So does California already hitting ~10% market penetration this past year.

Governments also seem to believe in the electric story. Not the US of course, but many other countries including China are planning to completely phase out internal combustion cars. That means the market is shrinking for the traditional Ice car and...

Right, because they can't idle their factories and shut down sales for that length of time since they have so much capital that must be spent just to stay afloat. They can't afford to transition, unless the transition takes place nice and slow, or they jump in with both feet and hope.

That's not really true. The market does reward existing stable businesses. I own a few handfuls of stock, and my investment strategy has always been to find existing, stable companies and invest in those. That strategy has worked out just fine.

The auto industry, which suffer massive bankruptcies just over ten years ago and had to be bailed out to continue to exist is NOT a stable industry. The recent introduction of a new propulsion system that a lot of customers and clients think is better does not lead to a stable industry.

A significant portion of investors, particularly institutional investors see this. They arent rewarding Tesla for not being Ford. They are rewarding them because there is a belief their products and their ambition to create those products will lead them to.be the better long term bet.

Not sure that's really a fair, much less perfect, example. If you watch the video, it's clear he's an employee that will probably get fired from just about any job. He is told to not wear shoes that have roller wheels in them, and he refuses and seemingly wears them every shift, and says the rules are "too square". It's not rocket science to know that any retailer is not going to allow employees to be skating around the store. The manager is pretty clear saying that it's for safety reasons. Just the fact they continued to allow him to work, despite wearing the shoes he was told not to - is pretty lenient.

No release date.
No technical details.
No price.
No large screen monitor.
Front wheel drive.
Vague mention of 300 mile range being the 'sweet spot.'

So, a fairly ugly car that won't look anywhere near this 'nice' by the time it gets to release and has ordinary range by 2018 standards.

Compared to their pile of crap $70k ELR hybrid that was quietly killed a few years ago (after grand announcements of it being a Tesla killer) it is a major step up. But compared to a 2018 Tesla, let alone the 2023 model Cadillac ever fields?

agreed, and very odd. Why would you release a conceptual sketch of what your SUV electric might look like? Only reason I can think of is they are trying to sway customers to wait (for some date in the future?) instead of jumping to another company for an electric car. This is almost like how Chicago Gaming announces a bunch of potential upcoming titles, and gets people to hold onto their money instead of spending it on something else.

Just goes to show how desperate GM is right now.

Looks like unfortunately Telsa is doing workforce cuts. As much as I dislike Elon Musk, I always sympathize with anyone losing a job.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/elon-musk-tesla-email-to-employees-about-job-cuts.html

all in the name of cutting overhead so he can finally sell a 35k model3 and still make a small margin. its becoming a very competitve market in the EV space now, hes thinking ahead. he knows bigger companies are going to find ways to build a cheaper car.

jack black is also a tesla owner

That is cool that he did that Pitfall commercial. I remember that commercial and Atari game well.

...or not

"But Tesla has struggled for months to handle production, cost and delivery issues surrounding the Model 3, and Musk has said the company can’t sell the car at its long-promised price of $35,000 while remaining profitable. "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/technology/2019/01/23/teslas-mass-layoffs-reduced-car-production-has-wall-street-waking-up-dream/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3QifnnayN_wl_Z65Lg9Nru20qgBpRExun5h9Q-FfyHKvaTTCpzeRunu54

I think appealing to masses might be a mistake...part of the past allure of Tesla was it's rarity and uniqueness. Once it becomes as ubiquitous as a camry, it's no longer appealing to many. At least to me. I get maybe Musk is trying to spark a revolution, but often the pioneers are left behind when the next Gen enters the fray. Time will tell.

i dont think that was ever his goal, to be low volume unique. if he was, he would have just kept selling 100k models. but theres only so big of a market willing to fork over that money. his end goal has always seemed to be about eliminating the need for fossil fuels to transport us around, changing the world for the better, not running some elite corporation.

Some manufacturer will have to provide the average auto prices for electric cars for the technology to ever be the accepted way of the mainstream.
If it is not possible to make electric cars for low middle class incomes then some other technology will have to fill that void. Perhaps, it just will not be Tesla making the electric cars in that price range as they could stick with luxury cars, but that was not Tesla's plan several years ago when they announced the Model 3.

I’m trying to understand your argument. Once a car sells as many as an incredibly popular car like the Camry, it isn’t appealing to ‘many?’ That’s a bit of a contradiction isn’t it?

Anyway, I don’t think the A-Class has hurt Mercedes-Benz’ appeal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_A-Class

Like which pioneers? If you’re referring to Ford and Mercedes-Benz I wholeheartedly agree. Or are you referring to some other industry?

re: Contradiction: You left off from my quote "at least to me". So, I qualified my statement to me and my circle of car enthusiasts. I've been in the performance/exotic car circles for longer than Tesla has been in existence. When the Model S was initially released, I was very interested in purchasing, because of the uniqueness and yes, exclusivity. The performance was icing on the cake. Many of my friends felt the same way, and many purchased. Now, that the Tesla is becoming more mainstream, many from that same circle, are no longer interested in Tesla. That's just my own anecdotal experience and not based on empirical data, which I know you are fond of And it was just my opinion which I stated up front.

Not sure I would hold up the A Class Mercedes as any benchmark. Mercedes was #1 prior to the A-Class. After, they were second to BMW, and then in 2011, third to Audi. They've regained the market by focusing on premium vehicles and SUVs, not the A class.

re: Pioneers. Many industries. Personal Computers: IBM -> Gateway/Compaq -> Dell. Phones: Blackberry -> Apple. Search Engines: Alta Vista -> Google. Software: Everything -> Microsoft. Most have one thing in common: Tech. Advantages of not being a Pioneer: https://chrislema.com/second-mover-advantage/

Are you really trying to argue that Tesla is better off chasing the niche exotica car company then entering the main stream market? I guess you have been under a rock but the new Roadster has pretty much the entire exotic car market drooling in anticipation.

WhyNot Both (resized).jpg

From profitability, yes. Margins are higher. Once you start selling $35K cars to mass markets with razor thin margins that are used to the reliability and fit/finish of a honda or camry, then I forsee lots of complaints. Tesla is already receiving backlash for the handling of warranty claims for the model 3's they sold last year.

It's only my opinion. No need to get bent out of shape over it.

The issue is your opinion has no basis in reality or fact. What did Toyota and its Camry post for profits something like 5 billion. Most exotic cars are owned by parent companies that bury the numbers on the balance sheet because they lose money on them.

Ferrari has been more profitable and sales are up 30% since they were divorced from their parent company, Fiat. I think the performance market does just fine. I'd be willing to bet since Toyota has been producing Camry's since the 90's, their margins are much higher than Tesla's 35K Model 3 could ever hope to be. Not an apples to apples comparison in regards to profitability. The problem will be when apples to apples comparisons are made between a 35K model 3 and a Camry by the general buying public in that market sector for fit/finish, quality, reliability and dealer support.

Hope Tesla proves me wrong.

Money doesn't make problems go away.. Even if tesla were making $50k on every car sold the issues would still be there (though theoretically they could hire more engineers to fix those issues). There's a reason why high volume vehicles like camry's, corollas, accords, F-150's have few issues (none of which I would consider high end cars).. Because they sell a LOT of them so they can't afford to. The biggest money suck of any company are warranty issues, and it's not just the replacement part but often labor, shipping parts to dealers, the un-measurable loss of sales from the perception that your product quality sucks.

Again, apples to oranges comparison. Ferrari sales probably went up because now they are truly Ferrari (I assume fiat had some influence, maybe even sharing of certain parts). Same can be said for Mazda when they split back away from Ford. Remember when Mercedes meant something? Then Chrysler bought them and they started to suck?

Not untrue... but don't hold your breathe. Toyota is waiting until the midnight hour to switch over to battery, and right now Tesla has a 10-year lead on them (by the time Toyota does release an electric car, it will be 15 years).

Thanks for your reply....I think we agree, more than disagree. Much of my future opinion is derived from those that I have talked to that currently own Tesla's. I'm sure, that many of you happy owners that perhaps have had different experiences have a more optimistic opinion. My own feeling, is that Tesla had a more favorable outlook when they were focused on the high end market. They are experiencing growing pains, I think we can all agree, trying to get to a mass market vehicle.

You do realize Toyota makes 5 billion profit compared to Ferrari 4 billion revenue.

Sigh...I never compared Ferrari to Toyota. You stated that performance vehicles don't make profit, I disputed that with the example of Ferrari. The whole comparison to Camry, was about market expectations, and what the 35k crowd expects from Reliability, Warranty Support, Fit/Finish, especially when the car is no longer a niche product but enters into the mainstream. If you can't acknowledge that Tesla, RIGHT NOW, is experiencing some very real pains with that, then I don't know what to tell you.

No one said taking over the main stream market was easy. Your point that Tesla is better of trying to stay niche is laughable. The Camry is 100 times the brand and success of any Ferrari. No one gives a shit if elitist put there nose up because now everyone has a Tesla and they don't feel special anymore. The goal and plan has always been to put everyone in in an EV.

My New Years resolution to empty the ignore list just keeps getting harder.

My wife recently got a Tesla model 3. It’s silver (which you can’t get anymore for whatever reason), has the dual motor, & premium wheels. Before the 3 she had a Honda Civic which was effiencient and super reliable. Mid 2018 we bought a Prius prime hybrid thinking we would forgo our Tesla reservation. The Prius is odd looking for sure but grew on us. It had a 25 mile all electric range which we reasoned we’d never use more than that in a day with the short commute to work and errands to run. Only had the Prius for a couple months then Tesla messaged us and said ‘your car is ready to configure’. Sold the Toyota which was a great car, and got the model 3. It’s the most amazing thing we’ve ever purchased! It’s super fun to drive. Very fast. Amazing sound system. The aggressive one pedal driving is fantastic. The simple and stylish design along with the technology on this thing is second to no other car imo. Its how all cars should be. No fossil fuels to put in, no oil to change, no transmission fluid, brakes will probably last forever if you utilize the one pedal driving well. Only fluid is windshield washer and brake fluid. The batteries have an 8 year warranty and if you only charge them to 70% (220ish mile charge on the long range 310 mile car), and keep it plugged in when not in use, the batteries will probably last 15 years. It’s been a few months now and I’m still wanting to leave my platinum F150 ecoboost in the garage and take her model 3. It’s so easy and satisfying to drive! Plus I can drive in the carpool lane and have free parking downtown. We do have a solar system with 45 panels which obviously works well with owning an electric car. We rented a Tesla model S with ludicrous mode when on a trip in Cali. Model 3 is a better car hands down. The only negative is if your a taller/bigger person as the 3 is pretty compact. There’s my short story review for what it’s worth. Here’s a pic of the car the day we got it.

D0A01098-86AD-45A8-AE5A-6EB12EA541B9 (resized).jpeg

Ignore? Why do you take a discussion of opinions so personal? Not once have I attacked you, called your opinion laughable, or anything else. If you can't have a pleasant debate, then perhaps, ignore is the best for you.

Congrats! Nice looking car

Why is Toyota even brought up in any argument? They don't even believe in the Electric disruption! They will just continue to make their Prius that is being traded in for the Model 3 everyday.

It started with this, that Tesla is losing out because its becoming a Camry. I agree though it's a pointless discussion.

And you lost your cookies because I said "think" and "might"? I forgot in this day and age, when a differing opinion is voiced, best to just shout it down.

I'm not upset at all, I do admit I have never suffered fools. This whole thing that people say things that make no sense and have no basis in reality. Then they endless defend this pointless position because its just their opinion. If you think Tesla can't survive the transition to mainstream so be it, there are plenty of valid reasons and debatable points on the subject. I like exotic cars and me and my elitist friends don't think Tesla is special enough anymore is just being a prat.

Wow! If you don't see uniqueness in a Model 3 you have been living under a rock. I own a model 3 P3D+ Pearl White and there is nothing like it available.
I just keep getting over the air updates every couple of weeks that makes the car even better. What ICE car does that?
The latest update coming is an improvement of the security system. Soon all the cameras will be activated to give full 360 vision while car is parked. Nice feature for Hit and Runs. It's just a fantastic car. Mine is a September 2018 build and had no paint or gap issues. It is a beautiful car to drive and the acceleration is off the charts!
Tesla is a very very young company compared to the Legacy Automakers. They are going to have their bumps in the road but in the end we need someone to step up and show that Electric is the alternative to Fossil Fuel and Diesel. Diesel especially . That stuff is cancer causing!

So in the span of three posts you've called me an idiot and a fool. Can you not discuss without being condescending? I respect your opinions whether I agree or disagree and since I don't know you, I wouldn't stoop to call you any names.

I agree with your assessment...we do need alternatives. And I hope Tesla succeeds. Not sure why some get so bent out of shape when I have a differing opinion of how to get there.

Actually I said that I don't suffer fools, it is a very common phase or idiom. I stated that your condescending elitist attitude that Tesla is going the way of Camry was you being a prat. I think its accurate I didn't come in a thread for Tesla owners and say the car just isn't special enough anymore. I am not name calling you I telling you straight up my opinion on your behavior. Why is it I have to suffer your opinion but you reduce mine to just name calling. I think I have completely justified my opinion and point of view and have nothing more to add.