RE: Tesla announces P100D upgrades
Discussion
kambites said:
PunterCam said:
Nah, the autopilot thing should be banned. It's f
king dangerous and its tempts people not to pay attention
The same argument was made about cruise control when it first appeared; then adaptive cruise control when that was introduced; then lane assist or whatever it's called when that arrived... Tesla's autopilot isn't a revolutionary thing, it's just another small step down the path that cars have been on for decades. king dangerous and its tempts people not to pay attention kambites said:
SuperchargedVR6 said:
Agreed, but it's an entirely different kettle of fish when the car is doing the most important thing for you - the steering.
That's not a new thing either though, various manufacturers have had systems which steer the car to keep it in lane for years. Dependable and trustworthy full autonomy is a long, long way off.
SuperchargedVR6 said:
Not very well though. Check out Matt Farah's 'One take' video he did of the P90D on TheSmokingTire YouTube channel. It's all over the shop, even on clearly lined roads.
Dependable and trustworthy full autonomy is a long, long way off.
Oh I agree, I was just querying why people were aiming these criticisms at Tesla when they are far from the first manufacturer to have such a system in place. Dependable and trustworthy full autonomy is a long, long way off.
405dogvan said:
OwenK said:
mybrainhurts said:
These funds are bottomless, are they?
The benefits of being run essentially as a vanity project by a wealthy and benevolent dictator. You cannot argue that you'd have got anywhere near this sort of rapid sea change in the automotive industry without Musk and Tesla. A loaded Model S is well over £100K and they can sell every one they make - an exec car which looks like a Mazda, costs over £100K and sells - erm - vanity project? NO
The silly doors on the X may have cost them a year+ of work but they sell the car to the sort of people who like that s
t in a sector which is used to spending silly money on pointless nonsense - vanity project? NOThey ANNOUNCE a 'regular car' (that is announce, not actually release) and they have queues of people handing over actual money YEARS ahead of any cars being available - vanity project? NO
Tesla has pushed the electric car market forward for sure but it's not some sort of charity drive - it's a solid business/brand in a world where brand/customers are almost more valuable than the product itself...
All of that is funding their expansion in 'more regular' cars and it's all feeding into their battery business
SuperchargedVR6 said:
kambites said:
PunterCam said:
Nah, the autopilot thing should be banned. It's fking dangerous and its tempts people not to pay attention
The same argument was made about cruise control when it first appeared; then adaptive cruise control when that was introduced; then lane assist or whatever it's called when that arrived... Tesla's autopilot isn't a revolutionary thing, it's just another small step down the path that cars have been on for decades. king dangerous and its tempts people not to pay attention https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/wh...
ae2006 said:
Another Tesla news and I still don't get it 
Yes, it is fast, all electric cars can be if you can give the electric motor enough energy. That's not something Tesla invented, its just given by physics. To get the range it uses a lot of batteries which are heavy, it is like that for years. Nobody wanted cars like that because of this problem, so no manufacturer made them. Tesla is now putting this quite old design of a fast-but-heavy drivetrain in a luxury car and suddenly they are praised like Jesus himself.
They have advantages and disadvantages, I just don't see the "this is the future!!!" aspect. Is there
Of course they didn't invent the electric car. What they have done is make it practical and desirable. It's similar to what apple did to the mobile phone.Yes, it is fast, all electric cars can be if you can give the electric motor enough energy. That's not something Tesla invented, its just given by physics. To get the range it uses a lot of batteries which are heavy, it is like that for years. Nobody wanted cars like that because of this problem, so no manufacturer made them. Tesla is now putting this quite old design of a fast-but-heavy drivetrain in a luxury car and suddenly they are praised like Jesus himself.
They have advantages and disadvantages, I just don't see the "this is the future!!!" aspect. Is there
Edited by ae2006 on Thursday 25th August 08:34
The model s weighs about the same as a similar sized ICE car, except the weight is very low down.
Pistonheads members are hardly the target demographic, however I currently drive a 4 pot ICE saloon car. It needs regular maintenance and repairs, and is only getting more complex and harder to fix with each new one I buy. That's why I've ordered one.it will also save me 3 trips to the garage every week.
mybrainhurts said:
405dogvan said:
OwenK said:
mybrainhurts said:
These funds are bottomless, are they?
The benefits of being run essentially as a vanity project by a wealthy and benevolent dictator. You cannot argue that you'd have got anywhere near this sort of rapid sea change in the automotive industry without Musk and Tesla. A loaded Model S is well over £100K and they can sell every one they make - an exec car which looks like a Mazda, costs over £100K and sells - erm - vanity project? NO
The silly doors on the X may have cost them a year+ of work but they sell the car to the sort of people who like that s
t in a sector which is used to spending silly money on pointless nonsense - vanity project? NOThey ANNOUNCE a 'regular car' (that is announce, not actually release) and they have queues of people handing over actual money YEARS ahead of any cars being available - vanity project? NO
Tesla has pushed the electric car market forward for sure but it's not some sort of charity drive - it's a solid business/brand in a world where brand/customers are almost more valuable than the product itself...
All of that is funding their expansion in 'more regular' cars and it's all feeding into their battery business
When your building the worlds biggest factory, and bringing capacity for 500k cars forward by 2 years then you might not expect to make a profit that year.
98elise said:
You seem to be an expert on their finances. How much of that was capital expenditure. If that stopped building new factories would they be profitable?
When your building the worlds biggest factory, and bringing capacity for 500k cars forward by 2 years then you might not expect to make a profit that year.
Actually they lost about a billion last year (that's P&L so no capex).When your building the worlds biggest factory, and bringing capacity for 500k cars forward by 2 years then you might not expect to make a profit that year.
Then you need to take off the $1.5bn or so in building inventory and a further $1.6bn in capex.
They are bleeding cash in a very big way.
But the point is that no one expects a company at this stage of growth to make money, as you point out.
Which is why the company is worth $33bn.
98elise said:
mybrainhurts said:
405dogvan said:
OwenK said:
mybrainhurts said:
These funds are bottomless, are they?
The benefits of being run essentially as a vanity project by a wealthy and benevolent dictator. You cannot argue that you'd have got anywhere near this sort of rapid sea change in the automotive industry without Musk and Tesla. A loaded Model S is well over £100K and they can sell every one they make - an exec car which looks like a Mazda, costs over £100K and sells - erm - vanity project? NO
The silly doors on the X may have cost them a year+ of work but they sell the car to the sort of people who like that s
t in a sector which is used to spending silly money on pointless nonsense - vanity project? NOThey ANNOUNCE a 'regular car' (that is announce, not actually release) and they have queues of people handing over actual money YEARS ahead of any cars being available - vanity project? NO
Tesla has pushed the electric car market forward for sure but it's not some sort of charity drive - it's a solid business/brand in a world where brand/customers are almost more valuable than the product itself...
All of that is funding their expansion in 'more regular' cars and it's all feeding into their battery business
98elise said:
When your building the worlds biggest factory, and bringing capacity for 500k cars forward by 2 years then you might not expect to make a profit that year.
Capital expenditure should not drag down profit.kambites said:
mybrainhurts said:
Capital expenditure should not drag down profit.
Hmm, now I'm no finance expert but you'll have to explain this one to me. Surely the very definition of "capital expenditure" is reducing short-term profits to invest in long-term infrastructure? Take Amazon as another example:
"Amazon typically posts razor-thin (or nonexistent) earnings despite skyrocketing revenue. That's because CEO Jeff Bezos consistently makes huge investments in things like new distribution centers, consumer electronics, original TV programming, grocery deliveries -- and much more.
None of those investment projects will go away anytime soon. But the retailer may finally be making good on Wall Street's expectations that it will, someday, become a fantastically profitable company.
"I think we may have hit a point where it's going to be hard for them to spend enough to hide all this profitability," said Scot Wingo, executive chairman of e-commerce consultant ChannelAdvisor."
From http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/amazon-says-first-quar...
kambites said:
mybrainhurts said:
Capital expenditure should not drag down profit.
Hmm, now I'm no finance expert but you'll have to explain this one to me. Surely the very definition of "capital expenditure" is reducing short-term profits to invest in long-term infrastructure? Capex doesn't hit the P&L. (It hits cashflow - which is almost always very different to profit.)
It's rather wonky friend "depreciation" does.
It's like buying a car.
You spend all that money on it but it lasts you 10 years or whatever.
So instead of hitting your profit for the full price in year 1, you spread the cost over the full 10 years - that's depreciation.
Obviously the money goes out the door so you have to hit the cashflow in year 1.
(If you're a proper finance expert then frankly - cash is king, IMO.)
xRIEx said:
Exactly - reinvestment reduces the profit for a financial year.
Only if the things you are investing in last for just a year (or less).Then it's operating expenditure (which goes on the P&L).
If you are building a massive distribution centre that will last 20 years then you DEPRECIATE it on the P&L.
Capex is a purely cashflow item.
kambites said:
OK so you're simply defining "profit" as "income - expenditure + increase in asset value" rather than simply "income - expenditure"?
If you spend money on something that you use for more than a year, then you don't put 100% of that expenditure into the calculation for that years' profit.You spread that cost.
The idea is to match your revenue with your spending.
Otherwise you could build a massive warehouse one year - with hugely negative "profit".
Then every year thereafter you get to use the warehouse for "free" and look hugely profitable.
London424 said:
SuperchargedVR6 said:
kambites said:
PunterCam said:
Nah, the autopilot thing should be banned. It's fking dangerous and its tempts people not to pay attention
The same argument was made about cruise control when it first appeared; then adaptive cruise control when that was introduced; then lane assist or whatever it's called when that arrived... Tesla's autopilot isn't a revolutionary thing, it's just another small step down the path that cars have been on for decades. king dangerous and its tempts people not to pay attention https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/wh...
Still, omelettes and breaking eggs and all that. Planes have been flying us around autonomously for ages now......but it's cars, it's people, it's roads.....they don't mix well at the best of times, let alone with no steering wheel or pedals! At least pilots still have those....just in case!
kambites said:
I understand how investment works in principle, I'm just unsure of the exact definitions of the jargon associated with it. 
Absolutely."Profit" is very much abused as a financial term.
It could mean any of:
Gross profit.
EBITDAR
EBITDA
EBITA
EBIT (aka operating income)
PBT
Net income
And most of those come under GAAP/IFRS and then with the company preferred version (usually "excluding all the bad stuff") called "adjusted operating income" or "adjusted net income".
You might see "operating free cash flow" which is what you meant as "cash profit" (but it isn't called that!).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff