> My understanding is that most of Tesla’s vehicles sold in Korea are made at Gigafactory Shanghai in China, and that’s Tesla’s main export hub. Most of Tesla’s vehicles outside of the US are made in China. We should start seeing similar issues in other markets unless there’s a specific contributing factor in Korea.
- the affected battery pack is usually replaced free of charge
- many of the cases are from Chinese in North America, and even one case is about imported Model 3
Considering Chinese media prefer reporting Tesla defects to gain more clicks, I would assume this is not a Shanghai-specific, broadly affecting problem.
I suppose that may depend how one defines a "broadly affecting problem". 2/3 (~2.9k) of the cases are for 2021 vehicles, and maybe it's possible those relate to specific batches shipped only to South Korea or something, but that still wouldn't explain the other 1/3 (~1.6k) of cases.
Tesla hasn't provided statistics about cases in the Chinese market, but I have a hard time believing it's really a handful of battery issues per year (regardless what one assumes of social media). That's just too far beyond any reasonable quality level expectation for ~half a million cars over the time period.
I have never considered posting to social media about automotive issues, unless something truly egregious happened that I felt I should warn people about. If you see complaints, it's probably fairly frequent.
It's generally difficult to do. The problem is you have no idea when the collapse in value will happen, or even if it will.
A lot of the companies I'd have bet against in the past, like AOL, sold for huge sums of money, and the purchasing company ended up regretting their decision. The actual AOL stock never collapsed.
Often the difficult thing isn't predicting "this bubble will collapse eventually"; it's predicting the _date_ of the collapse. You really need both, to short.
As for the GME thing, the only reason why I sort give it a pass is because it was sort of an unprecedented thing. I am not sure if regulations have been updated to address a future similar incident.
At least it resulted in the "This Is Financial Advice" video from Folding Ideas.
Fascinating watch after following the event back in the day - and losing €1500 because I didn't reach my goal of earning €500 to buy a PS5 with the profit. If shit went up for just one more day I would have reached my goal.
I happened to "find" an very old IRA I had from a prior employer that had about $1200 sitting in it. I threw it all into GME. I pulled $500 in profits, and left the initial investment to ride.
Today, I'm down about $300 on those shares (taken with the $500 in gains, I'm technically still up by $200), and that's fine. I believe in the leadership, I like the company's current state (flush with cash, little/no debt) and I'm just going to keep letting it ride.
When I retire in 10 years or so, we'll see where it's at. Worst case, I'm out $700 bucks. Best case, I get that new riding lawnmower, for free!
Otherwise, it's Index funds, have a nice day, because none of us can compete with Wall Street.
> never understood why Tesla valuation is orders of magnitude higher than honda
Tesla has solved the problem of unit profitably manufacturing EVs. Outside America and other petrostates, these are broadly accepted to be the future of transportation. (It’s getting its ass kicked by BYD, which didn’t distract itself with a Cybertruck or what increasingly looks like an Optimus follow-on. But being the only American challenger in a new economy is not worthless.)
Tesla’s also lead by a man who has consistently made money for his investors. Even when bets are bad, e.g. Twitter, he’s financially engineered an outcome that ensured, at the very least, nobody who backed him lost money.
Tesla being public, he can’t provide that sort of assurance to everyone who buys at any price. But he can at least credibly pretend to do that for anyone who buys in or near a primary.
> Tesla has solved the problem of unit profitably manufacturing EVs. Outside America and other petrostates, these are broadly accepted to be the future of transportation. (It’s getting its ass kicked by BYD, which didn’t distract itself with a Cybertruck or what increasingly looks like an Optimus follow-on. But being the only American challenger in a new economy is not worthless.)
They solved it by borrowing from the future and gutting their R&D. That's the main cost in the car industry and Tesla basically just stopped developing new models many years ago, to the point that they struggle with a simple refresh.
> Tesla’s also lead by a man who has consistently made money for his investors. Even when bets are bad, e.g. Twitter, he’s financially engineered an outcome that ensured, at the very least, nobody who backed him lost money.
That man also walks a very thin line between engineering outcomes and fraud, let's not forget that.
> solved it by borrowing from the future and gutting their R&D
Not relevant to unit profitability. Tesla’s American competitors can’t turn a profit on each car production-wise.
> man also walks a very thin line between engineering outcomes and fraud
Sure. But the point is to the degree investors were misled, they were made whole and then some. That’s why they keep backing him. He’s done well by them, regardless of the methods.
> Not relevant to unit profitability. Tesla’s American competitors can’t turn a profit on each car production-wise.
To quote a great commenter here, you can "engineer that outcome". While there are rules, details are mushy and as a result companies can fairly freely decide what do you include in cost per unit.
Is there anyone credibly claiming that Tesla loses--or has always lost--money on every car it made? (I'm including the proviso in case they fucked up their production in the last year, which I both wouldn't be surprised by and haven't looked into.)
> Tesla has solved the problem of unit profitably manufacturing EVs.
Well, you can say "profitably" because Tesla drivers seem to be surprisingly willing to put up with corners being cut in order to achieve said "profitability" ... panel gaps, cheap interiors and lousy software. :)
> you can say "profitably" because Tesla drivers seem to be surprisingly willing to put up with corners being cut in order to achieve said "profitability"
Low-end Chinese EVs feel like cheap Teslas. But they’re under $15k. Are panel gaps really worth tens of thousands of dollars to most car buyers?
That panel gap thing also is blown way out of proportion.
I challenge anyone to find a bad aligned one on a chinese made one - interestingly enough , those only seem to be a thing on US made vehicles, which basically are only Model X and Model S (ironically being the higher priced cars).
Usually people respond to this by questioning Tesla's high valuation, and that's fair.
TBH, though, I also wonder why auto companies tend to be valued so lowly. Often P/E ratios are in the single digits, and frequently paired with high dividends.
Auto companies aren't valued as lowly as the P/E ratio indicates. Auto companies have massive amounts of debt, and debt has higher priority than equity.
Instead of "P" you should use "Enterprise Value", which is Equity + Debt - Cash. (cash subtracted to prevent double counting it).
Their EV/E ratios are much more reasonable. And Tesla's used to be only a small multiple of traditional companies, when I owned shares. Now they aren't, and I don't own shares.
Besides being a meme stock, Tesla is also in the enviable position of owning its entire stack - software, hardware, chips, manufacturing etc., unlike Honda that has many critical components built by other manufacturers and not tightly integrated with the software. It is therefore well placed to make much more revenue per vehicle, if only the owner of the company can get out of its way.
Owning entire stack has benefits for sure, especially if you're dominating market. But it also comes at a huge cost - you now need to pay for R&D for the whole stack yourself.
Tesla was dreaming of dominating market. But it looks like it peaked already and its sales are falling. Having to do R&D for entire stack without growth is a very very costly proposal. It often results in just not doing R&D, and falling behind.
For the same reason that Bitcoin is valuable and property prices in many markets are insane. It's valuable because other people consider it valuable. The stock market stopped being an accurate measure of the underlying value of the assets it tracks decades ago, if it ever was.
I understood it when Tesla was the path towards widespread electric car adoption. Now they have tons of competition and an aging lineup, I'm amazed they're competitive at all in East Asia.
The current valuation is largely driven by a future in robotics, not in traditional consumer vehicles. Both in driverless cars and the humanoid form factor. There is not another US company with anything near the position of tesla in terms of vertical integration, in-house self driving technology, manufacturing advancements, ambitious leadership, engineering talent, etc etc.
Chinese companies are the only large threat on the horizon.
> current valuation is largely driven by a future in robotics
It probably isn’t, given Tesla has no unique lead in robotics and its recent news of setbacks didn’t move the market.
Tesla stock is a bet on Musk. It’s why the Board pays him hundreds of billions of dollars to not lose focus on a business he’s very obviously bored with.
No unique lead on robotics, except the largest fleet of self driving cars by several orders of magnitude, the largest training cluster, custom silicon, experience in mass produciton and vertical integraiton, a much more ambitious Optimus program than the causal headlines would have you know about...
> No unique lead on robotics, except the largest fleet of self driving cars by several orders of magnitude
Not correct to call advanced driver assist self driving when we have an actual self-driving fleet in Waymo.
> experience in mass produciton and vertical integraiton
This remains Tesla's sole actual advantage. If (probably when) someone else beats them up the tech tree, chances are Tesla could beat them to scale.
> a much more ambitious Optimus program than the causal headlines would have you know about
The talent bleed at Tesla (specifically, Optimus) contrasts with e.g. SpaceX's virtual monopoly on aerospace talent excellence in America, possibly broader. And it shows. SpaceX routinely does the unprecedented. It's been years since Tesla did anything first.
(If I had to look at Musk's portfolio, SpaceX is where his soul is. It, Neuralink and xAI are where his heart is. X f/k/a Twitter was a clusterfuck from the get go, but it makes sense as a data pump for Grok, and he has fun with it so whatever. Boring Company has quietly failed, and may need to be acquired into SpaceX to rescue investors. Tesla increasingly looks like it's out of touch, too. My guess is he waits for the valuation to temper and then merges it into a private xAI.)
Me neither. Which is prob why I remain poor (comparatively).
Now that our domestic grid storage market has "crossed the chasm" -- new energy with solar & battery is cheap enough and quickest to deploy -- methinks future Tesla will do fine. Surely making up for any lost vehicle revenue.
The answer is fairly obvious, humanity is always more obsessed with potential value than actual value. Elon sells that potential very well, but he does actually follow up in a decent way.
Turning the impossible into late is a legitimate business strategy, because you create markets that weren't there before (like cheap satellite launches).
And he has a history of doing this, and he's trying to do it again with optimus and robotaxi. There's massive potential in humanoid robots and robotaxis, which is why people are willing to take a risk. You might think that's irrational, and that's fine. Others do not.
Compare this to other car companies, they don't offer any vision of changing the future in any major way or bringing new products to market. That is boring and predictable. Still valuable, but not as much as Tesla.
... or something different about Korean administration which makes it more immune to corruption and allows it to report effectively batteries failures ?
The idea that a trillion dollar corporation has sufficient lobbyists/PR people in western countries to cover up bad news up to a certain level seems reasonable.
Glad someone else mentioned it. I was going to say that out of most developed nations, Korea has to be in or near the top spot for corruption. All countries have their flavor of corruption but the chaebol structure is unique and anecdotally it feels like every leader of Korea has eventually been connected to one of the chaebols.
In the US, the 2021 Model Y is known to have some fairly significant battery issues. It appears to have started around when they updated from 74kwh to >80 kwh packs. Unfortunately, the replacements are often refurbished packs that also fail early.
I'm not sure about yours, but if you do end up needing a replacement, replacing the car soon after might be a wise move.
I'm not sure about the ones made in Shanghai, but the US ones have a very strong warranty, with an 8 year 120k miles retaining 70% of the battery. You likely still have four years to see
He held undisclosed stock, made millions of dollars worth of referrals to Tesla, and was owed hundreds of thousands of dollars from those referrals all while reporting positively on Tesla while actively refusing to disclose their clear conflict of interest even when the issue was raised.
It's interesting that people are willing to take the risk buying a vehicle from a company that is effectively a meme. I take my safety seriously and I'd prefer the company that builds the vehicle I am driving to also be serious.
There was also that guy that tried to
murder-suicide his whole family by driving off a cliff and everyone survived. Crazy considering the picture of the crumpled car..
I'm sure I could personally operate any vehicle in a safe enough manner to not be very concerned about it, but it seems people trust Tesla self driving capabilities far beyond their limits which results in Tesla having some of the highest fatalities of any car brand. But I don't think Tesla is entirely faultless here , but considering how they advertise their cars as being entirely self driving and calling it auto pilot they are at least partially to blame.
But besides self driving I don't agree with the softwareization of cars. Maybe if Tesla made cars in a more traditional way, but they were EVs I would consider them a real option. The single giant screen without any tactile buttons feels cheap and I'm sure is just about cost saving. The whole cybertruck teardown makes it look like the vehicle wasn't well thought out.
Basically everything about Tesla as a company from its actual cars to its CEO which is supposedly leading it does not inspire confidence. When there are so many other well established car companies that take it far more seriously I don't even take Tesla seriously enough as an option to care about their crash test results.
The higher fatalities seem to be attributable to the zippy acceleration rather than self driving. Unless you have data showing otherwise?
I can only say your take is yours to have, but the software is the biggest selling point to me, and the plastic widgets on other cars look tacky and spurious.
Accidents <> safety. Accidents could be caused by inattentive and/or aggressive drivers due to Tesla vehicles’ auto pilot functionality and higher torque.
The question is if driving the same way in the same conditions in the same places, would one experience more injury in a given model of Tesla versus a competing car?
Even if you don't consider the rate of an accident occurring as "safety" then what about the results of when accidents happen? Should that not be considered a "safety" metric? eg. One brand has a much lower rate of accidents, but when an accident happens the fatality rate is much higher.
Sure, but there's also the fact that millions of Teslas have been sold over the last 10 years, and their liability insurance isn't any higher than other cars.
If the statistics were seeing more collision risk, more injury risk attributable to the vehicle itself rather than the driver, then surely the actuaries would be able to suss that out.
For 2021-2023, Luxury Cars, Large, Tesla Model S has lower than average personal injury, medical payment, and bodily injury losses.
For 2021-2023, Luxury Cars, Midsize, Tesla Model 3 is lower than average on personal injury and bodily payment, but slightly higher on the non 4WD model for bodily injury.
For 2021-2023, Luxury SUV, Midsize, Tesla Model Y has lower than average personal injury, medical payment, and bodily injury losses.
For 2021-2023, Luxury SUV, Large, Tesla Model X has lower than average personal injury, medical payment, and bodily injury losses
They all have lower than average property damage losses too.
Last I looked into it Tesla’s did have a significant insurance premium. Not sure if that was cost of repairs or safety issues, but it was quite significant.
See link in my above post. The extra losses are due to collusion and comprehensive, indicating the car costs more to fix (or replace). All this data seems to indicate the car is at least average in safety for the occupants, and I don't see anything to indicate Teslas are in above average amount of collisions, as the property damage losses are lower than average.
I thought they couldn’t? Doesn’t he basically control the board through his shares and puppet/crony board members who have little incentive to kick him out?
I thought it was similar FB where Zuck owns enough voting shares to be effectively untouchable as well.
Beat Q4'24 by 0.3% in the quarter that EV tax credits ran out and EV buyers used their last chance to pocket it. Most other EV models had 50%+ sales lift that quarter.
YoY sales are down while other automakers are up, Q3 might be an artifact of EV incentives expiring. Iirc other manufactures also saw an increase in EV sales in Q3.
I think next quarters results are going to be a lot more indicating of the company's health than the most recent one, since the ending of federal subsidies inflated demand across the industry.
But "more vehicles than ever" is factually false, according to Tesla itself. They delivered ~397,000 vehicles in Q2-2025. They delivered ~437,000 in Q4 of 2024.
I'd imagine the entire EV segment suffered the same decline as people start to realize what a pain in the ass they still are, myself included. I can't wait to get rid of the failed experiment that is my EV and go back to ICE. Only two more years on my lease.
Tesla is in trouble for exactly the reasons many of us saw coming. Irrespective of Elons political antics, Teslas product offering strategy is very different from the rest of the market. They’re banking on this approach changing the market, my bet is they are wrong. Model 3 and Y are long in the tooth, getting stale.
> Model 3 and Y are long in the tooth, getting stale.
Musk's antics and focus issues (i.e. too many resources focused on Cybertruck) aside: The thing with Tesla is, they operate completely antithetical to the classic car industry.
The classic car industry designs a model series and signs four-ish year contracts with all the suppliers for the expected amount of vehicles to sell, with a few extension clauses to cover for higher than expected demand. During these four years, the "rebrush" is designed, keeping most of the car the same but incorporating learnings during production, newly developed technologies (e.g. improved compute power) and maybe retooling to make production more efficient, and then it's another four-ish years that are used to make the next generation. That business model makes sense when operating with a shit ton of suppliers, so both the manufacturer and the suppliers can plan for the mid term.
Tesla however, just like SpaceX, takes pride in not following this business model. As much as possible is made in-house, which means less vendors to deal with, and that enables continuous improvements and iteration.
The downside is that it makes life so much harder for spare parts because any given part might just have been in production for a few weeks if not days, and for consumers and consumer protection agencies it's orders of magnitude harder to warn about construction defects because there is no such thing as a "generation" any more.
I'm curious what problems make it such a bad experience for you.
I have some reservations about my EV, but on the whole it is better than an ICE vehicle in almost every way and I'll certainly never buy another car that isn't an EV.
Not the OP and driving my EV isn't a terrible experience, but I do find I struggle to drive it smoothly.
I have a really hard time using cruise control in my Genesis EV. I usually use one of the regen breaking modes, and when you disable cruise control, the car will automatically start regen braking unless you have you have the throttle at the perfect position which is near impossible. And that's much more noticeable if you use one of the more heavy regen modes.
So I have to follow this pattern: Disable regen, engage cruise, use cruise, disable cruise, enable regen just to use it for a few minutes. And with the Genesis, every time you change between regen modes the car kind of jerks a bit. I've heard this is not really a problem in Teslas. Of course I could simply not use regenerative braking (a major feature of the car) or I can attempt to change my driving habits and not use cruise control as often. For long drives I much prefer my ICE vehicle specifically because of this.
The other thing may be related more to my driving position. The car is heavy and rides harshly over bumps which causes my foot to accidentally push harder on the throttle for < 1 sec. And because it's an EV which has quick acceleration the car occasionally will accelerate fast after I hit a bump. I've driven a ton of ICE sports cars with hard suspensions and never had this problem. Perhaps I'm just getting old and now have bad reflexes!
I understand the cruise control dance. I do it on both my Tesla and my Lightning. My solution, which works with both of my cars (notably, not a Genesis, therefore this may not work the same!) is just to accelerate slightly, deactivate cruise, drive as normal.
The Lightning would allow me to do it old school, it has a non-one-pedal-drive mode that has similar regen to normal engine braking on an ICE truck. But I prefer OPD so I just do the 'accelerate slightly and deactivate cruise' to get around the sudden slow down if I just turn it off abruptly.
> Perhaps I'm just getting old and now have bad reflexes!
Sounds like just a very aggressive throttle mapping. Not something I personally run into, but as with my earlier comment, this is very much going to be specific to the car. I also tend to drive with my toe at the bottom of the accelerator pedal which steadies my foot quite a bit and makes it less prone to bouncing on a bump.
> accelerate slightly, deactivate cruise, drive as normal.
That was also what I tried doing to try and remedy the problem. The problem is normally when you want to deactivate cruise, it's because there's a slower car in front. And it's a bit unnerving to accelerate towards the slower vehicle (even if ever so subtle) when the goal is to deactivate cruise. I've attempted this about 3 times on the highway and it just didn't feel comfortable so I stopped doing that.
I wish there was simply some setting so that after deactivating cruise there was some smoother ramp up to the current regen setting. For example, after deactivating cruise it's max-regen should be similar to ICE vehicle deceleration, then after N milliseconds ramp up to last used regen. That would solve the problem for me.
I agree it would be nice to have a setting. There is a bit of a delay on my Lightning, less so on the Tesla, but it could be a settable option. I don't run into exactly he same situation, however, because the only cruise control I have is adaptive cruise and it's slowing down for traffic on its own. If I have to disengage cruise in that situation, chances are pretty good I'm using the brake pedal to do it, ha.
Why deactivate cruise control for a slower vehicle in front of you? Does the Genesis not have active cruise control? Both of my cars will slow down automatically to match the speed and keep a safe follow distance.
I drove a Genesis G80E for a week and I understand where you're coming from. The regen was a bit awkward and I had the same issues. The Mercedes EQE 350 I rented recently did better there.
Tesla has their regen dialed in quite well. I've read Ford's is good as well, but I haven't had a chance to drive one yet.
I have a Tesla as well as a Lightning, and in my experience the Ford's regen behavior is indeed very similar to Tesla. I don't have much experience with other brands.
Conversely, it would take a catastrophic change in product offerings for me to consider another gas vehicle at this point. I’m not ever willingly giving up the dramatic improvement in convenience and performance that I got with my EVs. I’ll keep them until they rust into pieces if I have to.
It seems like most buyers are with you, but for me I'm not going back to a daily-driven ICE vehicle unless I have to. I do wonder though if part of the problem is that EVs are priced/sold at a premium, and even often only as luxury vehicles. The Model 3/Y and Model S/X sales split is like 10:1 or even 20:1 afair.
Even with our exorbitant energy prices, I pay about 1/3 for the cost of energy per mile (off-peak). I have to go in for service 3 times less often (and just that is worth a pot of gold to me). I no longer need to detour to gas stations once or twice a week as I can just plug in the car at night. And then EVs are also more enjoyable to drive imo.
Curious. I've talked to a number of EV owners, and that's the first I've heard that. Most sentiment seems to be between meh-alright and never-going-back-to-ICE. I'm curious which part of the experiment failed for you.
The reason it increased (not doubled) is that their CEOs public behavior drove the value down over 100 points in the months prior. I think the meme stock comment above actually has some merit though.
> is that their CEOs public behavior drove the value down over 100 points in the months prior.
And yet, he is still CEO. Not only that, didn't the board just award him a new pay package?
> I think the meme stock comment above actually has some merit though.
A $1.5 trillion meme stock? Don't think so. A S&P500 company that is a meme stock. Don't think so. It is highly volatile, but it isn't gamestop.
All I'm saying is that Musk is still the CEO because enough shareholders back him. Why? Who knows. Maybe it's because he's increased the value of tsla from a few billion to $1.5 trillion in the past 15 years. Who knows.
It's absolutely a meme stock. I own a Tesla (though given Musks's overt anti-democratic political actions it will be my last).
They haven't improved the car for at least five years. Yes, autopilot is better, but that's it. And no, autopilot is not going to be doing autonomous driving globally anytime soon.
There is absolutely no justification for such a valuation. Humanoid robots? That's as short sighted as vision only self driving. There are any number of vastly more promising robotics companies.
As a previous Tesla stock holder and still car owner, I want Tesla to be a good car company first. It is not. And the CEO has gone out of his way to alienate and be hostile to his own customer base.
I would feel better as an investor if he made it a highly profitable company with a trusted brand, instead of heading in the other direction on both fronts.
We certainly need to hold people accountable for their actions, and their words. Yet at the same time, Elon seems to have no filter. I don't suspect him of plotting anything sneaky, because if he was, he'd just imbibe something, and go on about it one night on X.
I get more worried about all the CEOs that say effectively nothing. That seem to have PR team coaching them on everything they say. It's the quiet, plotting ones we should be exceptionally concerned about.
Because we have no idea what they're really thinking.
Why not just buy Apple if you’re looking for a company focused on extracting profits from a cash cow rather than risky innovation with big potential upside and downside?
Tesla’s current products are similar to older failed products from other manufacturers. Tesla’s future products are similar to older failed products from other manufacturers. Tesla’s current products are largely profitable.
Just exactly why are we bashing on attempts to bring products to market?
I will say i view the “lies” as woefully aspirational but not malicious in intent. and i do think the lines can blur. but i’d rather have cool new things and a few fools fooled benevolently than, for instance, no true EV market.
So the new thesis is "okay, so it's a shit car manufacturer, but it might one day do [random other thing of questionable plausibility and market value]"? Like, what if BMW makes a teleporter? What if Ford discovers the elixir of youth?
(Also I feel bound to point out that Honda notoriously _does_ make robots, though they don't seem to have done it much good.)
It is unclear to me why people think that making humanoid robots is particularly valuable, or why Tesla would be a leader in that market, if it existed, and to be clear it does not seem to exist. What are the humanoid robots for?
Elon Musk personal brand is incredibly valuable, justified or not.
I don't think that he really runs the company, and kicking him out will most likely not change anything technical, but it will affect the company image among shareholders, most likely negatively.
With possibly more cases outside Korea:
> My understanding is that most of Tesla’s vehicles sold in Korea are made at Gigafactory Shanghai in China, and that’s Tesla’s main export hub. Most of Tesla’s vehicles outside of the US are made in China. We should start seeing similar issues in other markets unless there’s a specific contributing factor in Korea.
A brief search in Chinese social media turns out:
- the cases are rare, once every several months
- the affected battery pack is usually replaced free of charge
- many of the cases are from Chinese in North America, and even one case is about imported Model 3
Considering Chinese media prefer reporting Tesla defects to gain more clicks, I would assume this is not a Shanghai-specific, broadly affecting problem.
I suppose that may depend how one defines a "broadly affecting problem". 2/3 (~2.9k) of the cases are for 2021 vehicles, and maybe it's possible those relate to specific batches shipped only to South Korea or something, but that still wouldn't explain the other 1/3 (~1.6k) of cases.
Tesla hasn't provided statistics about cases in the Chinese market, but I have a hard time believing it's really a handful of battery issues per year (regardless what one assumes of social media). That's just too far beyond any reasonable quality level expectation for ~half a million cars over the time period.
I have never considered posting to social media about automotive issues, unless something truly egregious happened that I felt I should warn people about. If you see complaints, it's probably fairly frequent.
That's you, not the common Chinese crowd - compared to a known problem of another good-selling car, I can say that Tesla problem is indeed rare.
I never understood why Tesla valuation is orders of magnitude higher than honda
Because it isn't a car company, it feels more like a fraud funnel for retail investor funds into multi-billion special dividends and bonuses for Musk.
You're welcome to short it and make lots of money if you are correct!
It's generally difficult to do. The problem is you have no idea when the collapse in value will happen, or even if it will.
A lot of the companies I'd have bet against in the past, like AOL, sold for huge sums of money, and the purchasing company ended up regretting their decision. The actual AOL stock never collapsed.
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.” - John Maynard Keynes
Enron was going up for years and years before the fraud could not be hidden anymore.
A short Tesla position is correct. The question is at what expiration date ?
When it peaks like the beginning of this month or late last year, I prefer to write naked calls. (Don't try this at home.)
Why would shorting TSLA make him lots of money if he is correct?
If he's correct, the fraud is working. He hasn't staked out a position on what might stop it and when.
The market can remain fraudulent longer than you can stay solvent.
Often the difficult thing isn't predicting "this bubble will collapse eventually"; it's predicting the _date_ of the collapse. You really need both, to short.
This is always a shit argument.
Timing the market is incredibly hard. Investors can be extremely irrational.
Haven't we learned anything with the GameStop bullshit from a few years ago?
You're forgetting the bottomless human trait of "That won't happen to me", that remains right up to where it happens to them.
As far as GME, if the SEC worked, then GME would have never been a thing.
I agree.
As for the GME thing, the only reason why I sort give it a pass is because it was sort of an unprecedented thing. I am not sure if regulations have been updated to address a future similar incident.
At least it resulted in the "This Is Financial Advice" video from Folding Ideas.
Fascinating watch after following the event back in the day - and losing €1500 because I didn't reach my goal of earning €500 to buy a PS5 with the profit. If shit went up for just one more day I would have reached my goal.
Was a lesson to never try timing anything.
I happened to "find" an very old IRA I had from a prior employer that had about $1200 sitting in it. I threw it all into GME. I pulled $500 in profits, and left the initial investment to ride.
Today, I'm down about $300 on those shares (taken with the $500 in gains, I'm technically still up by $200), and that's fine. I believe in the leadership, I like the company's current state (flush with cash, little/no debt) and I'm just going to keep letting it ride.
When I retire in 10 years or so, we'll see where it's at. Worst case, I'm out $700 bucks. Best case, I get that new riding lawnmower, for free!
Otherwise, it's Index funds, have a nice day, because none of us can compete with Wall Street.
Its a meme stock kept at stratospheric heights by hype. It's only built 1 new vehicle in the last decade and that was the CyberFlop.
Watch the stock on any news. Completely disconnected from reality.
> never understood why Tesla valuation is orders of magnitude higher than honda
Tesla has solved the problem of unit profitably manufacturing EVs. Outside America and other petrostates, these are broadly accepted to be the future of transportation. (It’s getting its ass kicked by BYD, which didn’t distract itself with a Cybertruck or what increasingly looks like an Optimus follow-on. But being the only American challenger in a new economy is not worthless.)
Tesla’s also lead by a man who has consistently made money for his investors. Even when bets are bad, e.g. Twitter, he’s financially engineered an outcome that ensured, at the very least, nobody who backed him lost money.
Tesla being public, he can’t provide that sort of assurance to everyone who buys at any price. But he can at least credibly pretend to do that for anyone who buys in or near a primary.
> Tesla has solved the problem of unit profitably manufacturing EVs. Outside America and other petrostates, these are broadly accepted to be the future of transportation. (It’s getting its ass kicked by BYD, which didn’t distract itself with a Cybertruck or what increasingly looks like an Optimus follow-on. But being the only American challenger in a new economy is not worthless.)
They solved it by borrowing from the future and gutting their R&D. That's the main cost in the car industry and Tesla basically just stopped developing new models many years ago, to the point that they struggle with a simple refresh.
> Tesla’s also lead by a man who has consistently made money for his investors. Even when bets are bad, e.g. Twitter, he’s financially engineered an outcome that ensured, at the very least, nobody who backed him lost money.
That man also walks a very thin line between engineering outcomes and fraud, let's not forget that.
> solved it by borrowing from the future and gutting their R&D
Not relevant to unit profitability. Tesla’s American competitors can’t turn a profit on each car production-wise.
> man also walks a very thin line between engineering outcomes and fraud
Sure. But the point is to the degree investors were misled, they were made whole and then some. That’s why they keep backing him. He’s done well by them, regardless of the methods.
> Not relevant to unit profitability. Tesla’s American competitors can’t turn a profit on each car production-wise.
To quote a great commenter here, you can "engineer that outcome". While there are rules, details are mushy and as a result companies can fairly freely decide what do you include in cost per unit.
> While there are rules, details are mushy
Is there anyone credibly claiming that Tesla loses--or has always lost--money on every car it made? (I'm including the proviso in case they fucked up their production in the last year, which I both wouldn't be surprised by and haven't looked into.)
I mean you could earn money investing in crime. Until it doesnt pay
> Tesla has solved the problem of unit profitably manufacturing EVs.
Well, you can say "profitably" because Tesla drivers seem to be surprisingly willing to put up with corners being cut in order to achieve said "profitability" ... panel gaps, cheap interiors and lousy software. :)
> you can say "profitably" because Tesla drivers seem to be surprisingly willing to put up with corners being cut in order to achieve said "profitability"
Low-end Chinese EVs feel like cheap Teslas. But they’re under $15k. Are panel gaps really worth tens of thousands of dollars to most car buyers?
That panel gap thing also is blown way out of proportion.
I challenge anyone to find a bad aligned one on a chinese made one - interestingly enough , those only seem to be a thing on US made vehicles, which basically are only Model X and Model S (ironically being the higher priced cars).
Nice to see some rational thought around here about Tesla and Musk's role.
Usually people respond to this by questioning Tesla's high valuation, and that's fair.
TBH, though, I also wonder why auto companies tend to be valued so lowly. Often P/E ratios are in the single digits, and frequently paired with high dividends.
Maybe both valuations are really wrong.
Auto companies aren't valued as lowly as the P/E ratio indicates. Auto companies have massive amounts of debt, and debt has higher priority than equity.
Instead of "P" you should use "Enterprise Value", which is Equity + Debt - Cash. (cash subtracted to prevent double counting it).
Their EV/E ratios are much more reasonable. And Tesla's used to be only a small multiple of traditional companies, when I owned shares. Now they aren't, and I don't own shares.
Cars are a mature market, with lots of competitors and flat overall sales. Many brands are consolidating or contracting.
US total vehicle sales, historical: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTALSA
Growth markets like China have stiff domestic competition and many barriers to entry.
Some of those companies have an awful lot of debt on their balance sheets.
Besides being a meme stock, Tesla is also in the enviable position of owning its entire stack - software, hardware, chips, manufacturing etc., unlike Honda that has many critical components built by other manufacturers and not tightly integrated with the software. It is therefore well placed to make much more revenue per vehicle, if only the owner of the company can get out of its way.
Owning entire stack has benefits for sure, especially if you're dominating market. But it also comes at a huge cost - you now need to pay for R&D for the whole stack yourself.
Tesla was dreaming of dominating market. But it looks like it peaked already and its sales are falling. Having to do R&D for entire stack without growth is a very very costly proposal. It often results in just not doing R&D, and falling behind.
It's a meme stock, like an NFT with a ticker.
For the same reason that Bitcoin is valuable and property prices in many markets are insane. It's valuable because other people consider it valuable. The stock market stopped being an accurate measure of the underlying value of the assets it tracks decades ago, if it ever was.
I understood it when Tesla was the path towards widespread electric car adoption. Now they have tons of competition and an aging lineup, I'm amazed they're competitive at all in East Asia.
Look at their sales numbers ... they aren't.
The current valuation is largely driven by a future in robotics, not in traditional consumer vehicles. Both in driverless cars and the humanoid form factor. There is not another US company with anything near the position of tesla in terms of vertical integration, in-house self driving technology, manufacturing advancements, ambitious leadership, engineering talent, etc etc.
Chinese companies are the only large threat on the horizon.
> current valuation is largely driven by a future in robotics
It probably isn’t, given Tesla has no unique lead in robotics and its recent news of setbacks didn’t move the market.
Tesla stock is a bet on Musk. It’s why the Board pays him hundreds of billions of dollars to not lose focus on a business he’s very obviously bored with.
No unique lead on robotics, except the largest fleet of self driving cars by several orders of magnitude, the largest training cluster, custom silicon, experience in mass produciton and vertical integraiton, a much more ambitious Optimus program than the causal headlines would have you know about...
> No unique lead on robotics, except the largest fleet of self driving cars by several orders of magnitude
Not correct to call advanced driver assist self driving when we have an actual self-driving fleet in Waymo.
> experience in mass produciton and vertical integraiton
This remains Tesla's sole actual advantage. If (probably when) someone else beats them up the tech tree, chances are Tesla could beat them to scale.
> a much more ambitious Optimus program than the causal headlines would have you know about
The talent bleed at Tesla (specifically, Optimus) contrasts with e.g. SpaceX's virtual monopoly on aerospace talent excellence in America, possibly broader. And it shows. SpaceX routinely does the unprecedented. It's been years since Tesla did anything first.
(If I had to look at Musk's portfolio, SpaceX is where his soul is. It, Neuralink and xAI are where his heart is. X f/k/a Twitter was a clusterfuck from the get go, but it makes sense as a data pump for Grok, and he has fun with it so whatever. Boring Company has quietly failed, and may need to be acquired into SpaceX to rescue investors. Tesla increasingly looks like it's out of touch, too. My guess is he waits for the valuation to temper and then merges it into a private xAI.)
Last I checked there are zero self-driving Teslas.
Me neither. Which is prob why I remain poor (comparatively).
Now that our domestic grid storage market has "crossed the chasm" -- new energy with solar & battery is cheap enough and quickest to deploy -- methinks future Tesla will do fine. Surely making up for any lost vehicle revenue.
The answer is fairly obvious, humanity is always more obsessed with potential value than actual value. Elon sells that potential very well, but he does actually follow up in a decent way.
Turning the impossible into late is a legitimate business strategy, because you create markets that weren't there before (like cheap satellite launches).
And he has a history of doing this, and he's trying to do it again with optimus and robotaxi. There's massive potential in humanoid robots and robotaxis, which is why people are willing to take a risk. You might think that's irrational, and that's fine. Others do not.
Compare this to other car companies, they don't offer any vision of changing the future in any major way or bringing new products to market. That is boring and predictable. Still valuable, but not as much as Tesla.
Becaut Tesla is everything else (whatever is hot topic) than car manufacturer
/s
Strange this has never been reported to happen elsewhere in the world with teslas.
Is there something different about South Korean cars?
My totally uninformed guess is a defective run of batteries from gigafactory shanghai that landed in SK market next door
... or something different about Korean administration which makes it more immune to corruption and allows it to report effectively batteries failures ?
Surely you can understand that the option that Tesla has quietly bribed every country in the world that its vehicles are bought at is not very likely.
I don't think it is happening in this case.
The idea that a trillion dollar corporation has sufficient lobbyists/PR people in western countries to cover up bad news up to a certain level seems reasonable.
It’s just confirmation bias seeing pictures in shadows. An absence of evidence is an absence of evidence.
Lmao of course they bribed every country on earth except for the “immune” one known for chaebols like Samsung, Hyundai and LG
Glad someone else mentioned it. I was going to say that out of most developed nations, Korea has to be in or near the top spot for corruption. All countries have their flavor of corruption but the chaebol structure is unique and anecdotally it feels like every leader of Korea has eventually been connected to one of the chaebols.
And almost all of them end up in court and prison before being pardoned. Korea is the most famous for that too.
Indeed, the idea that the Republic of Samsung would be immune from corruption is something else.
Their president tried to do martial law and those that had the responsibility to stop it, actually stopped it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_Korean_martial_law_...
As an owner of a 2021 Model Y made from the same factory, I will try to not think much about this.
But it needs a battery replacement under warranty, my car will truly be some modern ship of Theseus.
In the US, the 2021 Model Y is known to have some fairly significant battery issues. It appears to have started around when they updated from 74kwh to >80 kwh packs. Unfortunately, the replacements are often refurbished packs that also fail early.
I'm not sure about yours, but if you do end up needing a replacement, replacing the car soon after might be a wise move.
I'm not sure about the ones made in Shanghai, but the US ones have a very strong warranty, with an 8 year 120k miles retaining 70% of the battery. You likely still have four years to see
Well it's Fred Lambert from Electrek. A widely known Tesla hater. So I would take it with a pinch of salt.
You mean a widely known and documented Tesla promoter: https://www.jalopnik.com/elon-musks-antics-cause-tesla-super...
He held undisclosed stock, made millions of dollars worth of referrals to Tesla, and was owed hundreds of thousands of dollars from those referrals all while reporting positively on Tesla while actively refusing to disclose their clear conflict of interest even when the issue was raised.
You are getting downvoted, but there's definitely some truth to this. Every negative gets a little bit over-dramatized by his writing.
It is weird.
> You are getting downvoted
“Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.”
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I was ready to assume the article was bullshit, but it seems like a legit, accurate piece.
It's most incredible to me that this company, obviously in distress, still has not fired their CEO.
TSLA is a meme stock; the CEO's antics are the source of its value, and the board knows this.
It's interesting that people are willing to take the risk buying a vehicle from a company that is effectively a meme. I take my safety seriously and I'd prefer the company that builds the vehicle I am driving to also be serious.
Teslas rank pretty highly on safety reports.
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/top-safety-picks
https://www.nhtsa.gov/ratings-search
There was also that guy that tried to murder-suicide his whole family by driving off a cliff and everyone survived. Crazy considering the picture of the crumpled car..
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/luck-tesla-family-plung...
Is there any evidence Teslas are not at least average, if not above average in safety?
Edit: see post below for insurance loss comparisons, which would be the most accurate data in my opinion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45582701
I'm sure I could personally operate any vehicle in a safe enough manner to not be very concerned about it, but it seems people trust Tesla self driving capabilities far beyond their limits which results in Tesla having some of the highest fatalities of any car brand. But I don't think Tesla is entirely faultless here , but considering how they advertise their cars as being entirely self driving and calling it auto pilot they are at least partially to blame.
But besides self driving I don't agree with the softwareization of cars. Maybe if Tesla made cars in a more traditional way, but they were EVs I would consider them a real option. The single giant screen without any tactile buttons feels cheap and I'm sure is just about cost saving. The whole cybertruck teardown makes it look like the vehicle wasn't well thought out.
Basically everything about Tesla as a company from its actual cars to its CEO which is supposedly leading it does not inspire confidence. When there are so many other well established car companies that take it far more seriously I don't even take Tesla seriously enough as an option to care about their crash test results.
The higher fatalities seem to be attributable to the zippy acceleration rather than self driving. Unless you have data showing otherwise?
I can only say your take is yours to have, but the software is the biggest selling point to me, and the plastic widgets on other cars look tacky and spurious.
Safety reports can be misleading apparently - https://philkoopman.substack.com/p/debunking-tesla-safest-ca...
Tesla gets high test scores, but real world results seem to differ - https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2025/02/11/tesla-ag...
Accidents <> safety. Accidents could be caused by inattentive and/or aggressive drivers due to Tesla vehicles’ auto pilot functionality and higher torque.
The question is if driving the same way in the same conditions in the same places, would one experience more injury in a given model of Tesla versus a competing car?
Even if you don't consider the rate of an accident occurring as "safety" then what about the results of when accidents happen? Should that not be considered a "safety" metric? eg. One brand has a much lower rate of accidents, but when an accident happens the fatality rate is much higher.
That’s not a free pass.
Tesla is competing on price, but it’s providing acceleration that normally available in cars with much better handling characteristics.
Sure, but there's also the fact that millions of Teslas have been sold over the last 10 years, and their liability insurance isn't any higher than other cars.
If the statistics were seeing more collision risk, more injury risk attributable to the vehicle itself rather than the driver, then surely the actuaries would be able to suss that out.
https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/auto-insurance/insurance...
For 2021-2023, Luxury Cars, Large, Tesla Model S has lower than average personal injury, medical payment, and bodily injury losses.
For 2021-2023, Luxury Cars, Midsize, Tesla Model 3 is lower than average on personal injury and bodily payment, but slightly higher on the non 4WD model for bodily injury.
For 2021-2023, Luxury SUV, Midsize, Tesla Model Y has lower than average personal injury, medical payment, and bodily injury losses.
For 2021-2023, Luxury SUV, Large, Tesla Model X has lower than average personal injury, medical payment, and bodily injury losses
They all have lower than average property damage losses too.
Last I looked into it Tesla’s did have a significant insurance premium. Not sure if that was cost of repairs or safety issues, but it was quite significant.
See link in my above post. The extra losses are due to collusion and comprehensive, indicating the car costs more to fix (or replace). All this data seems to indicate the car is at least average in safety for the occupants, and I don't see anything to indicate Teslas are in above average amount of collisions, as the property damage losses are lower than average.
Got it, they seem about average compared to all cars though several things I was comparing them to are well above that.
That said 21-23, Tesla Model 3 electric 4dr was 9% higher personal injury, 26% higher medical payment, -3% lower medical injury.
Unless I read that wrong.
I thought they couldn’t? Doesn’t he basically control the board through his shares and puppet/crony board members who have little incentive to kick him out?
I thought it was similar FB where Zuck owns enough voting shares to be effectively untouchable as well.
They sold more vehicles in the most recent quarter than ever in their history.
It’s always interesting when the perception given by the media is so far removed from the actual facts.
Beat Q4'24 by 0.3% in the quarter that EV tax credits ran out and EV buyers used their last chance to pocket it. Most other EV models had 50%+ sales lift that quarter.
Most legacy manufacturers were/are still trying to figure out how to produce EVs to compete. Looking at this month's KBB report for EV-first brands:
YTD Sales
- Lucid: 23.4%
- Tesla: -4.3%
- Rivian: -13.2%
Lucid is the big surprise there to me (though only ~8K sold).
I think Lucid just released their SUV, Lucid Gravity. That might explain it. I've seen a few driving around now but that's about all I know.
> They sold more vehicles in the most recent quarter than ever in their history.
EV tax credits were only available through Q3. There was a rush to buy EVs before credits expired.
If you’re only looking at that one quarter, that’s the most biased signal you could get.
YoY sales are down while other automakers are up, Q3 might be an artifact of EV incentives expiring. Iirc other manufactures also saw an increase in EV sales in Q3.
That quarter is an asterisk for every EV maker, due to the ending of US subsidies. (ditto for whatever decline we see in Q4)
I think next quarters results are going to be a lot more indicating of the company's health than the most recent one, since the ending of federal subsidies inflated demand across the industry.
But "more vehicles than ever" is factually false, according to Tesla itself. They delivered ~397,000 vehicles in Q2-2025. They delivered ~437,000 in Q4 of 2024.
So I'm not sure what you meant by that statement.
Eh downvote. This is so trivially look-up-able.
> [1] Total revenue decreased 12% YoY to $22.5B. YoY, revenue was impacted by the following items:
> - decline in vehicle deliveries
[1]: Page 5 - https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/TSLA-Q2-...
I think they were talking about Q3 and not Q2.
> Eh downvote
“Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.”
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Isn't that saying don't write "Why is everybody downvoting me?".
I'd imagine the entire EV segment suffered the same decline as people start to realize what a pain in the ass they still are, myself included. I can't wait to get rid of the failed experiment that is my EV and go back to ICE. Only two more years on my lease.
The opposite actually: the market is growing, only Tesla sales are shrinking:
https://electrek.co/2025/09/25/tesla-tsla-down-22-europe-whi...
Tesla is in trouble for exactly the reasons many of us saw coming. Irrespective of Elons political antics, Teslas product offering strategy is very different from the rest of the market. They’re banking on this approach changing the market, my bet is they are wrong. Model 3 and Y are long in the tooth, getting stale.
> Model 3 and Y are long in the tooth, getting stale.
Musk's antics and focus issues (i.e. too many resources focused on Cybertruck) aside: The thing with Tesla is, they operate completely antithetical to the classic car industry.
The classic car industry designs a model series and signs four-ish year contracts with all the suppliers for the expected amount of vehicles to sell, with a few extension clauses to cover for higher than expected demand. During these four years, the "rebrush" is designed, keeping most of the car the same but incorporating learnings during production, newly developed technologies (e.g. improved compute power) and maybe retooling to make production more efficient, and then it's another four-ish years that are used to make the next generation. That business model makes sense when operating with a shit ton of suppliers, so both the manufacturer and the suppliers can plan for the mid term.
Tesla however, just like SpaceX, takes pride in not following this business model. As much as possible is made in-house, which means less vendors to deal with, and that enables continuous improvements and iteration.
The downside is that it makes life so much harder for spare parts because any given part might just have been in production for a few weeks if not days, and for consumers and consumer protection agencies it's orders of magnitude harder to warn about construction defects because there is no such thing as a "generation" any more.
I'm curious what problems make it such a bad experience for you.
I have some reservations about my EV, but on the whole it is better than an ICE vehicle in almost every way and I'll certainly never buy another car that isn't an EV.
Not the OP and driving my EV isn't a terrible experience, but I do find I struggle to drive it smoothly.
I have a really hard time using cruise control in my Genesis EV. I usually use one of the regen breaking modes, and when you disable cruise control, the car will automatically start regen braking unless you have you have the throttle at the perfect position which is near impossible. And that's much more noticeable if you use one of the more heavy regen modes.
So I have to follow this pattern: Disable regen, engage cruise, use cruise, disable cruise, enable regen just to use it for a few minutes. And with the Genesis, every time you change between regen modes the car kind of jerks a bit. I've heard this is not really a problem in Teslas. Of course I could simply not use regenerative braking (a major feature of the car) or I can attempt to change my driving habits and not use cruise control as often. For long drives I much prefer my ICE vehicle specifically because of this.
The other thing may be related more to my driving position. The car is heavy and rides harshly over bumps which causes my foot to accidentally push harder on the throttle for < 1 sec. And because it's an EV which has quick acceleration the car occasionally will accelerate fast after I hit a bump. I've driven a ton of ICE sports cars with hard suspensions and never had this problem. Perhaps I'm just getting old and now have bad reflexes!
I understand the cruise control dance. I do it on both my Tesla and my Lightning. My solution, which works with both of my cars (notably, not a Genesis, therefore this may not work the same!) is just to accelerate slightly, deactivate cruise, drive as normal.
The Lightning would allow me to do it old school, it has a non-one-pedal-drive mode that has similar regen to normal engine braking on an ICE truck. But I prefer OPD so I just do the 'accelerate slightly and deactivate cruise' to get around the sudden slow down if I just turn it off abruptly.
> Perhaps I'm just getting old and now have bad reflexes!
Sounds like just a very aggressive throttle mapping. Not something I personally run into, but as with my earlier comment, this is very much going to be specific to the car. I also tend to drive with my toe at the bottom of the accelerator pedal which steadies my foot quite a bit and makes it less prone to bouncing on a bump.
> accelerate slightly, deactivate cruise, drive as normal.
That was also what I tried doing to try and remedy the problem. The problem is normally when you want to deactivate cruise, it's because there's a slower car in front. And it's a bit unnerving to accelerate towards the slower vehicle (even if ever so subtle) when the goal is to deactivate cruise. I've attempted this about 3 times on the highway and it just didn't feel comfortable so I stopped doing that. I wish there was simply some setting so that after deactivating cruise there was some smoother ramp up to the current regen setting. For example, after deactivating cruise it's max-regen should be similar to ICE vehicle deceleration, then after N milliseconds ramp up to last used regen. That would solve the problem for me.
I agree it would be nice to have a setting. There is a bit of a delay on my Lightning, less so on the Tesla, but it could be a settable option. I don't run into exactly he same situation, however, because the only cruise control I have is adaptive cruise and it's slowing down for traffic on its own. If I have to disengage cruise in that situation, chances are pretty good I'm using the brake pedal to do it, ha.
Why deactivate cruise control for a slower vehicle in front of you? Does the Genesis not have active cruise control? Both of my cars will slow down automatically to match the speed and keep a safe follow distance.
I drove a Genesis G80E for a week and I understand where you're coming from. The regen was a bit awkward and I had the same issues. The Mercedes EQE 350 I rented recently did better there.
Tesla has their regen dialed in quite well. I've read Ford's is good as well, but I haven't had a chance to drive one yet.
> I've read Ford's is good as well
I have a Tesla as well as a Lightning, and in my experience the Ford's regen behavior is indeed very similar to Tesla. I don't have much experience with other brands.
Conversely, it would take a catastrophic change in product offerings for me to consider another gas vehicle at this point. I’m not ever willingly giving up the dramatic improvement in convenience and performance that I got with my EVs. I’ll keep them until they rust into pieces if I have to.
I’ve not had that experience. To the contrary, it’s so much more convenient than ICE for our family. Our EV always has a full “tank” every morning.
What’s the problem you’ve been having with yours?
It seems like most buyers are with you, but for me I'm not going back to a daily-driven ICE vehicle unless I have to. I do wonder though if part of the problem is that EVs are priced/sold at a premium, and even often only as luxury vehicles. The Model 3/Y and Model S/X sales split is like 10:1 or even 20:1 afair.
Even with our exorbitant energy prices, I pay about 1/3 for the cost of energy per mile (off-peak). I have to go in for service 3 times less often (and just that is worth a pot of gold to me). I no longer need to detour to gas stations once or twice a week as I can just plug in the car at night. And then EVs are also more enjoyable to drive imo.
Curious. I've talked to a number of EV owners, and that's the first I've heard that. Most sentiment seems to be between meh-alright and never-going-back-to-ICE. I'm curious which part of the experiment failed for you.
Yeah, I have a model Y and don't intend on offer buying a non-EV if reasonable.
What about the EV don’t you like?
Imagine harder lol. Terrible take.
The stock doubled in the past 6 months. And tsla has a market cap of $1.5 Trillion. To put that into perspective, south korea's GDP is $1.7 trillion.
I don't think tsla shareholders are complaining.
The reason it increased (not doubled) is that their CEOs public behavior drove the value down over 100 points in the months prior. I think the meme stock comment above actually has some merit though.
> The reason it increased (not doubled)
It did double. Check the april lows.
> is that their CEOs public behavior drove the value down over 100 points in the months prior.
And yet, he is still CEO. Not only that, didn't the board just award him a new pay package?
> I think the meme stock comment above actually has some merit though.
A $1.5 trillion meme stock? Don't think so. A S&P500 company that is a meme stock. Don't think so. It is highly volatile, but it isn't gamestop.
All I'm saying is that Musk is still the CEO because enough shareholders back him. Why? Who knows. Maybe it's because he's increased the value of tsla from a few billion to $1.5 trillion in the past 15 years. Who knows.
It's absolutely a meme stock. I own a Tesla (though given Musks's overt anti-democratic political actions it will be my last).
They haven't improved the car for at least five years. Yes, autopilot is better, but that's it. And no, autopilot is not going to be doing autonomous driving globally anytime soon.
There is absolutely no justification for such a valuation. Humanoid robots? That's as short sighted as vision only self driving. There are any number of vastly more promising robotics companies.
As a previous Tesla stock holder and still car owner, I want Tesla to be a good car company first. It is not. And the CEO has gone out of his way to alienate and be hostile to his own customer base.
I would feel better as an investor if he made it a highly profitable company with a trusted brand, instead of heading in the other direction on both fronts.
We certainly need to hold people accountable for their actions, and their words. Yet at the same time, Elon seems to have no filter. I don't suspect him of plotting anything sneaky, because if he was, he'd just imbibe something, and go on about it one night on X.
I get more worried about all the CEOs that say effectively nothing. That seem to have PR team coaching them on everything they say. It's the quiet, plotting ones we should be exceptionally concerned about.
Because we have no idea what they're really thinking.
I'm afraid you are falling for a psychopath (see e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01LK1hxpwcY for analysis). They are sometimes good at lying.
Why not just buy Apple if you’re looking for a company focused on extracting profits from a cash cow rather than risky innovation with big potential upside and downside?
My god, people are so brainwashed. You really think the most effective CEO in generations should... be fired. It's absurd.
TSLA is near all-time high and more valuable than next 10 automakers combined.
And it will be, until it isn't. It certainly isn't on the basis of fundamentals. It's purely vibes, but that won't last forever.
Doesn’t need to last forever. Just long enough for you to sell and get out.
Just don't be the last person stuck holding the potato.
These days I think there’s always a bigger idiot. Look at crypto, people buying at insanely high prices, for no reason.
[flagged]
> Other car manufacturers make robots? I didn't know.
No shit they make robots.
Toyota also has a machine that builds the machine. Tesla is not special in that regard.
Oh, you mean humanoid robots. I’m guessing you purchased FSD? How’s that going? One day. The future. Believe. The. Hype.
Tesla’s current products are similar to older failed products from other manufacturers. Tesla’s future products are similar to older failed products from other manufacturers. Tesla’s current products are largely profitable. Just exactly why are we bashing on attempts to bring products to market? I will say i view the “lies” as woefully aspirational but not malicious in intent. and i do think the lines can blur. but i’d rather have cool new things and a few fools fooled benevolently than, for instance, no true EV market.
So the new thesis is "okay, so it's a shit car manufacturer, but it might one day do [random other thing of questionable plausibility and market value]"? Like, what if BMW makes a teleporter? What if Ford discovers the elixir of youth?
(Also I feel bound to point out that Honda notoriously _does_ make robots, though they don't seem to have done it much good.)
It is unclear to me why people think that making humanoid robots is particularly valuable, or why Tesla would be a leader in that market, if it existed, and to be clear it does not seem to exist. What are the humanoid robots for?
Where can I buy a Tesla robot?
Meme stock confirmed.
Wait till you find out about honda
Edit: for context, look up ASIMO.
Saw it in real when it fell from the stairs. Not impressed.
and Hyundai owns Boston Dynamics.
yes, they do lol.
Elon Musk personal brand is incredibly valuable, justified or not.
I don't think that he really runs the company, and kicking him out will most likely not change anything technical, but it will affect the company image among shareholders, most likely negatively.