Split Thread Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla

[jeremyp]

Except the US government is looking at slapping huge tariffs on Chinese EVs, and dealer margins will raise the price even more.

So your point is that Tesla cannot compete with other car makers except with a hefty government subsidy. What a great company.

There are even calls to ban them outright, on the basis that they are spying devices. Then there's the small matter of Tesla's charging network and service centers in the US. Who is going to buy a Chinese EV, even for $8000 less, if the charging infrastructure sucks and they can't get it serviced?

If you want BEVs to be successful, the charging network needs to be "fungible". That is, any charging point needs to be available to any electric vehicle, much like you don't get Ford-only gas stations.

Tesla knows that, and they are preparing for it. That's why they are planning on making cheaper models on existing production lines while they build the factories for their really cheap cars.

The problem here is that we do not know how far along they are with those plans. I agree that concentrating on getting new cars to market via the quickest means possible is the right thing to do here, but they only cancelled the model 2 about two weeks ago. If that date represents the start of the new plan, then Musk's deadline of early 2025 looks hopelessly optimistic. We are talking about going from nothing to a new car in production in less than a year. Does that seem feasible? I think "early 2025" is in Elon time.

I don't know if they will manage to maintain their position as a major player in the EV market, but I'm inclined to trust that they know what they are doing better than the average pundit.

I think the biggest problem is the overinflated ego of their part time CEO. I'm sure there are plenty of very good engineers at Tesla by Musk keeps screwing them around.

The only thing I'm worried about about is Musk's robotaxi plan. Hopefully they can have a drive-by-wire steering wheel quickly added and sold as a proper car.

I'm not worried about it: it's not happening. FSD is miles off what is needed.

I think Musk is right about the future of personal transport, and if anyone can do it Tesla can.

Not with Musk in charge.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Musk doesn't want an EV future if it's not Teslas.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Musk doesn't want an EV future if it's not Teslas.

I would say his opening of the Supercharger network to other brands, and freely offering their 48V technology to Ford (and others?) indicates otherwise.

 

[Aridas]

I would say his opening of the Supercharger network to other brands, and freely offering their 48V technology to Ford (and others?) indicates otherwise.

For the former, that was done under duress, was it not?

For the latter, that's likely worthy of some note, but, well...

The Tesla Cybertruck’s 48-Volt Architecture Is No Revolution
Tesla’s pickup ditched the 12-volt battery to much fanfare, but there’s reason to be skeptical

It's not meaningless that they did that, but it's also not something particularly meaningful, given the main reasons why 48V architecture hadn't already been in usage - lack of need for the actual power usage and cost effectiveness.

 

[plague311]

I would say his opening of the Supercharger network to other brands, and freely offering their 48V technology to Ford (and others?) indicates otherwise.

I'd call bull **** on that and say it's because he wants the money that comes from either selling or using the charging stations. That's only because Musk is a terrible person that only thinks of himself.

Then again I'm not a fawning fanboi.

 

[Aridas]

I'd call bull **** on that and say it's because he wants the money that comes from either selling or using the charging stations. That's only because Musk is a terrible person that only thinks of himself.

Then again I'm not a fawning fanboi.

The specifics are a little different than that?

Opening Up Tesla's Supercharger Network Is Better for Tesla Than You Think

By opening its Supercharger network to other automakers, Tesla may appear to be forfeiting its biggest advantage, but it has plenty to gain.

The Biden administration's $7.5 billion investment in EV-charging grants is the catalyst. This federal funding pays private companies to build charging stations, but it comes with a catch: Grantees must include CCS charging plugs at their stations. To access this grant money, Tesla had to open (at least some of) its Supercharger network to CCS-compatible EVs. (Assignment of this grant money occurs at the state level, and Texas and Washington mandate that grantees also include NACS-compatible plugs at their stations.) As the Wall Street Journal reported in September, Tesla is already raking in the lion's share of these grants, helping it grow its Supercharger network at a breakneck pace.

With even more EV drivers paying for Supercharger use, and at higher rates, Tesla is essentially getting an entirely new customer base. At least one analyst predicts that the company's expanded EV infrastructure could yield up to an additional $20 billion by 2030.

It certainly does look like it's all about the money, just in a slightly different way than you suggested.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I propose a new informal logical fallacy: Argumentum ad Muskum.

It takes the form: IF Musk does it THEN wrong.

NOT arguing he does not make mistakes and poor choices on a pretty regular basis. I’ll stipulate to that.

But in the case of his charging network, for instance, IF he keeps it exclusive and a “walled garden” THEN he’s a selfish scoundrel only driven by making more money. On the other hand…

IF he makes his charging network open to other brands, THEN he’s a selfish scoundrel only driven by making more money.

To some here, it seems like he’s incapable of ever doing the right thing, regardless of what he does. Kind of a reverse fanboyism.

 

[dirtywick]

why is owning a charging network and using it to make money the right thing under either circumstance? obviously he's in it to make money, he's not giving anything away. unless you're throwing it out there as one of his acts of kindness we should praise him for then i guess i'm a little confused on why you'd think his critics would agree with that. i mean, the guy ran a bitcoin scam, he's pretty ******* greedy.

 

[Aridas]

I propose a new informal logical fallacy: Argumentum ad Muskum.

Pretty sure that that wouldn't really be a new fallacy, just a specific application of one that's already well known. Either way, it's honestly entirely reasonable to be and argue that we should be more wary of some people and their motivations than others, especially when there's quite a track record in play (as there is for Musk), though it's not reasonable to argue that something is bad just because a particular person did it.

Plague311 is not actually crossing the line there with his post. He didn't argue that the action is wrong because Musk did it. He argued that Musk did it for selfish reasons - which is fairly likely when it comes to the case in dispute.

It takes the form: IF Musk does it THEN wrong.

NOT arguing he does not make mistakes and poor choices on a pretty regular basis. I’ll stipulate to that.

But in the case of his charging network, for instance, IF he keeps it exclusive and a “walled garden” THEN he’s a selfish scoundrel only driven by making more money. On the other hand…

IF he makes his charging network open to other brands, THEN he’s a selfish scoundrel only driven by making more money.

To some here, it seems like he’s incapable of ever doing the right thing, regardless of what he does. Kind of a reverse fanboyism.

For what it's worth, Musk does make things murky. As with your charging station example, both can easily be true at the same time, under the actual changing circumstances. At last check, Musk did made noises about maybe opening them up, but no one in the industry took him seriously and it didn't happen until there was substantial additional financial incentive to do so. Both him keeping the charging stations exclusive and partially opening the charging network up are both completely in line with calling him selfish. Selfishness is not inherently bad, of course, or specific cause to call him a scoundrel. There's plenty of cause to call him a scoundrel, though, separately. Either way, the charging stations thing is not really much of an argument that Musk is "doing the right thing" from the start, other than from a corporate financial stance.

 

[theprestige]

If nothing else, the truth about the charging stations refutes TGZ's ad hom:

Musk doesn't want an EV future if it's not Teslas.

The truth is, Musk is willing to contribute to an EV future that enables more than just Teslas. Otherwise, he would have left that subsidy on the table, and pursued other ventures.

 

[Aridas]

If nothing else, the truth about the charging stations refutes TGZ's ad hom:



The truth is, Musk is willing to contribute to an EV future that enables more than just Teslas. Otherwise, he would have left that subsidy on the table, and pursued other ventures.

Fair enough. TGZ's comment was obviously a touch hyperbolic (I thought so, at least!) and the charging station counter was weak, though. Not worthless, but weak and not much of an argument at all unless TGZ's comment was taken completely literally. If Tesla wasn't claiming those subsidies, others would be, after all, which wouldn't somehow be helping Tesla.

To go a bit further on the subject, IIRC, Roger Ramjets has pointed out that Musk shared EV technology with the Chinese. That would be a better argument against that particular thing (even if Musk may have scoffed at the idea that the Chinese could outdo him at the time). As an argument for how good Musk is, though, that would likely be undermined by oft complained about Chinese technology sharing requirements that come along with various financial incentives for businesses to do much of their manufacturing in China. Not really much of an argument against Musk being a selfish, money-driven person, in short.

Also of some note is Musk's recommendation for countries to employ trade barriers against China. Well in line with the stance that Musk's motives are more in line with desiring that Tesla (and thus he) dominates the market and not so much in line with anything particular close to altruism or desiring a EV future with Tesla not in charge.

None of this makes Musk uniquely bad or special, of course, but this little kerfuffle sorta feels like it's in quibble territory from the start and triggering people along the way. Musk wants Tesla to dominate the EV market and takes actions to try to make sure that happens, sometimes with a facade that it's some larger cause in general rather than Tesla specifically that he's working for? Shock! Controversy!

 

[theprestige]

As an argument for how good Musk is, though

I'm not sure anyone is trying to argue that Musk is good.

For me, the glaring issue is that while Musk is reasonably seen as bad, a *lot* of the bad things he's getting singled out for are either (a) normal things in the industry (preferring not to enable your competition, sometimes having to do a recall) or (b) wildly unhinged conspiracy theories that bear no resemblance to any real bad Musk might reasonably be charged with (SpaceX is a scam).

 

[Aridas]

I'm not sure anyone is trying to argue that Musk is good.

For me, the glaring issue is that while Musk is reasonably seen as bad, a *lot* of the bad things he's getting singled out for are either (a) normal things in the industry (preferring not to enable your competition, sometimes having to do a recall) or (b) wildly unhinged conspiracy theories that bear no resemblance to any real bad Musk might reasonably be charged with (SpaceX is a scam).

It's worth saying that I think that that is fair. Problems can arise when that's being misapplied, though, as, to take the most recent example, Fast Eddie's proposed informal fallacy post causes. It is likely true that some here don't really think that Musk can do good, but if he's forwarding similarly bad argument as what you just called out to support his contention, that deserves to be called out just as much.

 

[lobosrul5]

Except the US government is looking at slapping huge tariffs on Chinese EVs, and dealer margins will raise the price even more. There are even calls to ban them outright, on the basis that they are spying devices. Then there's the small matter of Tesla's charging network and service centers in the US. Who is going to buy a Chinese EV, even for $8000 less, if the charging infrastructure sucks and they can't get it serviced?

Chinese cars are definitely getting better - or at least the ones we are seeing here are. But even the best made car is junk if something goes wrong and it can't be repaired. BYD for example has been receiving a lot of flack for parts taking ages to get sent from China.

Lol... read the rest of the article.

The $35,000 window sticker of Volvo's compact SUV hits a sweet spot in the U.S. market, where most buyers cannot afford most EVs. The competitive price reflects an unusual combination of Geely's China-specific cost advantages and Volvo's ability to skirt U.S. tariffs on Chinese cars because it also has U.S. manufacturing operations, according to interviews with four sources familiar with Volvo and Geely strategy and several U.S. trade policy experts.

The consumer won't be buying a <UNKOWN CHINESE BRAND> they'll be buying a "Volvo".

 

[dudalb]

Lol... read the rest of the article.

The $35,000 window sticker of Volvo's compact SUV hits a sweet spot in the U.S. market, where most buyers cannot afford most EVs. The competitive price reflects an unusual combination of Geely's China-specific cost advantages and Volvo's ability to skirt U.S. tariffs on Chinese cars because it also has U.S. manufacturing operations, according to interviews with four sources familiar with Volvo and Geely strategy and several U.S. trade policy experts.

The consumer won't be buying a <UNKOWN CHINESE BRAND> they'll be buying a "Volvo".

Musk announcment about a low end price tag RV is too little, to late. A number of other companies have beaten him to the punch.
Muxk is simply not dealing well with actually having to compete for a share o fhte market.

 

[dudalb]

I propose a new informal logical fallacy: Argumentum ad Muskum.

It takes the form: IF Musk does it THEN wrong.

NOT arguing he does not make mistakes and poor choices on a pretty regular basis. I’ll stipulate to that.

But in the case of his charging network, for instance, IF he keeps it exclusive and a “walled garden” THEN he’s a selfish scoundrel only driven by making more money. On the other hand…

IF he makes his charging network open to other brands, THEN he’s a selfish scoundrel only driven by making more money.

To some here, it seems like he’s incapable of ever doing the right thing, regardless of what he does. Kind of a reverse fanboyism.

I agree. The thing is there more then enough legitimate reasons to rip intoMusk then this.
I can't see anything more immoral about having a charging network for money then having a gas station chain.
In the end somebody has to pay for it. The rule of TANSTAAFL alway applies.
And I generally despise Musk.
The reverse fanboysim is sort of a balance, I guess for the way people have worshipped Musk Remember the Real Life Tony Stark crap common a few years ago.
I have never seen anybody so wreck their public image ina short period of time as Musk has managed to do. I hnestly think that Time Man Of The Year award sent his ego into meltdown.

 

[plague311]

I'm not sure anyone is trying to argue that Musk is good.

For me, the glaring issue is that while Musk is reasonably seen as bad, a *lot* of the bad things he's getting singled out for are either (a) normal things in the industry (preferring not to enable your competition, sometimes having to do a recall) or (b) wildly unhinged conspiracy theories that bear no resemblance to any real bad Musk might reasonably be charged with (SpaceX is a scam).

I agree that Musk catches more **** for normal things that happen in the industry, but it's because he repeatedly, loudly, and obnoxiously makes claims that his vehicles aren't susceptible to the issues that happen to others in the industry.

I'll openly agree that recalls happen (I think my 2019 Toyota Tacoma has 3 or 4 actually) and they're generally not a big deal, definitely not on the news for multiple days. When it happens with Tesla the reason it gets bigger attention because Musk is a pompous ass.

 

[theprestige]

Lol... read the rest of the article.

The $35,000 window sticker of Volvo's compact SUV hits a sweet spot in the U.S. market, where most buyers cannot afford most EVs. The competitive price reflects an unusual combination of Geely's China-specific cost advantages and Volvo's ability to skirt U.S. tariffs on Chinese cars because it also has U.S. manufacturing operations, according to interviews with four sources familiar with Volvo and Geely strategy and several U.S. trade policy experts.

The consumer won't be buying a <UNKOWN CHINESE BRAND> they'll be buying a "Volvo".

There's a huge difference between paying Chinese prices for cars manufactured to Chinese standards, with Chinese quality...

... And paying Volvo prices for cars manufactured to Volvo standards, with Volvo quality, using cheap Chinese labor.

 

[a_unique_person]

Volvo is just another Brand name that went up for sale during the global financial crisis. It is neither better nor worse in quality than the current owner wants it to be.

 

[Ryokan]

So your point is that Tesla cannot compete with other car makers except with a hefty government subsidy. What a great company.

Chinese EV manufacturers are heavily subsidised by the Chinese government.

If forced to compete on equal footing with Chinese companies, they're actually not on equal footing at all.

And that goes for all EV manufacturers, not just Tesla.