or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Automotive/Car Talk › Tesla Model S P85D scores 103 out of 100 in Consumer Reports Testing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tesla Model S P85D scores 103 out of 100 in Consumer Reports Testing. - Page 5

post #121 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Well here's the Model X with the ski rack. No roof box. Maybe they'll have a solar one for $12k.





(Surely that's a generated image.)

Six or seven seat config.





Specs:
Performance All-Wheel Drive Model P90D
250 miles range (EPA est.)
3.8 seconds 0-60 mph
3.2 seconds with Ludicrous Speed Upgrade
259 hp front, 503 hp rear motor power
155 mph top speed

All-Wheel Drive Model 90D
257 miles range (EPA est.)
4.8 seconds 0-60 mph
259 hp front, 259 hp rear motor power
155 mph top speed

8 year, infinite mile battery and drive unit warranty
Free long distance travel on Tesla's expanding Supercharger network
Automatic emergency braking to assist in avoiding collisions, even at highway speeds

http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx
Looks like skis might fit between the seats.
post #122 of 139

At the Tesla Dealer:

 

https://youtu.be/xsZaXIuApMk

 

The biggest issue I have is the touch screen controls everything. It's hard to drive, (ie look at the road, know what's happening), and look at that thing to adjust basics I would think.

post #123 of 139

What concerns me about Tesla is that they are getting all the media buzz, attention by the public, government (taxpayer) subsidies  etc. but the company is not making any money. So what happens when the buzz is over, when GM, Toyota etc come out with something similar or better (read hydrogen power) for less money?

 

Tesla is the modern day Tucker and it could end up with a similar fate once the big boys in the auto biz catch up.

post #124 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post
 

What concerns me about Tesla is that they are getting all the media buzz, attention by the public, government (taxpayer) subsidies  etc. but the company is not making any money. So what happens when the buzz is over, when GM, Toyota etc come out with something similar or better (read hydrogen power) for less money?

 

Tesla is the modern day Tucker and it could end up with a similar fate once the big boys in the auto biz catch up.

 

Well, then the world is a better place, and the only "losers" are speculators who tried to get rich based on tesla stock.

 

Elon has always said he's OK with that.   Somewhat parodied on the Simpsons episode he was on, when he ran the nuclear power plant into the ground.  He's OK if the company folds and most of his money is gone if the world ends up with more efficient modes of transportation.

post #125 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post
 

 

Well, then the world is a better place, and the only "losers" are speculators who tried to get rich based on tesla stock.

 

Elon has always said he's OK with that.   Somewhat parodied on the Simpsons episode he was on, when he ran the nuclear power plant into the ground.  He's OK if the company folds and most of his money is gone if the world ends up with more efficient modes of transportation.

 

 

Elon is pushing the envelope but taxpayers shouldn't be financing the well to do or even the well intended car buyer.

 

The other thing that really bugs me about all EVs is the way buyers, sellers, and government claim that EVs are zero emissions when they are not. They love to compare the cost of running on electricity vs the cost of gasoline for combustion engines but then conveniently forget to add in the the environmental cost of disposing of old batteries and the financial cost of replacement batteries, or the pollution created by coal or other power sources used to create the needed electricity.

post #126 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post
 

What concerns me about Tesla is that they are getting all the media buzz, attention by the public, government (taxpayer) subsidies  etc. but the company is not making any money. So what happens when the buzz is over, when GM, Toyota etc come out with something similar or better (read hydrogen power) for less money?

 

Tesla is the modern day Tucker and it could end up with a similar fate once the big boys in the auto biz catch up.


That is the big debate. It is certainly not unusual for a company disrupting an industry or two (or more) to lose money for a sustained time, with Amazon being a prime example. So long as it has access to capital and the top line increases, there is always hope for the profits to come at a future date with a dividend to follow. Tesla has better technology that the other autos companies do not currently have. Tesla also builds damn good vehicles. Can the other manufacturers catch up with better batteries? Sure. Will they catch up anytime soon? I have no idea. Will all of this have an impact on the use of petroleum? Eventually, it will. The Tucker never got off the ground.  Tesla is already a real company.

post #127 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post
 


That is the big debate. It is certainly not unusual for a company disrupting an industry or two (or more) to lose money for a sustained time, with Amazon being a prime example. So long as it has access to capital and the top line increases, there is always hope for the profits to come at a future date with a dividend to follow. Tesla has better technology that the other autos companies do not currently have. Tesla also builds damn good vehicles. Can the other manufacturers catch up with better batteries? Sure. Will they catch up anytime soon? I have no idea. Will all of this have an impact on the use of petroleum? Eventually, it will. The Tucker never got off the ground.  Tesla is already a real company.

 

There are also a lot like Amazon if you read their income statements they are posting losses because they are pouring everything back into the company. They are already selling product and producing revenue from it. Elon Musk just chooses to continue growing the company  

post #128 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf210 View Post
 

 

There are also a lot like Amazon if you read their income statements they are posting losses because they are pouring everything back into the company. They are already selling product and producing revenue from it. Elon Musk just chooses to continue growing the company  

Well, yeah, that is the definition of a "growth" company and why growth companies are valued on metrics that don't include current earnings. Even if they could show a positive Q the CFO of a rapidly growing company will do what he can to avoid that happening thereby preventing a taxable event. The market is betting in a big way that Tesla will eventually be profitable (look at the market cap). I am not sure the "X" is the right car at the right time, but I am not an auto analyst. I do know that a great way to make $ is to find a trend early and act appropriately. I missed this one.

post #129 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post

Well, yeah, that is the definition of a "growth" company and why growth companies are valued on metrics that don't include current earnings. Even if they could show a positive Q the CFO of a rapidly growing company will do what he can to avoid that happening thereby preventing a taxable event. The market is betting in a big way that Tesla will eventually be profitable (look at the market cap). I am not sure the "X" is the right car at the right time, but I am not an auto analyst. I do know that a great way to make $ is to find a trend early and act appropriately. I missed this one.

Which is my point the profit is kind of meaningless but you can get some idea of the company's health by analyzing the cash flows.

Please correct me if I am wrong. I use started my finance mba (no finance background) and am trying to use this as a real world application of the stuff I am learning
post #130 of 139

Jim Bridger Coal Plant. Wyoming

 

Quote:

Coal generation rose to 39 percent of total U.S. electricity output in 2013 and 2014 after dropping to 37 percent in 2012, according to federal energy data cited by the report. In turn, coal-related carbon emissions rose to 1.7 billion metric tons last year, up about 0.3 percent from 2013 and even higher compared with two years earlier. Petroleum and natural gas emissions also ticked up in 2014, bringing the sector total to 5.4 billion metric tons of carbon.

,,,

Coal’s resurgence last year isn’t enough to make up for losses in market share over the past decade. In 2007, coal generation was 49 percent of the total U.S. electricity mix, and energy-related carbon emissions were 9 percent higher compared with 2014.

“Our power fleet is very clearly decarbonizing, and even bigger changes are coming in 2015,” Ethan Zindler, BNEF’s Americas chief, said on a Wednesday press call.

Renewable energy projects -- including large hydroelectric plants, solar power systems and wind farms -- made up about 13 percent of America’s electricity mix last year, compared with just 8 percent in 2007, the report found. Since 2000, around 93 percent of new U.S. power capacity has come from renewables, biomass, natural gas and other low-carbon projects.

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-coal-power-ticks-2014-natural-gas-prices-climb-boosting-americas-carbon-emissions-1805420

post #131 of 139
^^ resurgence last year? Are they talking 2013? Coal got absolutely pummeled last year and has yet to make any kind of comeback this year. Coal stocks are tradding for pennies on the dollar right now
post #132 of 139

Well stocks are based on the future.

It appears that Coal power was up in 2013, and maybe 2014. (That's what that article says.) The info I found only has 6 mos of 2014 and it's up. Those are compared to 2012 which was down. I would think coal stocks would be down given we are trying to eliminate it for power. There's also other uses besides power and there's exports.

 

http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t32p01p1.pdf

 

Really want a headache look at this report. Pg 93 for coal.

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf

post #133 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf210 View Post
 

 

There are also a lot like Amazon if you read their income statements they are posting losses because they are pouring everything back into the company. They are already selling product and producing revenue from it. Elon Musk just chooses to continue growing the company  

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post
 

Well, yeah, that is the definition of a "growth" company and why growth companies are valued on metrics that don't include current earnings. Even if they could show a positive Q the CFO of a rapidly growing company will do what he can to avoid that happening thereby preventing a taxable event. The market is betting in a big way that Tesla will eventually be profitable (look at the market cap). I am not sure the "X" is the right car at the right time, but I am not an auto analyst. I do know that a great way to make $ is to find a trend early and act appropriately. I missed this one.

 

The issue is not about managing the business around  taxable events. It is about investing to maximize net present value. Or very, very loosely put another way, maximizing future cashflows/profits. In Amazon's case, it was all about just that. As summed up by lonewolf210. This is not to say that taxes were never considered, but...

 

As the finance exec responsible for the bank accounts of a certain company in Redmond once noted  -  making business decisions based on taxes is "looking over the back of the boat". and "you want to make business decisions looking over the bow of the boat. Then optimize for taxes.". Obviously paraphrased.

 

I'd expect Musk/Tesla takes a similar view.

 

BTW - this is an interesting bit on Amazon: http://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2013/10/25/amazon-and-the-profitless-business-model-narrative

post #134 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf210 View Post


Which is my point the profit is kind of meaningless but you can get some idea of the company's health by analyzing the cash flows.

Please correct me if I am wrong. I use started my finance mba (no finance background) and am trying to use this as a real world application of the stuff I am learning


The job of management is almost always to maximize shareholder value, and that is where the current debates lies with the politicians. Boards almost always give management incentives based upon goals that often times include shareholder value. Buying companies or doing buybacks with borrowed money can add to earnings (and management incentive worth tens of millions of dollars), but does that always add to the economic value of a company?*

 

Profit isn't meaningless. Profit, however, isn't the only way to value a company and certainly isn't always important for the valuation of growth companies, companies that are asset sales, etc. As you mentioned, CFFO can be important, price/sales, etc.  A lot depends on the type of business the company is in and how companies in that industry are traditionally valued, how fast the company is growing, what accounting rules can be used, how much risk is involved with the company, the whole Michael Porter thing, etc.

 

Most companies are valued by using a discount model of some kind. Whenever you use estimates, you have the GIGO issue. This is why a seemingly insignificant earnings or sales miss can kill the value of a stock...if the analysts see this as a trend the models they use will forecast a lower present value of the stock.

 

A CFO is the key to the financial reporting of a company. The joke is that a great CFO will make the earnings anything he wants, but in reality the CFO is a tool of management. For example, if management is trying to show gradual increases in earnings (more volatile earnings companies can be valued with lower P/E ratios due to the additional risk), the CFO will time everything from acquisitions, tax payments, changing accounting methods, revenue recognition, etc. to make the numbers work. It is the job of the securities analyst to read though all this crap and get an idea about what is really happening with the earnings. For example, if the analyst sees earnings continue to increase while at the same time CFFO continues to decrease, he/she will see this as a big red flag. Yes, the purpose of all our accounting standards is transparency, but in reality a lot can be hidden for a while.  Guys like Howard Schilit made a lot of money as forensic accountants consulting to institutions, helping their analysts navigate through complicated financial statements.

 

The problem with a MBA is that what happens in practice is a lot different than what happens in theory. A CPA with expertise in relevant areas is great at understanding accounting methods, but not necessarily at strategy. A CFA has a background in a lot of stuff relating to security analysis, but is not necessarily an expert in accounting issues. Therefore, good analysis depends upon understanding strategy, accounting and security analysis.   For example, a some analysts are now starting to value a bunch of old-line companies downwards due to post retirement pension obligations being wrongly valued. These companies are using 8% return assumptions, and in order to get that with near zero real interest rates a 10% equity return assumption must be used (Hint: Compound $1,000 at 10% from the date George Washington become president and you will have more money than the GDP of the USA...and a whole lot more. No one can become that rich.). An understanding of this includes an understanding of accounting, financial analysis and strategy.

 

Tesla won't be making money for a while. The cars they produce seem excellent. The question now is if there are buyers for the new model. The stock seems to indicate there will be, but time will tell.  In the skiing space (this is a skiing website) there isn't much to invest in outside of sporting goods companies, where skiing is a small part of the overall business. Vail Resorts has done extremely well thanks to the EPIC Pass giving dependable revenue (a lot hits this Q since we all got billed for the full amount two weeks ago) and the acquisitions paying off.  Debt coverage is certainly manageable. As debt gets paid down the reported profits will increase.

 

If you want to work as an analyst on Wall Street, the MBA/CFA combination will likely help your career. A CPA/CFA combination will keep you employed forever.

 

* According to a new Cornell study, it doesn't: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/sites/ilr.cornell.edu/files/ICS_Brief_on_TSR_092915.pdf


Edited by quant2325 - 10/4/15 at 11:00am
post #135 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post




(or an Audi ftm). 
It depends. Hospital air quality could really suck...like the hospital I just visited last week.
post #136 of 139

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1100416_tesla-model-x-suv-qualifies-for-25k-hummer-tax-break

 

Quote:

Alexis Georgeson of Tesla Motors confirmed that expectation and told Autoblog that a deduction "could be taken for up to $25,000 of the purchaseicon1.png price."

ALSO SEE: Tax Credit For Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles Expires As Congress Adjourns:

She cautioned, however, that, "Tesla always encourages its customers to consult with their personal tax accountant, as each individual's tax situation may be different and Tesla does not guarantee this deduction."

 

The credit applies to vehiclesicon1.png up to $500,000, which should cover even the priciest Signature Series Model X P90D with every option (at somewhere north of $135,000).

 

For the full IRS language on the deduction, see its publication about Section 179 here.

 
post #137 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post
 

 

 

Elon is pushing the envelope but taxpayers shouldn't be financing the well to do or even the well intended car buyer.

 

The other thing that really bugs me about all EVs is the way buyers, sellers, and government claim that EVs are zero emissions when they are not. They love to compare the cost of running on electricity vs the cost of gasoline for combustion engines but then conveniently forget to add in the the environmental cost of disposing of old batteries and the financial cost of replacement batteries, or the pollution created by coal or other power sources used to create the needed electricity.


The term "zero emissions" is accurate when you're talking at the tailpipe (i.e. the vehicle itself), which I'd say is fair because you're talking about the product itself, not the manufacturing processes for every component of said product. "Well to wheel" emissions are also used for comparison, taking into account the emissions created by the generated electricity. These really depend greatly on where you live (i.e. how your electricity is generated), so aren't that useful for generalizations. I think EVs are about equal to ICEs when the electricity comes from coal, but EVs are concentrated in markets that are more environmentally forward and presumably use more renewable energy sources. 

 

I'd say that "zero emissions" is a fair description for those that market and/or support EVs. Those that oppose EVs or simply want a fuller picture of their emissions impact can rely on well to wheel comparisons.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post
 


That is the big debate. It is certainly not unusual for a company disrupting an industry or two (or more) to lose money for a sustained time, with Amazon being a prime example. So long as it has access to capital and the top line increases, there is always hope for the profits to come at a future date with a dividend to follow. Tesla has better technology that the other autos companies do not currently have. Tesla also builds damn good vehicles. Can the other manufacturers catch up with better batteries? Sure. Will they catch up anytime soon? I have no idea. Will all of this have an impact on the use of petroleum? Eventually, it will. The Tucker never got off the ground.  Tesla is already a real company.

 

Yes, they're close. Audi's new R8 e-tron bests the Model S in range slightly. Not apples to apples because that car is a two-seat performance sports car that will probably run double the price, but Audi will use related tech in its upcoming all-electric SUV (Model X fighter), previewed last month in Frankfurt. That model is due out in a couple of years and Audi's claiming a 310-mile range. 

 

There are also some small, no-name manufacturers and startups in China and elsewhere with pretty solid EV claims. Won't necessarily impact the US or global markets but proves it is being done. 

 

The big global automakers are more interested in hedging their bets and developing bits of everything instead of going all in on developing any one technology. 

post #138 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post
 

 Yes, they're close. Audi's new R8 e-tron bests the Model S in range slightly. Not apples to apples because that car is a two-seat performance sports car that will probably run double the price, but Audi will use related tech in its upcoming all-electric SUV (Model X fighter), previewed last month in Frankfurt. That model is due out in a couple of years and Audi's claiming a 310-mile range. 

 

There are also some small, no-name manufacturers and startups in China and elsewhere with pretty solid EV claims. Won't necessarily impact the US or global markets but proves it is being done. 

 

The big global automakers are more interested in hedging their bets and developing bits of everything instead of going all in on developing any one technology

Production is almost ready for the Chinese copies: http://www.autoblog.com/2015/07/27/youxia-x-chinese-tesla-model-s/

 

Youxia X

post #139 of 139

I stumbled across this thread a year late.  We test drove a Tesla Oct. 9, 2015, placed our order Oct. 28 and took delivery Apr. 2, 2016.  Mammoth's supercharger was permitted in October 2015 and opened in January 2016, a key point in making our decision easier.

 

I can comment on a few points in this thread.

 

We used our Model S90D for 4 spring trips to Mammoth.  It was just fine for those. Model S is a Hatchback with fold down rear seats and plenty of room for skis and luggage.  We only had a trace of snow on one of the trips but Tesla's traction control is reputedly excellent. The downsides for skiing are:

1) Ground clearance is not that great if you got  a lot of snow,

2) Cold temperatures reduce range. With our drive through the Owens Valley I expect only modest inconvenience. With a lengthy drive in sub freezing you will be have considerably longer stops for charging.

 

In late October 2015  Consumer Reports withdrew its recommendation for Model S due to poor reliability. I was not surprised as I had researched the subject before we ordered, but concluded that it applied mainly to the 2012 and 2013 cars.  A year later CR's recommendation for Model S was reinstated, and my understanding is that 2015 and 2016 Model S cars have above average reliability.  Model X, introduced in 2016, had poor reliability so far, though it will probably improve over time as with Model S.  However those falcon wing doors may prove to be a long term headache. 

 

I agree with the criticisms of Model X made in this thread, and we never considered it.  Another quirk with Model X is that the second row seats are on pedestals and do not fold down.  The 6 seat configuration has a big gap in the middle of the second row that can probably accommodate skis.  Model S can handle a rooftop ski rack, though it would reduce range so I recommend keeping skis inside the car.  I have found in my last 4 ski vehicles dating back to 1991 that I rarely needed a ski rack.

 

Reputed Chinese competitors like Youxia and most recently Faraday, have proven to be vaporware so far.  BYD is the serious Chinese battery/electirc car company, but they make fairly basic models for the domestic market.

 

GM's Bolt is the only non-Tesla so far with much over 100 miles range.  It should be a good urban car with minimal range anxiety, though it will be limited for ling distance travel because the fastest charging available is only about 40% as fast as Tesla's superchargers.   GM's ambitions for the Bolt appear to be limited primarily to being a compliance car for the states requiring zero emissions sales quotas. They do not plan to sell in all 50 states, and GM has also said it can get a max of 50,000 batteries per year from their supplier LG.  Meanwhile Tesla plans to produce 500,000 car batteries per year at the Reno gigafactory.

 

The German plans by Porsche and Audi sound impressive, but there is certainly a question of when these cars will become a reality.  They will also have to create huge battery factories and a fast charging network to be competitive with Tesla.  I believe that will happen in the 2020's, particularly since Euro ZEV mandates are tougher than ours.  That still gives Tesla a few years' head start.

 

I'm sure you all know about the Model 3 deposit frenzy in April: 180,000 during the first day and nearly 400,000 by now.  The Model 3 is what will make or break Tesla.  They need to get quality control right this time.  Elon Musk has admitted Model X was too complex and vows to make Model 3 simpler in quest for cost control and reliability.

 

More discussion about the Model 3 orders, my detail experience with Model S and other Tesla developments here: http://forum.pugski.com/threads/tesla-model-%E2%89%A1.1703/


Edited by Tony Crocker - 11/26/16 at 7:58am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Automotive/Car Talk
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Automotive/Car Talk › Tesla Model S P85D scores 103 out of 100 in Consumer Reports Testing.