The Tesla Thread

[Jonnycoupe]

seeing as they aren't starting delivery till end of 2017, its not a long waiting list, this assumes they increase production to actually achieve it.

also over 400,000 have pre ordered, how many extra do you think are about wo want it and are desperate. its a refundable 1000 afterall.

Waiting list = how long you have to wait for something once ordered.

Don't understand second sentence. Key point is the refundable bit. I amazed they actually reacted to the numbers and changed their volume strategy.

Where are the big boys?
- servicing large pension funds aswell as salaries
- not losing 200M a quarter.

 

[mikeh501]

seeing as they aren't starting delivery till end of 2017, its not a long waiting list, this assumes they increase production to actually achieve it.

also over 400,000 have pre ordered, how many extra do you think are about wo want it and are desperate. its a refundable 1000 afterall.

I understand thats how many have pre ordered worldwide. I wonder how many in the UK. Not that many id guess, given the US will account for the vast bulk of that number.

The waiting list currently isnt relevant, its the wait list once we see them in the UK on the roads and the car mags do some reviews. If its still 12 months plus, the value of the early ones will be high.

Given that the majority of orders have been speculative (like yourself, and your acquaintance), can you not see a huge number hitting the market early doors?

As above, it entirely depends how many they make and will ship to the UK. My guess is that demand will outstrip supply for a long while outside the US especially. There is latent demand for a cheaper tesla. Some good reviews and that will drive demand further.

 

[Glaucus]

Waiting list = how long you have to wait for something once ordered.

Don't understand second sentence. Key point is the refundable bit. I amazed they actually reacted to the numbers and changed their volume strategy.

Where are the big boys?
- servicing large pension funds aswell as salaries
- not losing 200M a quarter.

sort of but what's important here is the time frame.
the first person to pre order is expected to get it at end of 2017, if you order now then you would expect to be delivered mid 2018 and there's unlikely to be mass ordering between now and then, the vast majority who are considering it will have already ordered, that's not a long waiting list at all. Combine that with other stuff I have mentioned and I don't see any market to make a quick profit. The waiting list from when the 1st car is actually delivered is small. with Tesla unlike others you want to order as late as possible as you never know when it'll be upgraded. But its his money.

tesla isn't a big boy yet, the big boys produce more in a month than tesla does in a year. however elon has a very good track record with companies, starting new business usually lose money for many years. That's why the share price is so insanely high, its trading on what the market thinks will happen in the future.

 

[Glaucus]

.

The waiting list currently isnt relevant, its the wait list once we see them in the UK on the roads and the car mags do some reviews. If its still 12 months plus, the value of the early ones will be high.

how is it 12 months plus.

the vast majority have ordered, the rate of ordered will not pick up to that level again. From first car to last car is well under a year. where did you even get 12 months from.


but as I said its your money.

 

[mikeh501]

how is it 12 months plus.

the vast majority have ordered, the rate of ordered will not pick up to that level again. From first car to last car is well under a year. where did you even get 12 months from.


but as I said its your money.

The real demand is completely unknown. The people who have pre ordered already will be small in comparison to the overall amount of people who might be interested in buying this car once its properly on sale, reviewed etc.

One thing you have prompted me on though is to find out the current availability of the model S and the other SUV one. Might be an conservative indication of what the availability will be on the 3 once demand and supply is more normal.

What prompted me on this, is the recent Land Rover Defender demand last year when they stopped making them. They were selling on auto trader for tens of thousands more than retail. I dont expect the same situation, but for a couple of K its worth getting on the list. The crunch will be when they want the balance lol. In any event it looks like a cool car.

 

[Glaucus]

trouble is its not like other cars, so I don't think you can compare them. a lot of people still wont be interested in EVs.
and 35k will be for the basic model. so you are probably looking more like 40-45 for the average spec.

as far as I know the waiting list isn't very long, they are continually expanding production capability.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

how is it 12 months plus.

the vast majority have ordered, the rate of ordered will not pick up to that level again. From first car to last car is well under a year. where did you even get 12 months from.


but as I said its your money.

They won't start at 500k units per year surely, not if they hope to deliver at any sort of quality. Production ramp up is exactly that.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

As others have said true demand has not really been established yet because unless you have boarded the hype train somewhere your not going to put down £1k on something like a car 18 months before it's even coming to market.

The people that need to buy this car to make it a commercial success are people that sign up to an expensive 2/3 year lease on a 316d without even batting an eyelid.

 

[Amp34]

Ig you order now they are saying mid 2018. But I would expect delays.



As for change by taxation, you have any idea what oil industry get in such things, far more than EV's, renewables etc. Its just not as visible.
We don't need more power generation (well we do but not in the way you are saying) national grid themself that a million EV's would actually help the grid, after that then you need to start changing stuff massively.

Only with a lot of creative accounting.

It's generally only when you consider the potential damage to the environment and things like particulates from diesels and the associated medical costs that it starts to add up.

Not that it's a good thing, but it's easier to dismiss, as opposed to direct subsidies for renewables and EV which are far easier to account for.

 

[Amp34]

EVs have progressed more in the last 5 years than they have in the last century, and manufacturing is only getting ore and more efficient. Give it another 20 years and the only place you'll find an ICE car for sale is second hand. EVs are here to stay and will only get cheaper / more accessible / more practical / less fiery / quicker charging / etc over time. What we're witnessing here isn't a fad or a gimmick which is going to fizz out, this is the future and if the current rate of advancement is anything to go by, I think it's a very exciting time to be alive.


As long as my car plays the Circus theme to alert pedestrians. Or a screaming chainsaw.

Disagree. There will always be a place for ICE, unless hydrogen or a similar fuel cell style design comes into play*. It won't be a standard choice for most people, but for many it will still be a necessity.

*Unless somehow solar or another renewable becomes vastly more efficient and so enough energy can actually be generated by systems on the vehicle itself.

 

[Amp34]

I've stuck a deposit on 2 earlier this year. Hoping to make a few quid lol.

I'm kinda wishing I put a deposit down on one the first day it was possible as well. As a second vehicle it sounds like it would be great for us. We also have plenty of space to store and recharge, along with the mains amperage to charge it quickly over night.

 

[Glaucus]

nope, fossil fuel companies get direct subsidies its just harder to see. nothing about creative taxing. renewables get a fraction of what governments spend on the fossil fuel industry (world wide). why an industry that is the dominant player and has been for many decades needs such money, should all be diverted to renewable, nuclear and other newer sectors.

The International Energy Agency estimates that governments subsidised fossil fuels by US$548 billion in 2013.[26] Ten countries accounted for almost three-quarters of this figure.[27] At their meeting in September 2009 the G-20 countries committed to "rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption".[28] The 2010s have seen many countries reducing energy subsidies, for instance in July 2014 Ghana abolished all diesel and gasoline subsidies, whilst in the same month Egypt raised diesel prices 63% as part of a raft of reforms intended to remove subsidies within 5 years.[29]
The public energy subsidies for energy in Finland in 2013 were €700 million for fossil energy and €60 million for renewable energy (mainly wood and wind).

so yeah people who complain about renewable subsidies or subsidies that companies like tesla get, are well uninformed.

 

[Simon]

When did USA or UK last get subsides

You have chosen countries where the governments have chosen to subsidies fuel rather than invest in public transport.

 

[Glaucus]

usa every year and uk is the same ad whats worse for uk, is that renewable energy subsidies are declining. unlike usa where they are increasing. Renewable energies is something the uk could and should be world leaders in, with amazing export opotunnities, yet we continually hamper this. Whilst having to import almost all of our energy, which isn't good, all that import and security.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...nly-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...bsidies-to-fossil-fuel-industry-a6730946.html

 

[Amp34]

nope, fossil fuel companies get direct subsidies its just harder to see. nothing about creative taxing. renewables get a fraction of what governments spend on the fossil fuel industry (world wide). why an industry that is the dominant player and has been for many decades needs such money, should all be diverted to renewable, nuclear and other newer sectors.



so yeah people who complain about renewable subsidies or subsidies that companies like tesla get, are well uninformed.

Ah, so you're talking about specific subsidies in specific areas of the world, designed (largely) to help the poor be able to use mechanical equipment on farms and travel around their country.

So nothing to do with renewable energy in the west.

The problem with removing those direct subsidies (other than mass protests and civil unrest) is that they are here to help the poor. Currently renewable energy is just nowhere near the cost of these directly subsidized disruptions and as such (currently) just aren't remotely possible replacements.

usa every year and uk is the same ad whats worse for uk, is that renewable energy subsidies are declining. unlike usa where they are increasing. Renewable energies is something the uk could and should be world leaders in, with amazing export opotunnities, yet we continually hamper this. Whilst having to import almost all of our energy, which isn't good, all that import and security.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...nly-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...bsidies-to-fossil-fuel-industry-a6730946.html

And we are back to the indirect environmental related calculations. Tax reductions and tax breaks are not the same as direct subsidies. If you reduce the tax from 60%+ to 40% it not really a subsidy (considering other forms of energy generation will be taxed at 20%) as we would consider it a subsidy. Id also question the othe rform of tax break we are seeing in the U.K. Oil industry, which is tax breaks on decommissioning old fields. Again if that field provided £40b in tax over it's lifetime (at a rate of around 60%) then a £2b tax break on the decommissioning costs at the end of its life is no the same as directly paying companies money to help generate renewable energy.

It does get more complex as "subsidy" is now an umbrella word for all sorts of different situations, and has totally confuse matters, which is why knowing exactly what type of "subsidy" is useful when discussing it.

Don't be me wrong, I thing we should be subsidizing certain renewables more to bring down the production costs to more affordable levels in the future, but these subsidies aren't remotely the same as the kind of "subsidy" that is seen in the oil industry.

 

[Glaucus]

lol, how is 3bn worth of subsidies for drilling in the north sea, anything to do with what you say.

 

[Amp34]

See my edit.

 

[Glaucus]

they really aren't much different, its a saving. just because government likes to hide it from the books, doesn't mean you should be so gullible.

fossil fuels get huge amounts of subsidies around the world, direct and indirect. people just don't realise it as you and others have shown in this very thread.

going back to your original point, it is in no way creative tax fiddling.

 

[Amp34]

Just to add to that, from the independent link you provided.

The study looked at subsidies all over the world. It found that, globally, fossil-fuel companies received $452bn (£273bn) worth of subsidies a year in 2013 and 2014 – compared to the $121bn going to green energy.

The Government claims it does not give any subsidies to the fossil-fuel industry. This is because it has a different, stricter definition of subsidy – which it limits to “government action that lowers the pre-tax price to consumers to below international-market levels”.

That $452 billion is largely made up of calculated environmental damages caused by rising CO2, that's of course when a monetary value has been put onto environmental harm (which TBH I'm largely against, because it can be used by companies and governments to say "well this patch of forest is worth x, but this company says it's factory can make 2x from that land, so let's build on that ecologically sensitive area").

And the second paragraph is an example of what I mentioned in the previous post. It very much depends on what your definition of subsidy is as to what number you come up with. Some organizations, especially environmental organizations have a very broad definition, while others, such as the UK government, ise a definition closer to the more traditional definition.

 

[Glaucus]

no, if you take into account co2, then its in the trillions. the 500billion is largly things like the vat reduction.

or you know rather than taking one governments definition, they apply the same definition to all governments and come u with such figures.

UK becomes only G7 country to increase fossil fuel subsidies