Tesla released its third-quarter financials yesterday and, as is often the case with Tesla, the results were inverted from what people expected with margins coming in better and revenue coming in lower. CEO Elon Musk also made it extremely clear that a $25,000 affordable car with a steering wheel ain’t happening.
It’s been a while since we’ve kicked off a Morning Dump with Tesla and I feel like poor Carlos Tavares, not pictured above, probably needs a break. While Tesla will likely be the biggest mover among automotive stocks today, don’t sleep on Renault, which also posted a strong Q3 performance.
You know who didn’t perform well? Graham Rahal. The IndyCar driver had a bad season this year, failing to deliver a championship to his team. His company, Graham Rahal Performance LLC, also failed to deliver a $1.2 million car to a customer and now he’s getting sued.
Also on the back row, at least when it comes to electrification, is Stellantis. Will a solid-state battery help the automaker achieve Alex Palou-type performance?
A $25,000 Car ‘Would Be Completely At Odds With What Believe’ Says Musk
Every quarter Tesla’s Elon Musk comes out and makes it clear that his car company is really an autonomous driving company and that all of this talk of cars is kinda silly. After the Q1 financials were released, I wrote: “Elon Musk Clearly Doesn’t Want To Be CEO Of A ‘Car Company’ Anymore.” My Q2 wrap-up was: “Elon Musk Sounds Bummed Tesla Still Has To Make Cars.” Are you sensing a pattern?
Elon Musk keeps telling investors and reporters that the company is not really a car company and focusing on it being a car company is stupid. Over and over again Musk tells people this and, yet, the first questions investors wanted to ask last night were about the $25,000 car.
I’ll get to that, but first some context. Yesterday, Tesla released its Q3 numbers and they were sort of the opposite of what the market had expected, which is probably why the stock is going up today. Here’s what I wrote yesterday:
Tesla will report its third-quarter financials later today and the expectation is that the company will remain profitable, albeit with lower margins due to the incentives being pushed to sell cars.
Nope!
Revenue was expected to reach $25.6 billion and non-GAAP earnings were predicted to hit $0.60 per share. Instead, revenue came in slightly lower at $25.2 billion, but non-GAAP earnings were way up at $0.72 per share. The reason? Gross automotive margins were up to 17.1% excluding carbon credits, and higher if you include those credits.
How did the company do it?
Our cost of goods sold (COGS) per vehicle came down to its lowest level ever at ~$35,100. In order to continue accelerating the world’s transition to sustainable energy, we need to make EVs affordable for everyone, including making total cost of ownership per mile competitive with all forms of transportation.
While I suspect there are numerous factors that contributed to this, Tesla laid off a ton of people this quarter. Is this related to the issue Tesla customers are having with service? Musk, in the Q3 earnings call, kinda dodged this by saying that the goal is to not need any service because “The car doesn’t break.” That’s a good goal, albeit a difficult one.
Musk also adds that:
Sustaining these margins in Q4, however, will be challenging, given the current economic environment. Note that we are focused on the cost per vehicle, and there are numerous work streams within the company to squeeze out cost without compromising on customer experience.
You can only pull the “we fired a bunch of people” trick so many times so we’ll see how it pans out next quarter.
Still, the numbers are impressive and, as mentioned yesterday, no other major automaker outside of China seems to be able to come close. You’d think this would mean that Tesla could be the first Western automaker to crack the $25,000 car, but Elon Musk doesn’t want to do that. Here’s what he said in that same call:
So, I think we’ve made very clear that we’re — the future is autonomous. I mean, it’s going to be — I’ve actually said this many years ago, but that in my strong belief and I believe that is panning out to be true, very obvious retrospect is that the future is autonomous electric vehicles. And nonautonomous gasoline vehicles here will be like riding a horse and using a foot bone. It’s not that there are no horses.
Yes, there are some but they’re unusual. They’re niche. And so, everything is going to be electric autonomous. I think this is like it should be, frankly, blindingly obvious at this point, that is the future.
So, a lot of automotive companies, most of the companies have not internalized this, which is surprising because we’re shouting from the rooftops for such a long time.
Maybe he’s right? If Tesla can achieve a highly accurate self-driving EV that costs under $30k using only cameras and AI that you can rent out when you’re not using it then this might reduce the need for regular cars. I don’t understand the bit about the foot bone, though. Does he mean no one will ever need to walk again? Someone please explain this to me.
In light of that, producing a $25,000 car just seems like a waste of time:
So, anyway, basically, I think having a regular 25K model is pointless. It would be silly. Like it would be completely at odds with what we believe.
The regulatory hurdles of getting these cars out there when Waymo has fewer than 1,000 cars seem so high to me, though this does support my theory that part of what Musk wants out of a Trump administration is the ability to release thousands of robotaxis. I can’t imagine the current government in Texas or a Trump admin stopping him.
Renault Also Had A Strong Quarter
In all the talk of how screwed the European car industry is, I’ve tended to ignore Renault because Renault is the odd case. Since its divorce from Nissan, Renault has managed to pump out some decent new products and meet the market where it is. Having less exposure to China helps, as does Renault’s ability to make cheap cars under its Dacia brand.
The company put out its Q3 earnings report and it looks pretty good to me. Revenues beat expectations at $11.6 billion for the quarter, up over last year in a challenging market. While sales were down, they were in line with the general trend, and the company has managed to maintain a reasonable margin.
Renault also benefits from having both hybrids and EVs, which accounted for 47% of the company’s sales this quarter according to Reuters. I’m excited about a lot of the new products, especially the Renault 5 E-Tech. I also think a Dacia Spring or Dacia Duster would do well over here if Renault ever decided to bring cars to the United States.
It’s almost like making affordable cars is a good strategy!
Graham Rahal Sued For $1.2 Million Over Project ONE
It feels like we’ve all been waiting forever for the F1-inspired AMG Project ONE to reach production, but it’s probably gonna feel a lot longer if you were the person who asked race car driver Graham Rahal to secure you one.
Rahal’s side gig is the owner of a dealer/broker for high-end performance cars called Graham Rahal Performance LLC. This is separate from Rahal Letterman Lanigan Racing, his dad’s IndyCar team, although both are located on the same street.
According to a lawsuit, an individual gave $1.2 million to Rahal’s company in order to get a Project ONE and it’s never happened and now that individual wants the $1.2 million back. From the Indianapolis Star:
In the lawsuit, IRB says it and GRP committed to a purchase and allocation agreement for GRP to deliver a limited-edition Mercedes Project One, also known as a Mercedes AMG-One, in March 2019. Mercedes-Benz only planned to make 275 of that specific vehicle, according to the lawsuit, and IRB paid GRP $1.2 million of a deposit to secure the car and deliver it to the Montana-based company.
Over five years later, IRB says in the lawsuit that Graham Rahal’s company has not gotten the vehicle promised and has no plan to secure it at this time.
Rahal’s attorney denies any wrongdoing. Also, this appears to be separate from the FBI raid at RLL’s offices last month. What the hell is going on in Zionsville?
Stellantis Will Do Us A Solid (State Battery)
Stellantis was the last major holdout in the EV space in North America and its only current electric product is the new Fiat 500, though the Dodge Charger Daytona is coming. Having been slow to electrify, the company seems like it’s going to at least try and skip ahead of the current liquid lithium chemistries at some point and try to deploy solid-state batteries early.
The promise of solid-state batteries is that they’ll deliver twice the range for half the weight in a safer package that’s also easier to charge. As soon as 2026, Stellantis says it’ll have a fleet of Charger Daytonas with experimental solid-state batteries from its partner Factorial Inc.
“This demonstration fleet is an important milestone in our partnership with Factorial,” said Ned Curic, Stellantis’ chief engineering and technology officer, in a statement. “By integrating Factorial’s innovative battery solution into the STLA Large platform (which the Charger is built on), we are validating its potential to enhance our electric vehicle lineup, ensuring customers benefit from improved performance, longer driving ranges and faster charging times in the coming years.”
It would be hilarious if Stellantis leap-frogged everyone, though that’s far from certain. Every car company is trying to get a solid-state battery to market before the end of the decade and it’s not clear who is capable of getting it right or that it’s even possible to produce solid-state batteries at a huge scale yet.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
I think we’ve done Wet Leg here before, but not with “UR MOM.”
The Big Question
What if Elon Musk is right?
Top Photo: Real Time/YouTube
What if Elon Musk is right? Well then what’s the harm in opening the market for China’s <$25,000 EVs that nobody in America wants to buy?
If Elon is correct, why do I have to pay for the car? Wouldn’t you want an hourly subscription? As long as I have an autonomous vehicle at my door to take me to work Monday, the car can wander to somebody else’s place all week end. Then I don’t really need a license because I’m not driving. There is also no need for insurance because it’s never going to have an accident. The car can drive a 10 year old around. All I need is a way to summon your car when I need to go out for lunch or when I fall out of my chair and need to go to the hospital.
Imagine every person you know who never cared about the appearance of their car. How they treated the interior as a rolling trash can and never washed the car in the entire time they owned it unless the dealer washed it at the time of service (assuming they even bothered with oil changes).
Now imagine how much these people will care about a car they don’t own and what state the car might be in when it comes to pick you up.
People will still own self driving cars. The clean people. It will give new meaning to the phrase, “unwashed masses.”
Well the cars are self driving, so you would never actually see the same car twice. This way every week they can go to a Tesla cleaning station when they employ people for $15 an hour to clean the cars.
Can you imagine the build up of trash and crap in the car after a week. I can’t see it happening if the cars weren’t vacuumed at least every day.
People are gross. Give them a reason to not care about the car and it likely gets much worse. They’ll have to make these things waterproof from the inside and just run it through a car wash twice a day with the doors open.
If they’re cheap enough they’ll become mobile bordellos and crack dens.
$900 per month, and you’ve been in my ex-wife’s Volvo?
Exactly, they are living is some sort of bizarro world. I sometimes think the whole point of this self driving car thing is to actually take away personal car ownership.
Won’t Testla robots do the cleaning for <$15/hour?
The Tesla Robots will be doing our jobs…plus it’s way too difficult for a robot to turn that spray tip at the end of the Formula 409 bottle
You’re assuming you’d be in the income bracket that will be able to outbid others to summon a vehicle at all. A more likely scenario is that most people would have no access to transportation as companies will cater to those that can pay the most. Everyone else will be up a creek.
I think it’s unlikely that autonomous cars will exist in more than a very limited form in my lifetime.* There are too many unsolved issues. Currently the only “autonomous”** cars on the road are in dry sunny areas with limited zones where they can travel. Weather happens in most of the world. Snow, rain, etc. are deal-breakers for autonomy as it currently exists. Additionally, it’s impossible to control for the human factor. people are unpredictable and autonomous driving can’t account for them. Then there are the notorious “edge cases”. Well, everything is an edge case. We may be 90% of the way there, but 90% is as effective as 10% and that last 10% is probably more like 90% of the actual difficulty. As far as Tesla actually creating a fully autonomous vehicle? impossible with reliance solely on cameras. Making cars drive around a movie studio lot for a presentation is relatively simple. BMW could learn a test track on Top Gear years ago. Real life is hard.
*Statistically, I should have 25 to 30 years left.
**Current “autonomous” fleets require an army of humans working behind the scenes to keep them functioning.
[Elon Musk]
I’m not a car manufacturer, I’m not a car manufacturer.
Look, look, check me out
I broke up with my Model 2
Here’s her number (25,000)
Sike, that’s the wrong number!
[Investors]
Ooooooh
Tesla stock is Numberwang. It is Who’s Line is it Anyway. It isn’t a rap battle and the points don’t matter. It is ludicrous, maddening, and for rational people everywhere, you have to hope that it’ll crash and burn at some point because otherwise it proves that the game is rigged and nothing you do will ever make a difference.
Points for the Mitchell & Webb reference!
So, anyway, basically, I think having a
regular 25K modelCybertruck is pointless. It would be silly.There, fixed it for you.
The CT is now profitable according to the 3rd quarter numbers.
That sounds like a manipulation of the COGS based on amortizing the development and depreciating the tooling and over a less than conservative projection for total unit sales in the long term and it probably only holds up if sales continue at high levels. I don’t think they will.
Maybe? I dunno, I’m not a corporate accountant. I just know what the numbers indicated.
Accountants can make quarterly numbers say whatever the Chiefs want them to say…will catch up to them later, but still.
As an accountant, I’ll say you’re correct.
As another accountant, I have audited this statement and determined it was correct enough.
In all material respects.
Be sure to use the GAP.
Or the numbers mean nothing. Right? lol.
LOL, I prefer to use GAAP and mind the gap.
Exactly. My wife feels the same way. Carry on.
The unfortunate truth is that Musk is right- a $25k BEV is not something that can be profitably sold on the US market today. As some other commentors have mentioned, the “$25k Tesla” seems to have first been mentioned in 2018, and 25k 2018 dollars is just over 31k today.
There is also a certain floor that a mass-market car can be built at- in order to comply with the FMVSS regulations, and as the regulations get more strict and the cost of goods increase with inflation, the cost of the bare minimum appliance car also increases. Chat GPT tells me the cheapest car on sale in America today is the Nissan Versa at $17,190 MSRP, and looking through the features list and reviews that seems pretty damn close to the bare minimum appliance car possible to build, so we’re already just a mere $7810 from the floor hitting $25k. Once you factor in the increase in cost of everything during development, as well as the need to make it not a hateful penalty box, then yeah, there is no way Tesla can sell a 25K car.
The Versa is loaded with stuff that isn’t needed, though – radio,air conditioning, cruise control, power windows, wheel covers, carpeting, interior plastic trim, sound insulation, dual exterior mirrors, screens, and is built in a higher wage country. A non-EV built in India or China could easily comply with FMVSS and EPA regs and come in under $13,000 if anyone wanted to do it, margins would be ultra thin, but it could be done. Business case just isn’t terribly compelling, as it would involve essentially a totally from scratch startup that would barely make money per unit for a long time
It’s really all about the monthly payment. If banks would only lend on the shorter 36/48/60 month terms, then the automakers would have to focus on producing more economical vehicles because most could not afford $2k car loans.
I’m not sure that they would, trimflation seems to suggest automakers are more focused on margins than outright sales volumes.
And auto loan terms got longer because cars last a lot longer now too. Something from the 70’s or 80’s was lucky to make it 100k miles, so a 7 year loan term doesn’t make a lot of sense to a bank- the collateral would degrade to essentially nothing in the later years of the loan, whereas today a 7 year old Camry still has decent value on the resale market.
Restricting loan terms for cars specifically would be an artificially severe “fuck you” to poor people- there is a lot of good in someone being able to have relatively low monthly payments for a reliable vehicle that can get them to work, school, etc.
Love Wet Leg and I think this is their best song so far. I appreciate how unapologetically weird they are. When it comes to the actual music they aren’t doing anything particularly groundbreaking but when you factor in the lyrics, performances, weird visuals, etc. the overall package is greater than the sum of its parts, which IMHO is a hallmark of good art. I’m excited to see where they go from here.
And a nepo baby using daddy’s resources to defraud people while being bad at his job of *checks notes* working for his dad? No fuckin way. No one could’ve seen that coming.
STFU and go away, now. /s
Your friends, Don Jr. and Eric the AirWick.
Just think of what solid state batteries will do to the used car value of current EVs.
That is why I would not do anything but lease a EV unless it is dirt cheap.
Why wouldn’t it affect used gas cars the same way ?
Elon may be right
He may be crazy
Or he may just be the lunatic we’re not looking for.
You may be wrong for all I know, you may be right.
Elon Musk is almost right. It would be nice to avoid the need for cars as appliances. If everyone could get where they need to go without driving or spending too much, it would help the environment, people who don’t enjoy driving, and car enthusiasts. But doing that with piles of private self-driving taxis won’t do most of that. We’ll still have a lot of traffic, a lot of expense, and a lot of production/consumption.
Good mass transit, more mixed-use urban/suburban planning, and allowing remote work where appropriate will do a lot more toward those goals, but not the goal of endless market growth. Of course, for environmental purposes, there are things a lot more effective in reducing emissions than focusing on personal transportation, but that’s a whole other can of worms.
While you’re 100% correct, good public transit isn’t something Musk believes in either. And he’s admitted that things like the Tesla tunnels were just something to get cities to pull money away from public transit initiatives.
Well then attach all of these “autonomous” cars together and have a single human at the front to make sure things are going okay. You could even install little tracks to make sure they don’t go the wrong way. Will that make him happy?
How very “Used Cars”!
I think more broadly speaking Elon just hates poor people and minorities and wants to do everything in his power to make life worse for them. Public transit just happens to be an easy target.
Starlink sure is a funny way of showing it, then.
Ah yes, Starlink, which Elon turns off and on at the whims of dictators.
I have it on good authority these are just low buck Jewish Space Laser deflectors, to be used if the event someone with a semi normal brain should be elected Nov. 5th. MTG accidentally texted me last week, and let the cat out of the bag.
You keep saying this, and I’ll keep correcting it- Starlink was never enabled in Crimea, claims to the contrary are Fake News. Ukraine asked for it to be enabled, explicitly for weapons guidance purposes, and Musk declined. You can argue about the wisdom of this decision (though personally I would take the position that making the majority of satellites in orbit around the Earth into legitimate military targets of a nation with known ASAT capabilities is, uh, really fucking stupid for all parties concerned), but pretending that Musk shut it off at the whims of Putin is a big, smelly, greasy lie.
Ah yes, well respected source Wikipedia
What do you want, fucking Snopes? Fine- here you go.
Or lets go straight to the source- the original claim is from Walter Isaacson’s biography “Elon Musk.” Here is the author himself confirming that Starlink was never active in Crimea.
You have been Fact Checked- your rating is Pants On Fire.
Ah well, I guess I was off on that. But regardless I still feel great, because I didn’t waste any of my time doing research on how to white knight for Elon Musk today.
Spite is undefeated against logic.
Right. I don’t mean to imply that he actually wants to do things right, just that he is close to the right answer, but only because he sees it as potential for massive profit.
But, yeah, one of the things I hate most from him is that he undermines public transit because he wants to sell his products as the solution.
Public transportation is widely accepted as a universal good pretty much everywhere except the US and anyone who’s against it is not your friend.
Exactly. If you work against public transit, you are working against bettering society.
Hell I think it should be state subsidized and completely free to use but I’m not sure if we’re quite ready for that conversation here 😉
Unfortunately there are millions of voters who have never once used public transit, think everybody would be better off in a car, and have never considered what would happen in major cities without it (but also believe that our major cities were literally burned down in 2020).
That’s called Detroit, lol. Except the city burned in 1967.
And 140 miles north where I grew up, the locals were pissing themselves worrying that all that was coming up here to “get” them.
It’s a more nuanced issue I think. I’ve lived in a downtown city with some* public transit and have used it fairly regularly when I lived there.
I don’t advocate for it. It’s not very safe. It’s absolutely not clean. It doesn’t really take me where I want to go in a reasonable amount of time.
I would not support it being funded by everyone and think it absolutely should be paid for by the people who use it but then I think it would get used by enough people to make it reasonably affordable if they would just fix the safety and cleanliness issues.
But asking me to take a bus or uber to the train station then get off and take another bus somewhere to make my 20 mile commute 90 min – 2 hours is just not something I would live with.
I know I’ll sound way older than I am by saying this, but any solution must absolutely not be a step backwards in quality of life. Maybe autonomous, electric vehicles are that. Maybe not? I’d accept public transit as an alternative but not if it looks anything like it does today.
Every form of transit is subsidized by people who don’t use it. Roads are built by governments (no, your gas taxes don’t come close to paying for them), public transit is built by governments, airports are built by governments. Public transit isn’t inherently dirty or unsafe, though I have certainly tried some modes that I’m not excited to go on again. It’s a societal choice. For example, the subway in Washington is sparkling every time I go on it, but the Market-Frankford line in Philadelphia is vile.
You’re correct of course. All transit is subsidized though gas taxes do cover the majority of maintenance. It’s too bad that the revenue from the gas tax is pretty much dumped into the general fund in most locales and definitely the Fed. But then how else are they going to politicize infrastructure improvements when it comes time to vote?
But mostly it’s servicing the majority based on who is using the resource the most. In dense urban areas you can get away with more transit projects since more of the voting public is using it. The further you go outside of that the less effective and less used that mode of transport makes sense.
Where I live they want to add more sales tax to cover more bus routes and the like. I’m in a fairly big suburban area that is very spread out. The buses that exist drive around nearly empty as it is. It just doesn’t work. It won’t work. The cost to build out a usable transit system in an area like this is too high.
It’s simple to say the government should subsidize all public transit for the common good. But looking at the total landscape of the country, it just would never work. How much debt can every municipality carry for that? We would end up going back to times when you couldn’t travel outside your town because that’s as far as transit would take you.
Not every transit project is a good one, I’m not going to claim that. Your last sentence is an absurd exaggeration.
It’s really not if you look at how people actually live outside of urban areas and the landscape around suburban areas. This country is very spread out and you can’t build that many trains.
Again, nobody is proposing stopping you from driving.
I’m not really replying based on that though. It’s that the idea that a minority of people would have their method of transit subsidized by everyone is part of the problem. Yes, roads are subsidized but a vast majority of us benefit from that.
But I’m more just arguing the philosophical position of public transit in every environment, for everyone’s situation is superior. It doesn’t work logistically for much of the country. There’s too much space and we’re all going somewhere different.
It could be that autonomous vehicles that impact the environment less are the answer. Maybe. But more trains and buses isn’t going to cut it. Too few people are already using (not using?) the existing public options in these areas today.
Maybe the discussion should be, what could public transit look like that would work in a suburban environment? Something that is actually usable, affordable and flexible given the wide spread land mass and societal structure we have.
“It’s that the idea that a minority of people would have their method of transit subsidized by everyone is part of the problem.”
Literally everybody has their transit subsidized by everybody else.
Yes, but if you look at it, the MAJORITY of the people benefit. That’s the part where I deviate from your POV.
The vast majority of us use the roads and gas and all the things. As opposed to having an overwhelming MINORITY being paid by the majority of <insert watever tax would be levied here> payers.
We all benefit from the cities where public transit use is necessary (you can’t make New York work with all cars) being functional.
I have never ridden on public transit.
Can I ask for my tax money to be returned?
America! What a country! lol.
What if I work FOR public transit? Does that automatically make me your friend?
No profit in bettering society.
It goes back to the 1940’s. Remember the side plot in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” where the shady entity was buying up all the trolley lines? That was real. GM and a bunch of fossil fuel interests did this to replace the trolleys with busses and cars.
I could see autonomous vehicles being good for public transportation, albeit in a slightly different way. The current public transportation model works very well in dense urban centers, but it is not effective in smaller cities or suburban areas. I live in a suburban area and often see empty or nearly empty busses. Our bus service is probably worse than having no bus service at all, since the busses still produce pollution and a driver has to be paid even if the vehicle is empty. I have seen similarly ineffective public transit in other places I live, so I am not in favor of expanding mass transit as we know it.
I could see autonomous vehicles being used as something of a hybrid between traditional mass transit and private cars. Smaller vehicles (maybe 10 seats or so) could be used for on-demand shared transit. These vehicles would be shared with riders starting at and going to different destinations. For example, if I am going to the airport, I could hail one of these vehicles that would be shared with others, some of whom are going to the airport and some are going to other destinations near the route. Small autonomous vehicles like these could offer the benefits of ride sharing (i.e. door to door service, semi-private vehicles) yet be priced closer to that of a bus. This would eliminate the problem of empty busses and expand access to transit in less dense areas.
I would use a service like the one I described. I am not against public transportation, but the difference in convenience is so extreme where I live that I can’t justify using using it.
The solution is to re-configure suburban areas to the “15 minute” model for most of your basic necessities. Then transit matters a lot less cause you have feet.
Exactly. Existing neighborhoods need to get more dense, and we need to mostly stop building new neighborhoods.
This may come across wrong. I hope not. I don’t want to live in a dense neighborhood. I like to be able to look out at farms and trees and have more than 10 feet between my house and the neighbors. It doesn’t mean that I think a 15 minute neighborhood is a bad thing and whenever I go into the city I park at a park and ride and use transit. I just think a choice is nice to have.
Nobody’s proposing banning living in rural areas. Just stopping turning so many of them into endless suburbs, mostly by making other, less expensive options available. Building convenient neighborhoods is illegal in most of the country.
When everyone moves into the rural areas because they’re trying to escape the chaos and density of the cities, the inevitable consequence is that they turn into suburbs.
And then everybody gets upset when somebody wants to develop the last field, saying “This is a rural area!!!” No it’s not, it’s a suburb with some vacant lots.
“Never fall in love with a view you don’t own.”
I agree that unfettered development is a problem. It seems to me that the real issue is that there are too many people. But, that’s an argument for a different website.
I mean, you can go buy 30 acres in the desert whenever you want. What you’re after is some sort of situation where you’re close enough to the things you need but don’t have to see all of them. That is a luxury.
I think that’s an under-appreciated point here too – you could pretty easily have a lot of suburbs become 15-minute cities. They just need some smartly placed commercial areas. But for the most part they’re designed as endless cul-de-sacs where you can’t feasibly access services without driving.
You are not alone! I also don’t want to live in a dense neighborhood. I like my space.
I agree with those who argue that walkable neighborhoods would be better for everyone, but I don’t want that lifestyle. I had the option of moving to a dense urban area and chose my suburban/exurban area by choice.
That was exactly the choice I made. My office is in the city, but for quality of life, I choose not to live there. Plus, I mostly work from home.
I’m with you. I’m tired of living on top (figuratively and literally) of my neighbors. I need some space.
On the bright side, with the cost of housing today, I’m at least thankful I’m not homeless.
Correct take here.
Here’s the thing though: it’s entirely possible to have a 15 minute model without being that dense. The example I’m going to use is a rural community.
Where I grew up it was a small town of around 1,000 people. Most of the region was farmers but for everyone in town it was single family homes that weren’t especially dense. But it would count as a 15 minute city, because you still weren’t really ever 15 minutes away from the centrally-located shopping district. The town planning meant that you had what you want – relatively spaced out homes, farms, trees – but you also had all of your basic needs within a short walk if you lived in town.
With good planning, you can actually have a 15 minute city even when it’s not too dense – well-planned pedestrian routes and smartly located commercial areas go a long way.
Oh, yeah, those places definitely exist, and I think they should. I also think dense cities have a place in our society. I actually live on the edge of a small town because I didn’t want to give up the convenience of getting to the grocery store in 5 minutes etc. I like looking at the farms, but I’m no farmer and my 0.28 acres is plenty for me to maintain.
You see how not everybody can live on the edge, though, right? Like, geometrically?
Yes, of course. Though I didn’t build my house, and the one next door is for sale, so there’s space for at least one more family. 🙂
I’m not trying to be argumentative. I just recognize that my solution isn’t your solution and isn’t appropriate for everyone, just as your solution isn’t appropriate for everyone.
Absolutely. All I try to advocate for is to stop banning dense, efficient, mixed-use neighborhoods.
I agree with you 100% about that.
People move out into the suburbs and rural areas specifically to avoid the kind of density you’re talking about. Altruistic stuff like this looks great on paper but realistically it’s not what people want.
People fill up urban developments too.
Different people want different things at different times in their lives. When I was younger, I wanted the excitement and faster pace of the city. At this point in my life, I prefer the exurbs. In a few years, I may downsize to a condo in a denser neighborhood.
The truly depressing thing is the people who have decided that the “15 minute” model is this vast conspiracy instead of something that means there will always be a grocery store near your house.
It’s amazing how often seemingly sensible people seem to think that just because I’m suggesting making dense neighborhoods easier to build, that I want to require them to live in one.
I think some of the problem is that people suggesting it happens to existing suburban neighborhoods.
I would hate for my sleepy community to become busier and louder
It’s completely unworkable to suggest nobody’s neighborhood can ever change.
I never suggested that. I just don’t want to live beside apartment buildings and stores.
Luckily my neighborhood isn’t zoned for it. I bought it with an understanding of what was allowed to be built here. It’s fair that those regulations remain.
That feels right on a neighborhood level, but nationwide we have so many of those regulations that we have made housing increasingly unaffordable and people have to commit to painful commutes past all those “protected” neighborhoods to live someplace decent they can afford.
Housing is unaffordable for many reasons. I don’t think allowing apartments in suburban neighborhoods is the answer
But, in my experience, most suburban people don’t want that.
Most people don’t want what they haven’t experienced. It just “sounds” scary.
Not at all. I’ve visited a lot of cities and walkable neighborhoods. Not where I’d want to live.
It kind of sound like you’re saying people don’t know what’s good for them…that’s a slippery slope
I simply cannot fathom how the ideal neighbourhood is one where you are neither far from your neighbours, nor have access to ANY amenities that don’t require personal transport. It’s the worst of both worlds.
I live rural, in a very sparsely populated area. Lots of land, the land behind me is a hay field. And yet, I have 2 restaurants, a gas station, a corner store, a liquor store, and the post office all within about 8 minutes on foot.
You don’t have to live on top of each other. Just chuck the occasional corner grocer and pharmacy into existing suburbs and you’ve already solved half the issue.
That doesn’t sound rural.
Rural means different things in different parts of the country. Out west, rural means you can’t see your neighbors. Out east, it’s what our inebriated friend described.
I live on the east coast of Canada and no one here would describe a place with half a dozen stores as rural.
See, we call that north. I apologize, I failed to consider our closest neighbors and biggest trading partner. In the mid-Atlantic states, we call that rural. It was shocking to me the first time I heard it, being from Colorado.
I’m in favor of expanding mass transit where it already exists, so it works better. For example, Philadelphia has amazing rail infrastructure, but most stops get one train per hour or worse except during rush hour. So I often drive all the way into Philadelphia, even though I hate driving in city centers, because I can leave when I want to. If those trains ran every 15 minutes instead, I would use them a lot more.
Philly’s rail infrastructure really is excellent. I lived there for a few years and almost never drove.
Autonomy only will work on an isolated road. You can convert all those HOV lanes to autonomous only. Chances of happening in the next 20 years, near 0.0. The tech is nowhere ready for prime time. Of course when Cheeto Mussolini goes into power, the collapse of society is imminent, so it’s all a moot point.
I’m confused why Elon thinks Tesla cannot simultaneously develop an affordable EV and a self driving car? If a $25k EV could be built profitably, that seems like it could help fund autonomous vehicle development. I don’t see why an affordable EV and an autonomous vehicle are mutually exclusive. Tesla appears to have the resources to do both.
I have said this before, but Elon’s politics/personality are far less of a problem than his product planning choices. Autonomous vehicles may be the future, but if Musk keeps making poor choices Tesla may not survive to see that future.
I think that $25K number was maybe one he threw out there pre inflation. A low $30K number is probably more realistic these days, but now that’s getting close to what the Model 3 starts at so the business case gets weird so I get the reluctance to do it from that perspective. If the goal is to speed the adoption of EVs though, the cheaper the better.
That is a valid point. $30k is probably more realistic in 2024.
I still think a cheaper Tesla would be possible, though. Realistically, the Model 3 is a premium product. A smaller, lower performance vehicle with a smaller battery and less features could be popular. Of course, I might be overestimating how much cost could be saved with a hypothetical economy-oriented Tesla Model 2. It would have to be substantially cheaper than the 3. I don’t see a Model 2 being popular if it is only $5k cheaper than a 3, but if could work if it is $10k-$15k cheaper.
Right. He needs to invent the Chevy Bolt LOL!
Yeah, that was pretty much what I was thinking.
I would love to see Elon reveal a badge-engineered Tesla Model 2 that is literally a Chevy Bolt with a few Tesla emblems taped on.
That seems to be working for the Honda Prologue!
Your answer to this makes sense and is what Musk should have said.
I suspect that what he meant by the foot bone comment was that using your foot to squeeze or “kick” the horse is analogous to brakes and accelerator. But, I’m not autistic, so that’s just a guess.
As far as autonomous cars? I’m not all in on that, but when I watch Space X live feeds of launches etc., it’s just mind-blowing stuff from what was possible 15-20 years ago.
So….who knows. Maybe?
I think the foot bone comment was just his brain revealing that it’s been running on chatgpt software this entire time.
The Space X stuff is pretty incredible. A huge rocket flying to space and then returning on it’s own to its launchpad to be captured in mid air? Unbelievable! Now, what if the rocket had do that while there are a bunch of unpredictable humans flying rockets all around at the same time? That’s much more complicated and that’s why his dreams of autonomy are farther off than he’d like us all to believe.
I agree about the autonomy stuff. It ain’t happening anytime soon.
Because of where I live, every launch at least gets a blurb in the news.If the time and weather are right, I try to get a faint glimpse of it and listen/watch the feed on my phone. They’ve done 100 flights this year, which is nuts. Not only that, but in all 100, the boosters have landed every time.
The one other thing is that while they are predictable, all (I think) of those launches do have to navigate past that satellite layer of orbit, which isn’t exactly empty these days. Impressive stuff.
Very impressive, it boggles the mind what they’ve been able to accomplish. I love Space X, it sucks that Elon is involved because it makes it harder for me to love it if that makes sense.
I get it. I try not to let that kind of emotion get in the way. I’m more of the mindset that what I dreamed of as a little kid as impossible (“but wouldn’t it be cool…!) is now basically routine.
I try to keep the wonder part alive. That’s me, anyway.
Still easier to predict than a human in a manic state will on drugs, which is probably a measurable percentage of people on the road daily.
I wouldn’t mind an autonomous car to replace an uber or a taxi, but not for everyday use or to own/lease. Just seems like it’s a waste.
Meh. People need Uber and taxi jobs, and they seem to be pretty good at it overall. I don’t get the problem we’re solving with the robotaxi.
Unless those drivers don’t show up to take you and your family to the airport because they didn’t realize their car was too small despite having requested an large, mobility limited person friendly vehicle.
Then when you’re frantically trying at the 11th hour to arrange another ride the app keeps crashing.
Thanks a lot Lyft!
Unclear if a robot will ever leave you stranded, I guess we’ll find out.
Pretty sure a robot will have better reading comprehension than that driver.
Elon Musk is definitely right. Far, far, far right.
Would this cheque of a million dollars sway your opinion?
“I will loudly and unapologetically do crime”
“Stellantis will do us a solid” just conjures up imagery of Carlos Tavares performing a Cleveland Steamer on dealers, consumers, and UAW members.
Also, when will Musk realise that the solution to autonomy is called “Public Transit”?
Based on my experience using the technology that Elon has pinned Tesla’s entire future on: I have little confidence in the long term direction of the company. FSD drives with all the skill of the average teenager getting a learner’s permit combined with the shot depth perception of a 90 year old. The time frame for widespread public adoption of self driving is way past the near term benefit derived from making lower cost vehicles. A lower cost Model 2 could be developed, sold, and on the market for several years before FSD is more than a novelty.
The biggest issue with FSD is that Musk continues to incorrectly and stubbornly refuse to move away from Vision only sensing, which cannot and will not ever achieve Level 4 autonomy, much less level 5. There is no reality in which vision only will be able to adequately control a vehicle. There is a reason every. single. other. manufacturer. uses radar for adaptive cruise, a level 1 autonomous feature, much less for more advanced systems.
Investors don’t understand or care about technical limitation, they care about the narrative.
Nobody else has achieved autonomy either. Arguing about what tools to use is practically theology.
Yes and no. Honda and Mercedes are both aiming to be releasing publicly available L3 production vehicles next year. Waymo and Cruise taxis are more or less an L3.5/4 system. None of them rely on anything bordering vision only, and all more advanced fully autonomous systems use not just Radar, but Lidar. They do this because Vision only relies entirely on algorithms to guestimate distances and sizes. there are no absolutes in vision data. Radar and Lidar however give distinct hard data points with very small MOE that can be interpreted logically and directly and used to much more efficiently calculate whats going on around the vehicle in question.
I bring all of this up not to argue, more to comment that Tesla has, via Musks leadership, pigeonholed itself into a technical path that is simply unlikely to pan out the way that Musk expects it to. No matter how you feel about the brand or it’s leadership, that is a dangerous proposition for future growth and market dominance in the autonomy space, which is the stated goal of the company.
I don’t think he has a good understanding of what the average consumer wants.
You could’ve ended that sentence 6 words early and still be correct.
Lol! True
Wow, what a tool. If I was Sylvia Tilly’s Junior High School, I would change my name.
“You can rent out your autonomous car!”
But I don’t want to. The value proposition for a vehicle should not be that it can be a source of revenue for me; especially considering that I really only stand to lose in terms of people damaging the vehicle. Like I really want to spend my Monday morning cleaning Nate’s puke out of the center console following a Saturday night bar crawl just so I can go to work.
Dirty Mike and the Boys will be STOKED.
I said I DIDN’T WANT TO KNOW
But then Tesla can put “side hustle car sharing revenue” on their website next to the “expected gas savings” and make it seem like the Model 3 costs $25k.
I am beginning to wonder if the business model will end up looking similar to the housing market in resort towns – rich folks buy them as ‘investments’ to rent out, pricing out the folks who actually wants to live there full-time.
Eventually, all the cars are owned by a small number of investors who decide who can use them, when, and how much they have to pay for the privilege.
If Musk is right, then he’s right and 1st world humanity will adapt. It won’t instantly translate to poorer locations I don’t believe. However, I do not share his immediate confidence. Bad weather driving remains something I don’t think we have solved at all.
Yup, what happens when your no-steering-wheel Telsa decides it’s just too snowy to bother? So essentially you’re stuck, a victim of overblown hubris and unsavory ideals.
Hope you don’t freeze to death!
As I said on another website:
$25k in 2018, is $31k today, just from inflation.
Journalists all seem to forget this, and keep harping on about $25k
Also, what a horrible human being Musk is.
Seriously, everyone likes to forget what inflation has done the past 5 or so years. Not getting in to politics or adjusted cost of living, inflation alone has been a cumulative 25% since 2018 alone. It’s so easy to say “well cars are too expensive” or “XYZ has gone up too much in the past few years” but ignore inflation in between. That’s why I enjoy the New vs Old series here so much, it shows how much more we get in modern cars for a price that’s usually on par with the old ones when adjusted for inflation. That said, housing costs and daily necessities have been outpacing inflation for such a long time it’s a real issue, but cars tend to follow inflation fairly steadily.
It’s a good point. I just saw I reel where someone was missing $1.70/gal gas 20 years ago, I ran it through an inflation calculator and that’s = to 2.83 today. I just paid 2.77 the other day.
I’m also making about 3X what I was in 2004.
Does that mean, when you factor in tax incentives, Chevy beat Tesla to the EV price point and range goal with the Equinox?
Not having regulatory barriers to a self driving car is nice, but regulatory barriers aren’t what’s stopping us from using teleportation either.
“Not having regulatory barriers” is in no way nice. Most regulations on motive power products are written in blood.
Oh, from a citizenry perspective, I 100% agree. My job is working with software to make complying with certain extremely life-important regulations easier and more effective.
Well, for Elon, horses are for personal masseuses
This alone is delusional, and even Musk knows it. Yes COGS can often be reduced with various production or design changes, such as Rivians Zonal architecture. The reality here is that Tesla only beat its EPS target by 20% by slashing staffing, which will always have a tangible impact on customer experience. Whether that be through reduced QC, worse customer service, or some other factor relating to pricing or subscriptions, customer experience will get worse.
Musk is correct in one sense, he doesn’t run Tesla like a car company, he runs it like a tech firm. Sporadic, reactionary hiring and firing decisions, subscription heavy business model, and vague forward facing promises that never seem to come true. Even the other EV upstarts don’t behave this way, because it doesn’t really work for long term growth. Musk is an absolute cult of personality, and that alone has allowed the stock price to be well above what it deserves to be for Tesla’s assets, income, and profitability, there can be no arguments about it. There will be a day of reckoning for both Tesla stock and Musk, it’s just up in the air when that day will be, but I suspect Q4 earnings will not be up to what is promised or forecast.
He runs it like a badly run tech firm. I live in the area and have gotte to talk with quite a few people who worked there and they all invariably fuck-this-shit out once the share price party was over to less dysfunctional places (namely any other company around).
Almost all of the folks who built Tesla up are gone and left are the sociopaths, the true believers and the ones that haven’t realized yet what they have gotten themselves into.
Yup that’s spot on. I had a friend who co-oped in construction at giga Texas, and the resounding mentality was “work there until you get burned out and move on.” the pay was so absurd that you could effectively get a massive savings account together, or kill of a large load of student debt, or whatever else, in about a year, hate your existence, and move on with a great resume boost in a good financial position. It’s hell, but it’s a very high paying hell.
Now they want to lay off people with no notice and cut costs wherever possible, and the last few people worth keeping around will be gone in a year or less.
Consider too what relative housing costs will do to salaries when you’re paying like a tech firm and located among them – moving Tesla from the infamously pricey Bay Area to already overrated-and-overheated Austin didn’t help much when people looking to jump to a legacy automaker find out they can afford a freaking palace in Grosse Pointe on what they have socked away from their time on the Musk mill.