Tesla

The greatest showman on earth

While he deserves all the credit in the world for his pushing the boundaries, this is where the “snake-oil” salesman in him grates the nerves of CM.

In his Cybertruck release, he had a tug-of-war with the world’s best selling pick-up truck, the F-150. AutoBlog noted that the Tesla truck pulling the F-150 was disingenuous for a number of reasons.

  1. it appears to be the F-150 STX model which is a base model with a 325hp 2.7l eco-boost engine, not the full-fat 450hp version.
  2. the F-150 appears to be the 2WD version as it only spins the rear wheels, not the 4WD where the Cybertruck most certainly was.
  3. We don’t know what version of the Tesla Cybertruck it was. Most likely a twin or tri-motor which would not be a strict apple for apples comparison.
  4. The F-150 would be a lighter vehicle than the Cybertruck.
  5. A higher motor-spec Cybertruck should still have been able to defeat a 450hp version of the F-150 but it wouldn’t have had the visuals of kicking sand in a wimp’s face.

As ever these stunts always call into question the governance of the company. Integrity matters. Or does it nowadays?

However Tesla disciples won’t care. 200,000 orders guarantees that. They’ll frolic in the pond of early adoption and cast scorn on the Neanderthals like CM who still love internal combustion.

CM has long said that governments should not be “forcing” adoption of EVs. We all know the results of, “Hi, I’m from the government and I’m here to help!

The best solution is to hand over complete technological freedom to the engineers at auto firms and allow their creative juices to hit zero emissions by whatever means possible. As Milton Friedman once said, “Einstein didn’t discover his theory by an edict from a government bureau

Elon hits 200k Cybertrucks

200k Cybertruck orders. As CM wrote this morning, the biggest loads these pick-ups will probably ever carry are double shot grande soy lattes. This car is a fashion accessory, not a work horse.

As a bonafide petrol head, CM hates the whole concept of EVs but this maybe the one product that might sway CM to the dark side. Matte black looks good.

146,000 Tesla Cybertruck orders

Wow. As written yesterday, CM thought Cybertruck would sell. Not as well as this though. In the $100bn domestic pick-up market Musk went big and it seems it will payoff. Whether all 146,000 (likely to be more going forward) end up being fulfilled is another question. Tesla will need more capital to get there but with an order book, he has bought more time.

It was intriguing that the normal $1000 fully refundable deposit for his cars was only $100 for the Cybertruck, a shrewd bit of marketing which essentially turned it into a virtually free option to put one’s name down. One wonders whether he bumps it up now he has these orders under the belt to help with cash flow.

Credit where credit is due. Musk is a visionary. CM has now praised the Tesla CEO twice in 24-hrs. Must be a blue moon.

Tesla Cybertruck maybe a Faux by Faux but should sell well

Image result for tesla truck

Tesla released its pick-up truck this week. Polarising is one word for it. Almost every motoring hack and stock analyst slammed it.

CM thinks Musk had to be bold. Although CM can’t stand Tesla on pretty much every level, especially governance, this truck could do very well. It may not pull the heartstrings of the Mid West pick up loving Trump voters but it will have a market.

The type of people that who will buy it will never use them for hauling loads of machinery or logs. The heaviest payload will be two grande caramel lattes with extra shots. This is a car which people who were thinking of a Model S will buy this instead.

It’s the perfect car for a virtue signaling world where one wishes to stand out and be noticed. It is a Faux by Faux. It screams look at me and it won’t be long before a Ford & GM make bold statements of their own.

So well done Elon. The order numbers will tell the picture of received wisdom and may do much better than many anticipate.

Pure genius. And the broken glass just got him 1,000,000s more hits on social media.

A deadly problem: should we ban SUVs from our cities?

Activists, including one wearing a Angela Merkel mask, outside the Frankfurt International Auto, holding signs reading ‘gas guzzling vehicles off the road’ and ‘Stop petrol and diesel’.

More junk journalism from The Guardian. Why can’t the paper make sensible commentary on the auto industry? Essentially it pushes a narrative that we should ban SUVs, a long term growth market for automakers because they advertise the segment too much. Shame on trying to act in the interests of shareholders. The article encourages the movement to push for a ban of SUVs in cities. Why? The socialisation of transport!

The article makes the early assertion that passengers are 11% more likely to die in an SUV accident than a regular passenger car. Unfortunately, it cited an article written 15 years ago. In that time, SUVs have evolved leaps and bounds. A far greater proportion of SUVs are made using a monocoque chassis as opposed to the old ladder frames. Even those SUVs with ladder chassis hold 5-star safety NHTSA ratings in 2019:

2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee – 5 star (ladder) vs 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee – 3 star

2019 Ford Expedition – 5 star (ladder) – 2004 Ford Expedition – 5 star

2019 GMC Acadia – 5 star (ladder) – 2007 GMC Acadia – 4 star

2019 Toyota RAV4 – 5 star (monocoque) – 2004 Toyota RAV4 – 4 star

2019 Mazda CX-9 – 5 star (monocoque) – 2007 Mazda CX-9 – 4 star.

Some may recall in the early 2000s when the Ford Explorer/Firestone tyre rollover incident killed 261 people. Since then, carmakers have installed so many safety items – passive and active. Automatic braking, lane departure detection, forward collision warning, electronic brakeforce distribution (which prevents rollovers). SUVs are safer than ever, including pedestrian facing features.

Never mind the huge leap in safety. Let’s shame the automakers and buyers instead.

The Guardian noted, “In Germany, in 2018 they spent more on marketing SUVs than on any other segment; they actually spent as much as they spent on other segments together” says Stephan von Dassel, the district mayor of Berlin-Mitte. “This is not some accident that people suddenly are really into these cars, they are heavily pushed into the market.”

Wow, so carmakers actually made a sensible advertising budget allocations and convinced new buyers to voluntarily select their SUVs. Those wicked capitalists. They should be burnt at the stake for being in touch with their customers. Perhaps politicians could learn from the carmakers about being in touch with their constituents?

The Guardian then noted the following,

In Europe, sales of SUVs leapt from 7% of the market in 2009 to 36% in 2018. They are forecast to reach nearly 40% by 2021. While pedestrian deaths are falling across Europe, they are not falling as fast as deaths of those using other modes of transport.

So even though the sales of these vehicles have skyrocketed, pedestrian deaths are falling. Reading the paper published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, stated

“A total of 5,987 pedestrians were killed in crashes in 2016, accounting for 16 percent of all crash fatalities. The number of pedestrians killed each year has declined 20 percent since 1975…”

Surprisingly, The Guardian waits till the end to point the finger at the pet issue facing SUVs – emissions.

“Transport, primarily road transport, is responsible for 27% of Europe’s carbon emissions. A decade ago the EU passed a law with a target to reduce carbon emissions to 95g/km by 2021 but a recent report by campaign organisation Transport and Environment highlights what is calls it “pitiful progress”. “Sixteen months from before the target comes into force carmakers are less than halfway towards their goals,” the report adds. The car industry faces hefty fines in Europe of €34bn in a few months for failing to meet emissions targets.”

Related image

How is it that diesel engines, the increasingly preferred powerplant in SUVs, have had emissions cut 97% over the last 25 years? That is monumental progress.

Yet why have legislators tried to ban petrol and diesel cars and looking to force adoption of dirtier EVs which have done 150,000km equivalent CO2 emissions before leaving the showroom? Because ideology distorts reality. Even Schaeffler AG, an auto supplier, admitted it is almost impossible for automakers to comply with the different demands of over 200 cities in Europe with EV rules. No common standards and the quest of woke city councils trying to outdo each other on being climate-friendly. Then governments need to consider the 5% of total tax revenue that fill the coffers they would be giving up, although already in the US, Illinois is looking to impose a $1,000 a year EV tax.

Shouldn’t the EU and other countries face the realities that consumers (taxpayers) like the utility these SUVs provide for their individual needs over and above saving the planet? Shouldn’t politicians realise that consumers make conscious decisions when making the second largest purchase for the household?

One can absolutely bet that if some maker came out with a Hummer sized EV, these cities that want to ban SUVs from driving in them would grant the monster truck an exemption and special parking zones.

Julia Poliscanova, director of clean vehicles and e-mobility at Transport and Environment, says regulators must step in to force car manufacturers to produce and sell zero-emission and suitably sized vehicles, for example, small and light cars in urban areas.”

What if consumers don’t want to buy small and light cars? Force car makers to produce cars their customers don’t want? That is a winning strategy. If carmakers must sell zero-emission vehicles, why on God’s earth are politicians with absolutely no engineering pedigree dictating technology to the experts? Why not let necessity be the mother of invention? If carmakers can get fossil fuel-powered vehicles to be zero-emission and keep their brand DNA at the same time, imagine the billions that could be saved on reckless waste rolling out often unreliable charging infrastructure? Maybe then carmakers could build cars its customers wanted and make money to literally fuel the economy. Politicians would still be able to virtue signal! Win-win.

Maybe the modus operandi is to socialise transport. Poliscanova said, “Smart urban policies are also key to drive consumers towards clean and safe modes…Mayors should reduce space and parking spots for private cars and reallocate it to people and shared clean mobility services.

That is the ticket – force everyone off the road. That is a sure vote winner!

The thrill of the charge

CM has often made reference to the uselessness of EV police vehicles. The idea is that a fossil-fueled vehicle is ready to go ASAP. This radio transcript from Freemont Police in San Jose serves to highlight the biggest flaw of using EVs. When an emergency is in progress will, “sorry, in our quest to save the planet you’ll have to wait another 3 hours before we can attend to your domestic violence dispute. Bear with us. The car is on the charger” cut it?

Note the police in the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria has selected Teslas for police cars.

Yet we already have so many beta test examples to reject the use of EVs.

In 2016, the LAPD bought $10m worth of BMW i3s to show its commitment to climate abatement. Sadly, the cars went largely unused as they were unsuited for police work.

CBS reported,

LAPD Deputy Chief Jorge Villegas said of the purchase, “Money well worth itIt’s all a part of saving the Earth, going green … quite frankly, to try and save money for the community and the taxpayers.”

But sources say some personnel are reluctant to use the electric cars because they can only go 80-100 miles on a charge. And the mileage logs we obtained seem to back that up.

From April 2016 when the project started through August 2017, we found most of the electric cars have only been used for a few thousand miles…And a handful are sitting in the garage with only a few hundred on them.

One in service since May 27, 2016, had just 400 miles on it!

That’s an average use of 6 miles a week!

With the monthly lease payment of a little more than $418, this one costs taxpayers over $15 a mile to use!… It just doesn’t make any sense!”

CM one posted this question to someone from the NSW St Johns Ambulance with respect to discussions about EV ambulances. He said unequivocally,

We have Webasto heaters in our cars in the colder areas. Running off the diesel they can operate 24/7 if needed. If we don’t have them some of our equipment doesn’t work like our tympanic thermometers, the blood glucose reader and then there is the problem of having cold fluids in the car. This is a problem if we are giving them an IV because we can make a patient hypothermic if it’s cold. Then there’s just the general environment inside the cab. It needs to be warm in winter.

That is the point. Emergency services need to be able to operate on call. 5 minutes to fill up with gasoline or diesel means that efficient utilisation and dispatch is guaranteed for at least 500km+.

If end users have to weigh having their lives saved or rescue the planet, it is a no brainer which they will choose. We already know that Tesla P100Ds have done 167,000km in CO2 before they’ve left the factory. “To Protect and serve after a fast charge” should be emblazoned on the doors.

WeWorked

WeWork Financials.jpg(770×481)

WeWork has delayed the IPO. According to Zerohedge, the initial appraisal value of $47 billion appears to be entering the realm of $10 billion. This has ‘canary in the coalmine‘ written all over it. The kaleidoscope of razzle-dazzle in the free money world looks to have stopped spinning.

The company looks toxic. Most people point fingers at the co-founder Adam Neumann,  who, according to WSJ,  reportedly sold $700 million in a mixed debt and equity transaction. CM may be a contrarian, but even he sees the pre-IPO sale as somewhat suspicious. Selling part of your stock as part of an IPO is one thing. Doing it prior doesn’t pass the pub test.

How can IWG plc (better known as Regus) make profits (albeit sideways) with the same concept? 2018 IWG revenue and profit after tax increased 51% over 2014 levels. Revenue increased 13.5% since 2016, but post-tax profit slumped 24%.

WeWork seems like the Tesla of the office space world. Huge promises but the numbers are struggling to stack up. Maybe WeWPresumably, due to a combination of intensifying shared office competition, start-ups spoilt for choice or simply failing to grow.ork should leap into insurance as a way to generate cash flow like Tesla has started to do?