>but this is why I think there is something fishy going on with Tesla
Well, maybe the Nikola thing will have people asking questions and holding Tesla to the same standard.
We know, from depositions in the Solar City law suit, that the solar shingle reveal was faked and non-functional. The shingles didn't exist in that form then, and still don't (they buy panels from China, the factory in Buffalo isn't doing anything). The battery swap demo was also likely faked, as was the "Paint it Black" self-driving video from 2016 (demonstrating self-driving capabilities Tesla still doesn't have in the real world, today). Those are off the top of my head.
I’m curious about Tesla over hyping certain maturity of their tech and other things. They appear to me to dress up non-functional prototypes and make big events around them, only showing the feature in a certain, controlled environment. Sort of like a magician creating an illusion.
How many years now has Tesla claimed that full autonomous driving will be ready by the end of the year? They sell a lot of that “software” which to me appears to be vapor ware and they claim the price will rise when the tech is GA’d so you should buy now. It just seems suspicious to me.
Even the giga-factories don’t look anything like the designs they promoted. They look like, well every other car factory.
I get that they don’t advertise so they smartly generate hype in other ways.
Wasn’t Audi the first company to sell a level 3 car?
> Even the giga-factories don’t look anything like the designs they promoted. They look like, well every other car factory.
It turns out there's a reason factories look the way they do.
Much better to design the production process first and then fit a building around it than to try and fit the production process into a pre-designed building that's made too look pretty.
>Much better to design the production process first and then fit a building around it than to try and fit the production process into a pre-designed building that's made too look pretty.
What do you base this off of? What "magic" production processes are Tesla utilizing that other OEMs are not? Aren't EVs far simpler to assemble? Tesla are building some of the lowest-rated cars out there in terms of fit and finish. Why do you believe they are doing anything from that end "better" than other manufacturers?
> They appear to me to dress up non-functional prototypes and make big events around them, only showing the feature in a certain, controlled environment.
Any evidence for that? That a hell of an accusation.
Since literally the Roaster Tesla offered test rides on all of these vehicles. The Roadster 2, Cybertruck and so on all were driving around costumers all night. They were fully functional. The Tesla Semi is regularly transporting things between California and Nevada.
Now can we prove that the prototype Cybertruck could do the most hardcore rally in the world? No, but calling them non-function is just laying unless you have evidence to back it up.
> How many years now has Tesla claimed that full autonomous driving will be ready by the end of the year?
Elon is overconfident about AI, everybody knows that. If you don't believe it, don't buy it. Also the revenue they get from FSD is not actually realized unless they deliver on the features.
> Even the giga-factories don’t look anything like the designs they promoted. They look like, well every other car factory.
Elon has admired that he was wrong how easy it was to speed up production on Model 3. He took the blame for that mistake and since then they have worked and improved their production capability.
That is not a costumer features, and the reality is for no other company would you ever even get that information. For other car companies they release a press conference 'car delayed 6 month' not telling you why.
The glass broke on the Cybertruck. The course was closed as well and you couldn’t drive the vehicle. You could only be a passenger.
Their solar shingles are where?
The semi was to be in production 2 years ago. There are serious doubts it’s even viable for long haul.
The battery swap demo has never materialized and there’s doubt it is feasible.
They continue to show photos of a sleek, modern giga-factory with solar panel roofs. Meanwhile their factories look like any other car factory.
Their self driving tech has some cool demos of what the computer “sees” but there’s no evidence it’s close to being available or that it’s any better than where other companies like GM are with the tech.
I’m not trying to dump on Tesla - they’ve done a lot to push the industry forward. I’m just saying I think they generate a lot of hype but don’t deliver and they may have people confused on where they really are.
First of all, even if the glass broke. The window still worked. If it was a normal truck, the ball would have gone straight inside and killed the driver.
Its called a prototype for a reason and they have demonstrated the technology and multiple experts confirmed that this is in fact a viable technology.
> The battery swap demo has never materialized and there’s doubt it is feasible.
No there isn't. They had a working system, they demonstrated it and it was in open beta. And again, NIO has this working in China. Its literally just undoing 4 screws and let the battery fall out. I really don't understand why you feel the need to come of with a conspiracy theory on this.
The fact of the matter is that its a system that is simply not needed for 99.9% of situations and makes no operational sense for Tesla.
It is technologically clearly feasible but it operational impractical.
> They continue to show photos of a sleek, modern giga-factory with solar panel roofs. Meanwhile their factories look like any other car factory.
They are car factories? And they are modern looking. I don't understand what your problem is. They are very modern factories if you actually study what goes on in them. You just want them to put more solar cells on them? Is that your issue?
I really don't get what you complain about. The factories they build are being built very fast, and the have very good ROI if you look at their operational leverage. So they do exactly what Tesla says they do.
> Their self driving tech has some cool demos of what the computer “sees” but there’s no evidence it’s close to being available or that it’s any better than where other companies like GM are with the tech.
If you actually believe GM is just as far as Tesla then you haven't use those systems. They are clearly not.
> I’m not trying to dump on Tesla - they’ve done a lot to push the industry forward. I’m just saying I think they generate a lot of hype but don’t deliver and they may have people confused on where they really are.
It seem like you are nip-picking everything Tesla ever did wrong or not perfect and add some conspiracy stuff on top and ignoring everything they have delivered on.
That they delivered the Model Y early with excellent margin and low additional CapX. That they build up Giga Shanghai as fast as they did within a month are gone deliver Model Y from there. That they have managed to be profitable while they are still scaling and building factories like crazy. That they survived Covid with flying colors.
A lot of technology demos are bullshit. That's why I respect Apple so much, 99% of the time what they demo is actual working products they launch. This is why I avoid technology kick-starters and pre-orders like the plague. The last time I got suckered into a tech pre-order was the Lilly drone and I managed to shake off their spell and get a refund while they were still in their halo phase and had money to refund people.
Personally, I think the DOJ should get more involved in technology pre-sales and prosecute more aggressively. Pre-selling products you can't produce should be considered fraud.
The big and obvious difference between Tesla and Nikola is Tesla ships products and has been for years. Not only that, Tesla customers love the cars Tesla ships. Musk makes some exaggerated claims—and some truly egregious time line estimates—but usually ships. I tend to agree with you about the up-charge for FSD though. Definitely a bit of a shell game and moving goal-posts.
Why do you think the battery swap was faked? Changing the battery is not particularly difficult and the did have shortly after have a battery swap station open to select members of the public.
I think the battery swap program was somewhat legit. The demo was live in front of a fairly big audience. They also offered the service to a small group of people and some documented the process (and weren't particularly excited by it). The station they set up wasn't automated and took about 7 minutes instead of the the 90 seconds they previewed in the tech demo.
I suspect the battery swap idea was a response to the criticism about charge times. Since most Tesla users at that time used either free supercharger stations or charged at home, the appeal of for-fee battery swaps was likely limited.
Fully agree, which is why I pointed out the station fell short of their demo in my post.
I just don't see it as being deceptive in the way rolling a truck down a hill and suggesting it's operational is. Or at the very least, we're missing the smoking gun. Perhaps it is and someone who worked at Tesla or the blogger who posted about going to the station will come out and admit it was a big fake-eroo.
Finding the hill they pushed the truck down is pretty damning IMO in a way suspicions about Tesla's tech demo aren't.
Well, maybe the Nikola thing will have people asking questions and holding Tesla to the same standard.
We know, from depositions in the Solar City law suit, that the solar shingle reveal was faked and non-functional. The shingles didn't exist in that form then, and still don't (they buy panels from China, the factory in Buffalo isn't doing anything). The battery swap demo was also likely faked, as was the "Paint it Black" self-driving video from 2016 (demonstrating self-driving capabilities Tesla still doesn't have in the real world, today). Those are off the top of my head.