Is this thread going to attract every short shill? Why would shorts represent themselves as "Teslainvestors" when owning shorts is not investing in the stock, especially not shorting and then trying to spread FUD- part of why shorting needs to be illegal. Someone bets their neighbors house won't burn down then they go and burn it down and then collect on it.
AAA conflict of interest on "EV Cold Weather study"- study not credible
- Thread starter 101101
- Start date
- Replies 67
- Views 9K
Ok Bob,
It is such a BS claim in that article but every shill is in on it. Tesla's have been massively popular in Scandinavia because they can handle Sweden's -30 weather. But supposedly because BMW an company from cold weather Germany can't make an cold weather EV not Tesla is supposed to have a problem with it. And because parked BMW were spontaneously combusting there was this sill medial push presumably by BMW to say Tesla's had problems with fires. And now there is this push because again BMW have huge problems with demand because of Tesla saying that Tesla has a demand problem while BMW lies about its actual stats and must be somehow lying about its revenue which given its own Diesel Gate wouldn't be the first time. I haven't seen these cross overs in SoCal BMW keeps saying is making up for its losses.
Again this is Goebbles press manual stuff pitch your competitors strengths as weaknesses and you weaknesses as your competitors and repeat over and over again. So lets recap:
1. BMWs catching fires facing global injunctions- BMW pays media to say Tesla's have problem with
fire?
2. BMWs have problem in cold- BMW pays media to say Tesla's have problem in cold?
3. BMWs has a demand problem because of Tesla, BMW pays media to say Tesla has the demand
problem?
4. BMW insurance going up because of things like fires run all sorts of FUD on Tesla's superior safety
and try to talk insurers like AAA into raising rates on Teslas?
6. BMW caught lies about its emissions?
7. When it gets caught it is refusing to pay its reparations?
8. BMW is dirty pays media to say EVs including Tesla are dirty?
Say this needs proof- not really who would spend for that- BMW shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt. And Tesla should look at this because it could run some real stories on BMW if it caught it and inflict even more financial pain on the firm. Wonder if this might have been why Trump was talking about trying to bar German Luxury cars in the US- never understood that. No company has ever damaged BMW like Tesla since WWII- hope it drives it into bankruptcy because BMW isn't changing.
It is such a BS claim in that article but every shill is in on it. Tesla's have been massively popular in Scandinavia because they can handle Sweden's -30 weather. But supposedly because BMW an company from cold weather Germany can't make an cold weather EV not Tesla is supposed to have a problem with it. And because parked BMW were spontaneously combusting there was this sill medial push presumably by BMW to say Tesla's had problems with fires. And now there is this push because again BMW have huge problems with demand because of Tesla saying that Tesla has a demand problem while BMW lies about its actual stats and must be somehow lying about its revenue which given its own Diesel Gate wouldn't be the first time. I haven't seen these cross overs in SoCal BMW keeps saying is making up for its losses.
Again this is Goebbles press manual stuff pitch your competitors strengths as weaknesses and you weaknesses as your competitors and repeat over and over again. So lets recap:
1. BMWs catching fires facing global injunctions- BMW pays media to say Tesla's have problem with
fire?
2. BMWs have problem in cold- BMW pays media to say Tesla's have problem in cold?
3. BMWs has a demand problem because of Tesla, BMW pays media to say Tesla has the demand
problem?
4. BMW insurance going up because of things like fires run all sorts of FUD on Tesla's superior safety
and try to talk insurers like AAA into raising rates on Teslas?
6. BMW caught lies about its emissions?
7. When it gets caught it is refusing to pay its reparations?
8. BMW is dirty pays media to say EVs including Tesla are dirty?
Say this needs proof- not really who would spend for that- BMW shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt. And Tesla should look at this because it could run some real stories on BMW if it caught it and inflict even more financial pain on the firm. Wonder if this might have been why Trump was talking about trying to bar German Luxury cars in the US- never understood that. No company has ever damaged BMW like Tesla since WWII- hope it drives it into bankruptcy because BMW isn't changing.
ron in new mexico
Member
Just venturing a guess here, of course I am guessing. But the US announcement of the Trump administration plan of increasing the tariff by 25% on EU cars imported on my news feed, came directly after the EU failed to follow the US lead on withdrawing from their collective agreement with Iran. Two things of course happening at roughly the same time may be connected and due to same cause, but then again they may not.
My guess is they are directly. I guess again and price range being similar, that would have to help tesla. Getting their Chinese production on line to evade Chinese tariff is of course much more key to tesla. They are increased in cost enormously by thatin china.
Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
Many car testing magazines and other such organizations give long-term driving reports about one single car. This is common practice by such organizations as Consumer Reports and Edmunds.com.
The problem is you seem to be trying to hold such testing to the same rigorous standards as peer reviewed science experiments. Nobody is claiming this comparison was done at that level of rigor.
Readers should always engage in critical thinking. One thing we should always consider when reading about a study is the rigor, or lack thereof, of the testing method. When there are no details given about the methodology of tests or surveys, then we should always treat the results with a great deal of skepticism.
Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
What lie?
I've seen a great deal made over this statistic from EV-hater sources. I have yet to see any article with a rigorous logical examination of the issue. The problem, so far as I can see, isn't that Tesla misrepresented anything; it's that various reporters reporting on the subject failed to exercise critical thinking about what the statistic actually shows, and jumped to false conclusions. That certainly isn't the fault of Tesla!
Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
You're holding up Consumer Reports as the "gold standard" for automobile testing?
Well, I'm certainly here to dispute that. CR, as shown by its erratic, apparently arbitrary and often contradictory, ratings for Tesla cars, shows pretty clearly that their car rating division isn't up to the job. I've seen many others on EV forums express similar opinions, contrary to your assertion that "few dispute".
I've noticed the same thing for high-end audio equipment. CR was absolutely useless when it came to buying a high-end sound system for my home theatre. CR was fine for rating reliability, but hopeless when it comes to such things as sound fidelity and dynamic range. I don't really care if speakers last a lifetime if they aren't good enough to come close to reproducing the experience of being in a concert auditorium!
But back to rating cars, here is how bad CR's rating system has been:
For 2016, CR gives the Model S85 a "Poor" rating despite the fact that of all the categories in which the car is rated, there is only one single "Fair" and all the other ratings are "Good" or better. And now that I look at it closer, their rating for the 2013 model year looks to be almost as skewed.
So, if you think that CR's rating system is so good, please do explain how they can give a car an overall rating which is so completely at variance from the average rating it got in the various categories which the overall rating is supposedly based upon!
I have no doubt that CR does a good job at rating such things as dishwashers, office staplers, and rubber gloves. But when it comes to rating cars, they should leave that kind of thing to the experts at Edmunds.com.
Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
No, but I certainly do recognize when someone is asserting his opinion as fact.
I'm also familiar with formal logic, and recognize the fallacy of a "complex question" when I see one.... for example, the assertion masquerading as a question quoted just above.
Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
I completely agree. The EPA range ratings for EVs should be a chart, showing the estimated ranges at various speeds. It should be made clear to potential buyers that the range at faster highway speeds is significantly lower than the range at lower speeds.
As far as the loss in cold weather driving, well that's a real can of worms. How much range is loss is highly variable, based on many factors: How long the drive is, how much the cabin heater is used, and just as significantly, whether the car was pre-conditioned by warming it up while still plugged in.
As others have observed, the biggest range loss in very cold weather is when a car is used for multiple trips in the same day, left sitting outside in the cold for hours between trips.
Trying to sum up that many different factors on a single chart, or the number of charts one could reasonably fit onto a window sticker, would be impossible.
I remember a report from when the Model S was new; a driver in Norway reported only 20% range loss in winter. I presume he was pre-conditioning his car, and likely didn't leave it sitting out in the cold for long before returning home.
Contrariwise, some Model 3 drivers, during the record-setting so-called "polar vortex" conditions experienced recently in the U.S., have reported over 40% range loss; some up to nearly 50%. Again, trying to sum up all that on a single chart, or even a small series of charts, would be impossible.
It's good that AAA is raising awareness about EV ranges, and the fact that significant range loss is to be expected in very cold conditions. I think the value of that far exceeds any claimed lack of rigor in their testing methodology. People seriously considering buying a BEV should have a realistic idea about the car's range. For those living outside the balmy climate of Southern California or Florida, that should include performance in very cold conditions.
Or to put it another way: Those living outside balmy climates considering buying a BEV should be made aware that when considering the minimum range they will need for the car, the EPA range ratings should be reduced by perhaps 40%, assuming they want to be able to use the car year-round in all weather conditions.
A Prius owner since 2005, we dropped our Consumer Reports subscription in 2012:
Bob Wilson
- Abysmal MPG metrics that had no relationship to what we were getting.
- Consistent anti-Prius snark in their reviews.
- Support of "Bell the Hybrid" without doing their own analysis.
- Totally snookered by the "Unintended Acceleration" fraud.
Bob Wilson
ron in new mexico
Member
Time to get real here folks. Yes CR I have not bought them at all for years did not even check prior to buying my last new car, why bother?
Testing reliability wise it is all survey. Nissan I know uses that for all new car buys internally. You receive a questionnaire I guess most all of them do but can attest to them doing that. I use CR JD powers to show that is how they do things not to say I endorse their site. Of course you are playing at straw man, you as well know the industry studies reliability in this fashion, have to.
So done with that this is not survey. Do all of them also do road test and this and that sure, but that is not reliability as focus. Some even do long term road test it is common. But that again is not a real on reliability of brand overall. Just a snapshot.
So all that BS aside a real world test of the new KIA EV I saw on redline a youtube review site, just last week. Which means it is out there and any reviewer under the sun could test it real world in cold. A new one not a beat up who knows not state of the art old one. And about every other you tube reviewer is doing mileage tests in real world applications
But they are not doing that AAA and CR.
They could.
Why not? New car real world cold polar vortex, and some shmuck on you tube is doing it.
I know exactly why not. That you do not is not my concern.
You want science this AAA thing is not science. You want not science real world review, it is but a borrow away and a ride away and they are not doing it when easily they could.
Case closed.
I have bothered to study it now 2 days on this plainly reaks to high heaven of agenda. Play wack a mole elsewhere please it just deviates from the subject matter which is not that but EV range in cold.
Time to man up...this AAA thing stinks to high heaven. Really anyone with half a brain and who bothers to look at this thing can know that as fact.
Testing reliability wise it is all survey. Nissan I know uses that for all new car buys internally. You receive a questionnaire I guess most all of them do but can attest to them doing that. I use CR JD powers to show that is how they do things not to say I endorse their site. Of course you are playing at straw man, you as well know the industry studies reliability in this fashion, have to.
So done with that this is not survey. Do all of them also do road test and this and that sure, but that is not reliability as focus. Some even do long term road test it is common. But that again is not a real on reliability of brand overall. Just a snapshot.
So all that BS aside a real world test of the new KIA EV I saw on redline a youtube review site, just last week. Which means it is out there and any reviewer under the sun could test it real world in cold. A new one not a beat up who knows not state of the art old one. And about every other you tube reviewer is doing mileage tests in real world applications
But they are not doing that AAA and CR.
They could.
Why not? New car real world cold polar vortex, and some shmuck on you tube is doing it.
I know exactly why not. That you do not is not my concern.
You want science this AAA thing is not science. You want not science real world review, it is but a borrow away and a ride away and they are not doing it when easily they could.
Case closed.
I have bothered to study it now 2 days on this plainly reaks to high heaven of agenda. Play wack a mole elsewhere please it just deviates from the subject matter which is not that but EV range in cold.
Time to man up...this AAA thing stinks to high heaven. Really anyone with half a brain and who bothers to look at this thing can know that as fact.
Last edited:
TeslaInvestors
Active Member
Huge difference. You can go prove that shorts are burning down the house, so they will be prosecuted.
But if the house has fire burning inside or was made on the top of a volcano, then don't blame the shorts for making money by betting the house WILL burn down someday.
Your commetn shows you don't know jack about shorting.
if you like, I can ask mods to change my name to "-TeslaInvestors", since I am minus TSLA shares many times.
Say hello to subsidies from foolish Scandinavian governments! For promotign a technology that is least efficient in cold weather.
In contrast, there appears to be a lot of happy customers bringing great wads of cash:
To believe Tesla is doomed, you have to ignore their eager customers.
Bob Wilson
Last edited:
Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
If you want to actually be honest (perish the thought!
), then it should be "TeslaShorter".Real investors buy stocks. Shorters like you only borrow them.
If the "house" was really going to "burn down", then you wouldn't have to constantly lie about it. Nor would so many Tesla shorters be so busily engaged in spewing out so much smoke that it puts coal-rollers to shame, in the hope someone will believe them when they yell "Fire!"
Last edited:
ron in new mexico
Member
That stated is simply not true.If you want to actually be honest (perish the thought!
Real investors buy stocks. Shorters like you only borrow them.
This from Investopedia a encyclopedic type site found on line which explains things for novice investors...
"
Short Selling Summary
Short selling occurs when an investor borrows a security, sells it on the open market and expects to buy it back later at a cheaper price. Short sellers may be hoping to profit from the decline in price or their goal could be to hedge their risk in a related security or asset class. Short selling stocks requires a margin account and usually incurs interest charges based on the value of the stock that is held short."
Investor is the proper term used.
Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
Last edited by a moderator:
Someone who makes a profit by selling stock to a BULL and then buying cheaper stock when a former BULL sells it at a loss ... the SHORT player's profit. It only works if there is frequent change in the stock value and a pattern the SHORT can play to buy low, sell high, and keep the float going.
The rules of the game:
- Tesla executives - forbidden to make any statement that might lead to stock price manipulation. Confirmed as intent by selling stock at a high price and buying at a low, there are legal ramifications to such communications. Happily, they are allowed to make products and sell them, a powerful edge. Always buying company stock is a shield against SEC prosecution.
- SHORT players - free to make any statement to hurt the value of the stock ... to make it cheaper. The irony is they are also free to make any statement that boosts the value when the want to prime the BULL pool. They really don't care about the company, its products, or future as long as the stock value vacillates. They are milking a teat filled by a BULL purchase.
Now I'm a BULL on TSLA stock because I think Elon has cracked the code:
- Superior product - Tesla cars never cease to delight their buyers. Each has improved performance and quality with the Model 3 being their latest.
- Constant improvement - Tesla continues to refine everything from design through support. Lots of lessons learned which has shown Elon is a quick study.
Bob Wilson
ron in new mexico
Member
Not directed to me but agree completely. Tesla by chart indicates a very strict range which is not excepted since about mid 2017.
Little would recommend a break down chart wise below these perameters. If anything a uptick based again just on chart seems indicated. I really do not follow tesla the company very much at all but have reviewed the chart.
On the stock itself they are taking a enormous tariff hit on tesla in China. Elon has quite the cache there. If and when they get their plant up and running they will evade many of add ons to price now found. China not the US is now the largest buyer of luxury cars. By my unprofessional read that could be simply enormous for the company.
I don't know, as stated I do not follow them. But if a thing like that hit, with a chart like this, that has breakthrough and short squeeze written all over it. It could get ugly...for the shorts. To the inverse any untoward obstacle will also drop the stock.
I must qualify any of my statements, except for the chart, as what I have heard. I cannot personally vouch for any of this information on the company.
Last edited:
Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
Yes, indeed. Tesla certainly underestimated how difficult it would be for them to sell cars in China, due to red tape, China's centuries-long cultural hostility towards foreigners engaging in trade on their soil (perhaps the primary cause of the Opium Wars of the 1800s, at least according to some historians), and major cultural differences, perhaps the most important of which is petty Chinese officials expecting to be continually flattered and bribed. Tesla's sales remain far short of the percentage of global sales that they originally expected.
But the Shanghai Gigafactory will, we hope (fingers crossed!) turn all that around. GM's biggest market is now China, and that could become the case for Tesla, too.
ron in new mexico
Member
I find no evidence of this....."perhaps the most important of which is petty Chinese officials expecting to be continually flattered and bribed."
During colonial expansion the cultures of others intended to be colonized were often subject to such slander. They were degraded so as to justify expansion on a moral basis. The thinking was then we have right as they are inferior.
Please show some source on this so it may be properly qualified.
This then is part of the culture..."and major cultural differences, perhaps the most important of which is petty Chinese officials expecting to be continually flattered and bribed." ?
I find that a odd statement to make. Please do elaborate.
Last edited:
TeslaInvestors
Active Member
There are many others in this forum who are more interested in a discussion than personal attack.
But he has a point. In this case, I agree my name could be "teslaShorter", although generally (and technically) I am also an investor in TSLA.
People here seem to think that shorting a share somehow has to be "bad". It is not. it is just an investment technique.
Many times, short sellers shine light on the dark parts. Just today Tesla shorty force found over 10k inventory model 3, that the Tesla shills and bulls claim "do not exist", "every car made is sold", etc. etc. So, they are doing a great sluthign work.
Is there never a misuse? Sure. Same is true for long side also. Just listen to the gibberish of the sell side analysts on TV.
But he has a point. In this case, I agree my name could be "teslaShorter", although generally (and technically) I am also an investor in TSLA.
People here seem to think that shorting a share somehow has to be "bad". It is not. it is just an investment technique.
Many times, short sellers shine light on the dark parts. Just today Tesla shorty force found over 10k inventory model 3, that the Tesla shills and bulls claim "do not exist", "every car made is sold", etc. etc. So, they are doing a great sluthign work.
Is there never a misuse? Sure. Same is true for long side also. Just listen to the gibberish of the sell side analysts on TV.
Last edited by a moderator: