7500 employees, raised $10.5B, filing for an IPO with a valuation that would place them as 6th most valuable car manufacturer - 0 vehicles sold.. this doesn’t seem right. Some would call this a scam, for some its a bubble, but it’s definitely out of any reasonable bounds of how the game should be played.
Tesla sales already cars, sure, but they also oversell a future that at the moment cannot deliver (Semi, Cybertruck, Roadster, robotaxis). The whole point of jumping early in an IPO is to sell this future promise.
Neither Tesla, nor Rivian are doing something wrong if people believe their narrative and invest in such a future.
The difference is that the future Tesla promised came just not on the timeline Tesla promised. I have high confidence that Semi, Cybertruck, Roadster, and Robotaxis will be here as promised, just not on the promised time.
Rivian, on the other hand, has not met the promised future on any timeline yet. Perhaps they will, but their past experience does not leave me with such high confidence.
Well then you’d agree that Tesla’s current stock price is completely fine, just that the timing is off and should be what it is today in 20 years time when all cars sold on earth are Teslas
I think theres something else going on here, it's a bet that traditional car manufacturers cannot make the full shift to electronic vehicles. Tesla should not have been able to capture the market like they did.
They haven't captured the market. It's a highly competitive market even if one currently has a shrinking majority headed toward a plurality. Other manufactures are collectively catching up in sales.
It just doesn’t make any sense in the context that the stock market is supposed to be efficient.
This kind of “going public” setup seems ridiculous. It’s like there’s a room behind the curtain with some kind of money laundering or backhanded deals being brokered and the company itself is just a ‘front’ to look busy.
The car market is quite a interesting place nowadays, according to the old lore - the streets would be filled with Tesla killers long ago and Tesla would if possible be bankrupt several times over by now.
-This was the general market sentiment only 3-4 years ago, and had at that time prevailed for quite some time.
With the latest estimated Q3 production numbers for Tesla they will now have a 1 million annualized rate of car production and it will be growing annually at around 50% for many years to come.
(FYI : The numbers came out, real number is 950' annualized.)
I'm sure there is a place for Rivian if they can execute,- I will not argue that the price of Rivian is right, but I would interject that the marketplace is shifting and dramatically so.
The most reasonable argument is that the stock market does not view the automotive incumbents as competitive against new electric car companies and this shows in the valuation.
The old auto companies have not innovated, and now they are being out innovated. Their market share are in free fall and there is a lot of possibility for startups to grab a share of the market.
Here's the latest from Germany;
Translated quote from VW Brand CEO Ralf Brandstätter;
'It is urgently necessary that a new course is set in Wolfsburg. Future competition with Tesla's new Gigafactory will be brutal. The electric car pioneer sets new standards in car production.. ..For example, a Model 3 is built in 10 hours, more than 3 times as fast as a VW ID.3 in Zwickau. This puts Tesla in another dimension in terms of productivity and profitability'
(The ID series of cars were the supposedly Tesla Killers from VW)
> For example, a Model 3 is built in 10 hours, more than 3 times as fast as a VW ID.3 in Zwickau.
That would explain the panel gaps.
On a more serious note, where I think Tesla is way above the other (old) manufacturers is in software, the Germans especially have treated the software as something extrinsic to building a car until now (for good reason, given the circumstances) but this has changed once EVs came into play, you have to have top-notch software developers and top-notch software execution in order to get everything out of a car battery.
The stock market is theoretically supposed to be efficient, but these days plenty of individual investors are about "the mission" of companies like Tesla, throwing money at shares regardless of any fundamental analysis. I'd imagine Rivian will attract plenty of similar investors, and it'd be kind of silly for Rivian not to take advantage of that opportunity to raise easy money.
Agree. There’s so much money floating around that companies can be brought public with essentially all future possible growth priced into the offering at a very high success. It’s as though everyone assumes every bet is going to come out the most profitable way. No room for error nor even learning process in the valuation.
Why do you think it is? I feel like investors are pretty smart and surely understand that these companies are not worth all this.
I see what you mean about money floating around. But does it ever reach a point where there is a common sense counter-weight that maybe the latest pets.com is not worth the GDP of a small country.
I know a couple that retired to Miami recently. They know that climate change is real. They think Miami will be decimated by rising oceans at some point. They just don’t think it’ll be while they’re still around, so what do they care?
I think Tesla’s stock is overvalued but I’ve momentum traded it a couple of times (especially when Elon’s tweets seem upbeat a couple of days before earnings are announced). Sure I think I’m buying at inflated prices but I’m guessing I can sell at even more inflated prices.
> They just don’t think it’ll be while they’re still around, so what do they care?
Ah yes .. the oblivion>reality optimisation the modern world has been gifted. Never ceases to create interesting use cases.
You're smarter than me with trading/finance. I cannot educe much sense from any of it these days - and don't have the kahunas to trade on vibe.
Weirdly, my only finance buddy (buys shares for super companies) actually cautiously observes a company's history and their management before investing in stocks. Maybe that'll become the move again once the asset bubble collpases.
Lucid: Producing cars, no charging network, can they scale?
Rivian: Producing cars, no charging network can they scale?
Big Auto: Producing cars, no charging network, have scale for everything but batteries.
Tesla: Producing cars, scaling including battery production, MAY be able to live up to their valuation, have charging network
So the EV IPOs are IPO'ing to be inferior peers to Big Auto.
And waiting in the wings are the chinese EV manufacturers. At some point they'll invade the US, especially if LFP chemistry hits 200 wh/kg which they have in labs but not in production.
Remember that for cheaper cars, Big auto loses money. The ICE drivetrain is already unprofitable for Big Auto for the historical consumer format, which is why everything is SUV these days.
EVs have the potential to deliver a car whose drivetrain is half the cost of an ICE, once batteries get cheap enough. LFP 200 wh/kg basically guarantees a substantial cost advantage of a consumer EV platform over ICEs that ICEs can't overcome, especially given the low-end torque advantages of the driving experience.
The 200 wh/kg enables a profitable small EV car. Big Auto won't fight that, and the startups won't either, because they are obsessed with SUVs.
The Chinese are basically all-in on LFP, because their market is super small cheap LFP cars. Once the density scales the practical use of LFP to US sized cars (Tesla Model 3s, which are small sedans and not really US-SUV platforms are already LFP) then there will be invasions.
At least Rivian has Bezos as a backstop, in Bezos's strange quixotic quest to produce companies that are close to but fundamentally inferior to Musk's, and Amazon as a vendor for the van platform.
To me, the big future in automotive is the mobile home. With housing costs exploding due to constrained supply, and a generation fundamentally economically disenfranchised, and with the convergence of broadband 5G/starlink, solar, batteries, and self-driving (at least on highways), the value proposition to young people for a mobile apartment is strong. I think it will start replacing the apartment as the preferred choice out of college. I mean, why cohabitate with four people in a cramped apartment when you can have your own mobile van that drives you to work if you have to, or drives you anywhere else you want to if you don't have to? Drops you off in an urban area and drives off to a cheap/free place to park, picks you up when you need it? Plus with the e-bike revolution for super flexible urbun and suburban mobility...
5bedroom, 3bathroom, powered by four electric motors, can generate enough electricity through solar to power appliances, 150 mile range. I don’t think I want to live in that future.
Some automakers have partnered with them with charging credits. Electrify America chargers are very unreliable. I would not depend on one on a long trip.
In this case we are just witnessing the dot-com period of electric vehicles. Everbody and their grandma wants to place bold bets on a few companies. It's (hopefully) clear to investors that most of these bets will fail but then again a few might pay off really well.
Is that a speculative or declarative claim you are making? The word "should" in your post implies... that it hasn't happened yet. Do you have a source?
First deliveries have been made to employees, first "real" customers will be in november and they are required to hit their initial Amazon requirement by December.
I think the concern is that they've delivered zero vehicles (but even then as you say, with the caveat that they've delivered to employees).
I haven't been following Rivian closely, but I was quite impressed by their PR event with Youtube folks recently https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGqexebCcUo - it definitely seems like a real, capable vehicle. Add to that their orders from Amazon (and presumably others at some point), and it seems like a plausible company.
Now, whether they have the margins and cash reserves to handle volatile markets / logistical concerns to survive long enough to become a long-term player, I'm not sure.
Finally something that is not a straight scam (in my opinion).
I know folks are saying Trevor and Nikola Motors have some sort of ground breaking hydrogen tech - but some of these other folks, despite their market caps, seem like so much trash and hype.
Not sure these folks will turn out better, but at least there seems to be something of some substance here from folks with some experience.
Pretty sure the Nikola debate has been settled on the side of “it’s a near total scam”. After the report about the video of their truck driving really being it rolling down a hill and the camera was tilted.
> I know folks are saying Trevor and Nikola Motors have some sort of ground breaking hydrogen tech
So, they have "ground breaking tech" in a dead-end technology then? The energy losses required to power vehicles with hydrogen are much greater than losses with electric batteries (there was a recent article on HN that really drove this point home for me). Seems like the only folks pushing hydrogen these days are folks that made bets on what turned out to be the wrong tech (cough, cough, Toyota).
My opinion is that long-haul trucking is pretty much the only application where Hydrogen propulsion could make sense: Refueling infra only needs to cover truck stops (much more geographically consolidated compared to passenger cars). Autonomous driving tech would made it possible to run 24x7 (given recent advances, this is no longer a pipe dream), so BEV long recharge times would eat into uptime, but H2 refill won't (compared to diesel). Heck, if some kind of ICE could support flexible H2/LPG/CNG fuel, it's still gonna be much better than diesel + DEF.
BEV is perfect for trucking - you’re sleeping on the road. Just have to be sure to have enough spots at Love’s or TA. The market will work that part out.
I like hydrogen. The idea that every personal vehicle should have 1000 pounds of lithium-cobalt-etc is crazy to me, that's before getting into super-trucks and 18 wheelers, then not to mention aircraft and cargo ships.
> Modern vehicle weigh multiple tons, what's a half-ton battery really matter?
The Tesla Model S weights about 2100kg.
The Tesla Model S battery weights about 540kg.
This means that a 1500kg car is forced to pack an additional 540kg to be able to store energy. That's an additional 30% of the mass that you need to accelerate and brake.
People do care about that. In the very least, the battery mass is responsible for an effective drop in energy efficiency of around 30% just to cart someone around.
> Finally, electric cars charge at ~96% efficiency, while hydrogen is something like 40%. I, for one, am not interested in paying 3x per mile.
This claim has little substance and credibility. For starters, if you factor in how much additional energy you need to waste just to pack along a massive half ton battery, you'll eventually realize that the effective energy waste of a EV is not much different than the hydrogen one.
I mean, the point of a EV is not to have it parked on the driveway, charge a battery, and proceed to boast about how that was very efficient. Your goal is to move around, and moving that massive half ton beast of a battery along with you wastes a lot of energy too.
Also, battery efficiency is around 80%, which naively sounds a far improvement over fuel cell's lauded 40% efficiency. However, a Li-Ion battery weights half a ton and represents around 1/3 of a EV's mass, which also requires energy to be moved around. For reference the fuel cell of a Toyota Mirai is only 40kg, less than the weight of an adult passenger. Once you do your math you'll quickly notice the effective energy use is not that different.
And then there's the cost argument. The typical back-of-the-napkin figure for how much EVs cost to run is around 500€/year. Even if you bump that up to twice the cost, that price is eclipsed by the huge markup that you're already paying for an EV. I mean, a Tesla Model S costs about a century worth of energy bills before it even gets it's tires dirty.
Playing the frugality card with the current batch of EVs lacks any credibility and is, at best, being penny wise and pound foolish.
> This means that a 1500kg car is forced to pack an additional 540kg to be able to store energy.
I think this is the wrong angle to look at the issue.
A 2100kg EV requires 25% of its total mass to support the energy storage, generation and transfer in order to provide a range and performance profile people are generally happy with.
What is the fraction for a new ICE vehicle with similar profile? The combustion engine weighs... how much? Then add the weight of a 60% full fuel tank to allow for roughly the average deadweight haul between refills. Then include the weight of the exhaust system.
And finally, we have to include the weight of the drivetrain. How much of the total weight in an ICE is dedicated to power transfer from engine to wheels? How much in a modern EV?
Energy storage and generation is only a part of the picture, getting it to the wheels is what makes a car actually perform its function. We should include these numbers to get a meaningful comparison.
> Finally, electric cars charge at ~96% efficiency, while hydrogen is something like 40%.
>> This claim has little substance and credibility.
The efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles versus battery vehicles is considered in some detail in this video [1]. The conclusion [2] is that, in the best case, the energy efficiency from power generation to road for existing or near future hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is about 25%, compared to about 65% for typical existing battery vehicles.
> In the very least, the battery mass is responsible for an effective drop in energy efficiency of around 30% just to cart someone around.
It's not nearly as simple as that because electric cars have regenerative braking, and because the energy doesn't all go into acceleration. A lot (probably most, depending on how you drive) goes into wind/rolling resistance at a constant speed and that doesn't depend much on mass.
It's not a good idea to conjecture and argue from total ignorance. There are commonly used battery chemistries, such as LiFePO4/graphite, that simply do not use any scarce resources.
Other materials are mildly better and not too scarce. Tesla is moving some of it's production to LFP, but that's probably mostly because they want to scale up production faster than nickel mining can scale.
Lithium is not a scarce resource. This is pretty obvious because when looking at commodity prices lithium is measured in $/metric ton rather than actually scarce elements like gold where the price is in $/troy ounce.
> The idea that every personal vehicle should have 1000 pounds of lithium-cobalt-etc is crazy to me
Whether it seems crazy is evidence of unfamiliarity, not whether it is actually crazy. Is it really any crazier that continually pumping every car with juice made from literal fossils?
At least the battery is continually reusable — and at the end of its useful life, over 90% recyclable.
They can be almost 100% reused. In fact, given how valuable the metals are it would be cheaper to do so than mine for them . There are multiple companies working on this. E.g. https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/
I was hoping we’d just make synthetic gasoline from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Wouldn’t require changing any infrastructure at all. Just make gibs of it using renewables. It sounds good in theory anyway.
One of the nice aspects of electric cars is going to be eliminating city polution and reducing road noise.
I have no idea what the CO2 impact would be and don't really care that much ("cutting CO2 will reset the climate to some state we like" sounds like wishful thinking and most of the talk in this space is ideologically coloured I don't even want to pay attention) but the improvement in urban living is going to be undeniable.
> but the improvement in urban living is going to be undeniable.
When the pandemic arrived here back in March 2020, and nearly everyone suddenly stopped leaving their home, it was eerie: the air where I live (in the middle of a major urban area) suddenly smelled as if I was in a rural area. It was something I wasn't expecting to see so soon; I have for a long time been rooting for EVs to arrive and make the air quality better, but unfortunately EVs are simply way too expensive yet (so far, I only have seen an EV once, and it was an i3 with a range extender; and I do live in a major metropolitan area).
aside from accelerating at stoplights, electric cars and gas cars make similar noise levels just from the rubber against the road. rubber is a significant pollutant as well, as is brake dust.
Don’t get me wrong, electric is much better, i’m only nitpicking since you said “eliminating”
Brake dust is much less of an issue with electrics too, but agreed that tires are still a factor. But as someone who lived in urban centers for the majority of his life - I think getting down to tires being the major issue is solving the majority of the problem.
> So, they have "ground breaking tech" in a dead-end technology then? The energy losses required to power vehicles with hydrogen are much greater than losses with electric batteries (there was a recent article on HN that really drove this point home for me).
These comments show a failure to understand what does hydrogen mean and why did it popped up as an alternative to ICEs to begin with.
Hydrogen is presented as an alternative energy store that is clean, renewable, and can leverage existing infrastructure and, perhaps more importantly, consumer patterns and mental models, with little to no change.
Energy efficiency is not a concern with hydrogen, or even a relevant talking point, because the promise of being able to generate it through renewable sources means it has no implication on its carbon footprint or even pollution. Also, it was a topic that was actively being researched and thus, much like photovoltaic panels, its efficiency was likely to go up.
We also need to keep in mind that hydrogen was closest to production and mass adoption a few years ago, and we need to remind ourselves that not so long ago the idea of widespread supercharger stations and affordable electric batteries with enough storage to power a small family car was very close to a pipe dream.
In my opinion, the only reason hydrogen why hydrogen hasn't been mass adopted was the colossal investment in marketing and R&D that a few private companies made in electric vehicles in general and Li-Ion batteries in particular. In the future we might very well look back at hydrogen in a similar way that a few years ago, when ICEs were the only game in town, we looked at the EVs from the late 19th/early 20th century and we wondered why were we so close but still missed the boat.
Energy efficiency is important relative to other distribution methods. If the efficiency is half that of electric, you can power half the cars you could with electric with existing energy supplies. Obviously that is incredibly important - energy supplies will always be finite and fully utilised.
A few places have tried to build a hydrogen network with. Metal embrittlement is a real problem and storage is not straightforward, even after you've produced it.
Hydrogen hasn't been adopted because it is expensive, dangerous, difficult to store and not as efficient as electric. With advances in batteries in the last few years it is definitely on the way out and electric is the clear winner here.
> Energy efficiency is important relative to other distribution methods.
The point is that energy efficiency is only one factor among all other. For example, it makes little difference if you blindly tag a 80% efficiency tag on a EV if afterwards you have to waste twice the energy to cart along a massive battery.
> If the efficiency is half that of electric, you can power half the cars you could with electric with existing energy supplies.
The point that you're missing is that said cars are also far heavier (the battery on a Tesla Model S weighs half a ton alone which contrasts with Toyota Mirai's 40kg fuel cell), which requires far more energy to move around. What matters is how much energy you actually waste while driving, because that's where all the energy is going.
> Hydrogen hasn't been adopted because it is expensive, dangerous, difficult to store and not as efficient as electric.
I disagree with any of those points, specially as some of them like the safety scaremongering are far-fetched, as they aren't really grounded on the real world.
The critical difference between EVs and hydrogen was that EVs benefitted from a fantastic marketing and PR push, investment in infrastructure and R&D effort from private companies pushing EVs that was able to budge the status quo and made them acceptable to the public in spite of their major drawbacks such as massive cost, autonomy restrictions, and long charging times.
This foot-in-the-door was further compounded by the way some states decided to invest heavily in EV subsidies and public infrastructure, which was completely absurd, unrealistic and politically impossible in the recent past.
EV's recent mass adoption acceptance is not a technical feat but a social and political one which happened to leverage a specific technology.
I'm not sure about Tesla, but according to specs I found, but Kia e-Niro with 400 km range is 1737 kilograms, 400 km range Hyundai Kona Electric is 1685, 500 km range WV ID3 is 1730 ... while Toyota Mirai is 1825 kg and my ICE Jaguar is 1950 kg.
Long story short, I'm not convinced it's so simple.
Energy efficiency is a major concern when you need literally three times the energy to achieve the same goal. Clen energy is already scarce, only places with a lot of nuclear have a semblance of it. BEV would already increase electricity demand a lot (grab vehicle-miles per year and turn it to TWh needed and see), doubling or tripling that would put the goal of decarbonization decades further away.
> Hydrogen is an energy store. It doesn't typically exist by itself in nature and must be produced.
I know hence the question.
to answer my question, which is also in the article you've kindly posted:
"Currently, most hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels, specifically natural gas"
Which is the point I'm getting at. Its cheaper to split natural gas than it is to do electrolysis.
What I have discovered is that state of the art electrolysis is about 80% which is far higher than I had remembered. Alas, fuel cells are still 40-60% efficient, so we could still be looking at terrible round trip efficiency.
Hydrogen might one day be the storage medium of choice, but its not yet. I suspect we'll have working fusion before we have practical grid scale hydrogen, let alone wide scale hydrogen cars.
But the losses going from electricity -> hydrogen (and then back), and then losses again in failing to recaputure energy into hydrogen on board - I mean, you will need to use a lot MORE "renewable" energy to get your hydrogen vehicle around.
When using renewables, losses don't matter. The matter a lot now, where the losses are covered with fossil fuels, but that's now where we're heading. Hydrogen fuel tanks are far cheaper and more sustainable than lithium batteries. I believe the power density is also superior, although I don't have time to check right now. Additionally, hydrogen fuel isn't only useful in vehicles and a more efficient production method would still be great to have.
it's absolutely not a scam, they make a very tangible, very real car and soon-ish delivery vans. The question is will they do well as a business? I think so.
This is a genuine question: why do you think they’ll do well and how well do you think they’ll do?
They’re already starting out at 10% of Tesla’s market cap and a valuation higher than most auto companies. Let’s say they become the next Tesla in a decade. That would be 25% growth per year which is good, but comes with a lot of risk compared to Apple, Google, Amazon, etc.
Tesla also launched before the rest of the industry was shipping competitors. Rivian will be facing near immediate competition.
Does Rivian have secret sauce others can’t replicate? I haven’t followed them so I truly don’t know. Tesla has massive battery manufacturing, a great brand, a supercharger network, and a decade head start. What makes Rivian special compared to what Ford will be shipping in its F-150 Lightning? Or what so many companies will be shipping in the coming years?
First of all, they have a large order of trucks from Amazon so they have guaranteed volumes. Second, the thinking that only one car manufacturer can thrive is self evidently false since we had for years dozens of car brands.
Third, they don't really compete with Ford, they compete with Land Rover and Jeep and they are the first brand to bring something to that segment of the market that's electric.
Plus I've seen the car and it's an awesome vehicle, I have no crystal ball but I'm willing to bet they'll do well.
Amazon has invested in Rivian and they have the advantage of being “not Musk”. Bezos doesn’t want to give Musk any business. I thought it was funny that they made a big show of using Rivian trucks for the retrieval after the Blue Origin flight.
Polestar is Chinese owned brand(Geely), and their polestar cars are basically the Volvo xc40 ev version. (that's why their sedan is so tall/high ground clearance).
They have yet to build a fully independent ev first platform.
Volvo is owned by Geely so it's kinda all flopped around in the frame of reference. By all intents, the XC40 platform was designed for Polestar and with Polestar because Polestar IS Volvo. It's just more fuzzy. All in, investing in polestar is investing in Volvo one way or annother.
No, owned by Geely, which owns Volvo as well. It is an attempt from Geely to gain foothold in the western markets without being associated as a chinese brand, but as a swedish one.
I think it's more complicated than that - it was certainly owned entirely by Volvo as recently as 2015 and seems to share basically all engineering resources with Volvo. Seems like a funny attempt somewhere to make it seem like something other than Volvo - not sure why as Volvo has a reputation that's fairly decent already, if a bit dull and parental. I guess that's why Polestar is separate - to be more fashionable. Polestar still 'engineer' Volvos - I think it was at some point like BMW's 'M' thing - like a badge?
Polestar was a firm that did trim and racing cars for Volvo. Volvo did aquire Polestar and a few years later they spun it out to be a ev-company owned 50/50 by Geely and Volvo (and volvo is owned by geely). The cars are designed in Sweden but built in China.
The founders of Polestar now runs the Cyan racing company which is the official racing partner of volvo and geely...
A big difference is that Audi was an established car maker that had made a lot of cars long before VW bought them. Polestar wasn't a car maker before being bought by Geely and has never made car independently of Volvo/Geely.
polestar has been around for ages kind of like bmw m. geely kind of killed the performance division of Volvo and spun it off into separate company kind of how Harley did with its live wire. love Volvos but we have to see how successful polestars will be
I know it will be unpopular here...but if Polestar decided to go against the trend and make a Gas only turbocharged Polestar-1 at a 30k price point it would give the Dodge Charger a run for its money.
Simply put it they'd sell a ton of them. The Dodge/Mustang brand will always have traction among a certain demographic but their design language looks tired.
New generations are looking for something which has the design of the Polestar_1.
Also the elephant in the room: Everybody wants and touts EVs, up until it's their turn to make a purchase, then the tradeoffs in terms of price, look and build quality make themselves feel strongly.
I don't think its about looks at all. If anything its mostly been about range followed by price. Now that some of the newer cars like the Lucid Air go 520 miles on a single charge, its going to start to be a much easier sell especially with gas prices spiking to records in many places.
Okay. Porsche Taycan, Porsche Taycan Cross Turismo, Audi e-tron, Audi e-tron GT, Audi Q4 e-tron, Skoda Enyaq, Hyundai Ioniq 5, Kia EV6, Genesis GV60, Ford Mustang Mach-E, Jaguar I-Pace, Mercedes EQS, Mercedes EQE, Honda E, Mini E, Fiat 500e.
This. I have an EA charger 5 minutes from home and it's always so fun to look to see what is charging today, I see the wildest stuff that is just a 'Look!' having seen all the US cars on this list (plus the Nero and Bolt) I would say most EVs look better than most gas cars these days because they allow companies to open their design up a little for some wow.
I would also add the Lyriq (which is gorgeous), the Polestar 2, the R1T, and then just say the Honda E again from your list twice, because WOW, what a timeless design. It is just a Concept car...actually executed.
Almost all of them look exactly the same as petrol or diesel cars. Sometimes the grill looks different as they don't need air-cooling. Is that a big deal?
They don't. There's an element of artificial/forced "futurism" in their appearance, generally: rounded bits in the wrong places, weird curves/shapes to trunks and lights, etc. Not to mention the poor and shoddy interiors. Tesla looks like it was going for a hospital surgery room level of sterility in the cabin--no thanks.
As a reservation holder myself I don't really consider "delivering" to employees to be releasing a product. Employees aren't free to discuss flaws or other problems and no doubt get priority for fixes/repairs.
I'm certain they will make deliveries to non-insider customers before the IPO. They're clearly close to that and it would be a really bad look if they didn't.
There's certainly the appetite for it in the market, valuations are very high, so it's a smart way to get a liquidity event and raise further funds. In the recent past, companies have gone public with a lot less. The product and orders are real, not just empty promises and 3d animations.
It seems this is becoming the norm these days. Astra, Joby Aviation, Lucid Motors, Archer and a few others in the aerospace/automotive industries have done this recently.
As long as the SEC doesn't request more information, and they've had this filing in a confidential manner for awhile now, they could start trading Monday. But, it's more likely to be announced to build the media buzz. That said, they want to capitalize on the highly positive press they got out of the journalist drives a few days ago - I've read/watched most of them and I feel like literally half of them ordered a vehicle themselves, so sooner is better while that buzz exists.
Moderna went public before it had any product available.
EDIT: I'm not saying that Rivian would be as good a purchase as Moderna but... yeah. This sort of thing has become way more common in recent years. This is definitely the high-risk / high-reward area of investing: buying companies that you don't even know work or not yet (Moderna IPO'd in 2018, long before COVID19 even existed. There was pretty much no way to know it'd be the miracle drug to a non-existent disease just two years later)
On the other hand: Moderna's success shows why the stock market is a magical thing. The money pumped into Moderna through the IPO allowed it get the money needed to build up its research facilities, in effect preparing for COVID19 even before the disease appeared.
--------
"Going public" means one thing and one thing only: the company wants money, and they think bonds (aka: borrowing money from a bank) is a bad value. Its still up to the investor to decide if giving money to the company is a worthwhile trade.
If there's lots of jubilance, companies can extract money from shares better than from bonds.
That's why the investor needs a sharp and savvy mind. I think Rivian is a good company btw, but the rumored IPO prices are insane. You need to be both a good company and at a good price to be worthy of buying.
The only problem I remember was damage to the hydraulic suspension when the truck rolled backwards into a rock. I don't believe they ever explained if that was due to driver error or mechanical failure, but the absence of an explanation led me to believe it was probably the latter. They weren't shy about pointing out driver error in other situations.
A bigger issue for me was the fact that the trucks completely disappeared when they hit (IIRC) Central America. They loaded the bikes into a bus and drove them across Mexico (which didn't speak well of the Harleys either).
> A bigger issue for me was the fact that the trucks completely disappeared when they hit (IIRC) Central America. They loaded the bikes into a bus and drove them across Mexico (which didn't speak well of the Harleys either)
Did we watch the same show?
They thoroughly explained how this was 100% about safety and the real risk of getting kidnapped in Mexico, even adviced by locals, when Ewan wanted to do the drive by himself.
Mexico isn’t exactly known to be a overly lawful society.
More recently MotorTrend drove 2 of them across the US on the Trans America Trail (off road the whole way). There's a great write-up on their site, and YouTube videos too.
It's obviously a bit promotional in nature, but it does show what the future is going to look like for Electric off roading / back roading
Several YouTubers got to participate in a press event recently, and I found many of their first impressions to be quiet interesting. I’m trying to talk my wife into letting me put in a pre-order
The SnazzyLabs was interesting to me, particularly because of Quinn’s experience as a Tesla owner and the flack he got about excusing their build quality.
https://youtu.be/KS1HdnKG0YY
It's getting a bit crowed in the EV market-space and some EV makers like Rivian need to do more than their competitors otherwise they will end up being yet another EV maker, which now is not enough.
The Amazon fleet partnership is very positive and several other deals in Europe too. However, Rivian just needs other ways to utilise its technology just like what NIO is currently doing in China.
If Rivian follows that path and avoids being just a generic EV maker, then its stock is a straight buy in my books but I would hold for now and see what the competitors (especially Lucid Motors) are also doing first in October.
Yes Lucid Motors is at half the valuation and doesn't rely on only one customer who may not purchase any vehicles. I think this IPO will not go super well due to the valuation and Lucid will ultimately benefit from the attention.
I'm surprised they didn't price a bit lower so they could guarantee a first day pop. At this price, many of the people I know who have loved Rivian for years will not be buyers. I'll be curious if there are enough others to support the valuation. I believe it will be the second most valuable car company after Tesla?
just curious . what is lucid doing unique. they seem to be a straight copy of Tesla. any company going public through SPAC kind of indicates they just want to cash out on the current craze and may not offer long term value.
Rivian doesn't strike me as "just another EV maker" at all. Their products are focused on utility and sports, not mall parking lots or straight-line speed.
I like this truck exterior design. If they "grow up" and remove touch based centrist UX (Thank you, Elon - you saved a lot of money and ruin decades of car UX) this will sell very good numbers in the EU.
Recently I moved out of the city towards rural life and this type of vehicle will give me all I need, including good cornering for fun (due to mix of air/hydraulic suspension). Definitely looking forward to purchase (may be second gen) EV truck.
For the American market they will face serious competition from Ford and other truck manufacturers who have brand recognition and solid fan base.
Truth to be told, it was stagnant for last 10 years:
- adding more buttons increases user's fatigue and decreases feature discoverability. With cars getting more integrated into various software features, there is no going back from touch.
- no voice interaction UX or a very bad one
Perhaps several programmable buttons for advanced users would be nice. But that depends on whether user really needs those custom routines and actions.
Exactly. The product design marketing mantra of “move fast and break things” is a plague putting all proven knowledge behind in the name of innovation for the sake of innovation (or more in the lines of VC scam, dark patterns UX and customer exploitation ). Professional design thinking is data based and when data is proving use case stability outcomes, you improve with iterative steps and optimisation.
Today UX/UI Design is treated as decoration and the main audiences are corporations or software developers.
You can check MBUX as an example of clutter, complexity and bad taste visuals. Just another outsourced design job in the name of corporate profit over product design.
> Thank you, Elon - you saved a lot of money and ruin decades of car UX
The motivation behind a single touchscreen (from the horse’s mouth) is the gradual move to full self driving. Given that all Teslas are capable of fully autonomous driving, pending software, it doesn’t make sense to pollute the car interior with controls that will become obsolete during the lifetime of the car, not even accounting for extra cost associated with manufacturing dozens/hundreds of extra parts.
Now if others are copying it without understanding why it’s done that way, it’s on them.
The way I see autonomous driving is trough reality, not trough fanboism or 'tech fetishism'.
The current stable driving assistant systems must be secondary to real driving.
They are capable of critical prevention and effective safe-nets and when done properly they reduce risk tenfold.
Idea of beta-testing on the public roads by creating consumer disinformation is outrageous and must be stopped.
It is beyond believe, how regulations are soft towards applications of technologies with direct effect on human lives. My area of expertise is in UI/UX and the simplest logic possible is called ergonomic prerequisite.
Every system must exist as a 100% functionality before some form of control surface is introduced. Every control surface must be human oriented. In car UX, the main function is driving and everything that reduces risk of removing focus from the road is good UX, everything that creates distraction and complication is not only bad UX - it is dangerous.
In car touch interfaces are exciting for people who hate driving and love their phones. This is the main selling point. It is the result of marketing driven design and enormous amount of production savings (when removing physical controls for dedicated functions) as a business motivational vector.
This will not work long-term. The Idea of vehicles as a SaaS platform also will not work. This will be CX hell and people will reject it.
> Idea of beta-testing on the public roads by creating consumer disinformation is outrageous and must be stopped.
Everyone driving the FSD Beta knows pretty well what they're doing and what the whole thing means, hence the very strict criteria the drivers must meet to have that feature enabled, so I don't know what disinformation you're talking about.
Calling it outrageous, dangerous, etc doesn't make it so, and evidently, after many month of FSD Beta, there is yet an accident to be reported resulting from use of it, in a world where every Tesla accident makes it to front page of the news. Is it an accident waiting to happen? Well, every time you get into your car, you're entering the accident lottery. It's all about the likelihood of getting into an accident and so far numbers are in Tesla's favor.
And how do you imagine a system whose improvements relies heavily on real world data is meant to obtain it without large scale participation? Have a hundred employees doing rounds in a test track?
The way I see autonomous driving through being well informed, and not speaking based on outdated intuitions, Tesla's pushing the envelope just enough to make meaningful progress toward full self-driving while not overly putting people at risk.
> It is beyond believe, how regulations are soft towards applications of technologies with direct effect on human lives.
Heavily regulating something that's in its infancy is the surest way to kill it. Those people who are constantly bitching about why robo-taxis aren't here yet even with lax regulations, can be certain to dream of it for the rest of their lives should walls be put up too early.
> In car touch interfaces are exciting for people who hate driving and love their phones.
Not only. I drive a M3 and I love driving it. I don't use my phone and nor find the urge to. I enjoy the lack of clutter, and the beautiful large screen when I need to use it. Every other car I sit in, feels like a 60s Russian rocket and stresses me out. Even Tesla's own Model S and Model X feels too cluttered now with the extra driver's dash screen.
> This will not work long-term. The Idea of vehicles as a SaaS platform also will not work. This will be CX hell and people will reject it.
Ye, that's what they said about SaaS on the Internet. Who would, in their right minds, give up control of their service and store their data and code at the mercy of a third party. Saw how that turned out.
> Everyone driving the FSD Beta knows pretty well what they're doing and what the whole thing means.
An example/analogy. If I am in the position of creating technology for automation I will implement the proven practices in aerospace industry, you have plenty of innovation and effective (with some exceptions in recent years, hello Boeing) regulatory process.
Testing autonomous vehicles on the public road is dangerous and non productive in any way or form (except gathering data cheaply).
> And how do you imagine a system whose improvements relies heavily on real world data is meant to obtain it without large scale participation? Have a hundred employees doing rounds in a test track?
Exactly. Last time I checked R&D is corporate responsibility not public data exploit or "free work". People don't get it at all.
If you will use my driving data, you must pay me or give me some incentive. I work for money, you are selling expensive product so how about half the price?
> Heavily regulating something that's in its infancy is the surest way to kill it. Those people who are constantly bitching about why robo-taxis aren't here yet even with lax regulations, can be certain to dream of it for the rest of their lives should walls be put up too early.
The technology must be produced and tested to death, before is introduced to public roads. Touch interfaces implemented without any concern of ergonomic prerequisite are proven distraction and risk.
>Ye, that's what they said about SaaS on the Internet. Who would, in their right minds, give up control of their service and store their data and code at the mercy of a third party. Saw how that turned out.
Again, the big and bold SaaS brush, yep I see how this is turning out. You can check the sales stat of NAS servers in recent years or resurrection of the flip phone.
People are stupid, until they are not. Information Security and Control will be the defining factor for businesses in the near future.
Yes, some people got madly rich on marketing Cloud and AI scams and "user generated content", so what?
This sounds as Davos idea of the future. You will own nothing and you will be happy.
Sorry, but not at all.
SaaS services have use-cases. Moving everything to SaaS model is clear madness.
> Testing autonomous vehicles on the public road is dangerous and non productive in any way or form
Where are the accidents after many months? None, so nope, not dangerous just because you think it is.
> Exactly. Last time I checked R&D is corporate responsibility not public data exploit or "free work". People don't get it at all. If you will use my driving data, you must pay me or give me some incentive. I work for money, you are selling expensive product so how about half the price?
Oh so it's money problem now. If Tesla paid people for Beta testing, it'd be fine? So you're ok for people to allegedly (which I don't agree with anyway, but most of the rest of you do) risk each other's lives as long as they get paid.
Well, you can say the same about Apple, Google and pretty much any other company that runs Beta testing. People rush to do it for free and wait in line. They are compensated by having access to latest and greatest without waiting.
You think getting paid means they are not exploited? How about paying you for you kidney. That's OK? You don't seem to understand what being exploited means.
> The technology must be produced and tested to death, before is introduced to public roads. Touch interfaces implemented without any concern of ergonomic prerequisite are proven distraction and risk.
Stop with the blanket statements. Where are you numbers that shows Tesla's are getting into more accidents? You don't have it because it's not only there but it's the opposite. Tesla's get into far less accidents that general fleet (those numbers on Tesla's report).
> You can check the sales stat of NAS servers in recent years or resurrection of the flip phone.
You look at a jump in NAS servers and flip phones and conclude that they're going to take over SaaS and slabs? Go look at the relative jump and magnitude of SaaS increases too.
> Yes, some people got madly rich on marketing Cloud and AI scams and "user generated content", so what?
Ye, the fact that a one person with a few bucks can now access what was only available to few multi-nationsal a decade ago is a scam. Do you also think the Earth is flat and COVID is a hoax?
> Moving everything to SaaS model is clear madness.
If you're actually trying to do something of value, and someone takes off a huge payload off your shoulder so you can get there faster, you'd be a fool to not do it. Time is the ultimate currency here and anything that buys you time is a win. So in principle, SaaS, IaaS and any other XaaS is a win.
The only time it's not a win is if one is either mandated to keep sensitive data in-house, or runs such a large/custom workload that no other provider can economically meet.
Man, I see you don't understand my argument at all.
You think that I care about Tesla?
Tesla is just a recent example of pushing the limits of regulation.
No. I care for human centered design.
I care about technology with responsibility without data exploitation. I care about privacy and transparency.
Your arguments are apologetic in my view and confirm the state of current affairs.
As a consumer I reserve my right to vote with my wallet.
And I will never succumb to this perverse product design philosophy that SaaS model is trying to propagate outside the effective and usable territory.
>If you're actually trying to do something of value, and someone takes off a huge payload off your shoulder so you can get there faster, you'd be a fool to not do it. Time is the ultimate currency here and anything that buys you time is a win. So in principle, SaaS, IaaS and any other XaaS is a win.
There is no "professional" lingo that can hide the core business ethics behind this race for "eating and dominating the world".
Faster? For what? May be tomorrow you will rationalize mass control with chip implants, because it is "progress" and this will get you faster toward the ultimate life goal : corporate profits.
What a dream. We will see how this "futuristic projections" unfolds.
Remember: Implementation is a key to success.:)
> I care for human centered design. I care about technology with responsibility without data exploitation. I care about privacy and transparency.
That is idealism, definitely necessary in small quantities but what moves things forward is pragmatism. The former is more of a guide than a prescription. E.g. human centered design is costly - when you're pushing the envelope, you can't have everything in utmost polish (and a mere glance at any part of history of new tech should make that obvious).
Responsibility without data exploitation: again, pragmatism - if Tesla is still doing this in 10 years, then ye, I'd find it questionable, but right now, Tesla is the only entity on which to build hope on, if you actually believe and care about what they're trying to achieve. If you don't or think it's all for Elon's pocket, then you're mistaken (with plenty of proof around) and I hope you spend some time to challenge your beliefs.
Privacy: this one's actually a balancing act. You want perfect privacy, go in the woods and hunt. In SaaS case, you trade some privacy for time and money saved.
> Your arguments are apologetic in my view.
I'm not sure how to express it without it sounding that way!
> Faster? For what? May be tomorrow you will rationalize mass control with chip implants, because it is "progress" and this will get you faster toward the ultimate life goal : corporate profits.
Pick 10 things your life depends on today (some hints: medicine and medical tech, transport, ...) and you'd be hard pressed to find any of them that don't trace back to so called "corporate profits" in capitalist nations. It's not the ultimate goal as you put it. It's the requirements to be in the game. If you wanna make large scale impact, you need capital, which comes from investors whom you need to keep happy. That's not to say no one goes in for the money, but if you spot a smart person who's earning it the hard way, it should be a good signal that they're not doing it for the money (hint: leading the first publicly traded car company in over half a century where every other ones in the country have gone bankrupt - many easier paths to making butt load of money faster).
I am not at all idealist. I am pragmatist to the core. Data is the new petrol. And exactly as in the petrol starting times, there are "entrepreneurs" and others who have no idea about value of personal data.
Moving forward everyone will have this idea, and will not share freely like in this moment. People don't care, "Because they have nothing to hide", wait and see what they will do when realize how someone is profiting over this big time. People are stupid until they are not.
Second point: Security.
All our software is big security risk. We don't have a single os created with memory safe language in mind. In the future everything will be hackable and exploitable.
You can check what is going on in Apple camp, today. Not tomorrow.
There are powers in the corporate world who don't want to see this as a problem, they care about marketing, sales and profit.
All of this will crumble to the ground.
In near future treats will be bigger, that's why your idea is "optimistic" and mine is realistic.
On human centered design....I am not interested to argue at all.
They are, and it's true, even TODAY, and I'm going to repeat it every chance I get, because I've learnt that it takes repetition to correct misunderstanding and ignorance! Just go on youtube and search for FSD Beta 10. Yes, it makes mistakes, and yes it has a long way before you can sleep at the wheel but it's doing door to door driving today across the entire US, like no other car even comes close to doing.
The only difference between level 2 and up is whether the system needs attention should it make a mistake, and ATM Tesla must have a fully attentive driver at all times. The problem with the SAE levels is that level 2 covers such a broad category of autonomous capabilities that it’s kind of meaningless calling a car level 2. There are cars at level two manufactured a decade ago and Tesla FSD is also level 2 and the latter may as well be a spaceship in comparison. Knowing there are 5 levels and Tesla is at level 2 does not in any way give one a notion of how autonomous the car is, only that it may make mistakes x% of the time.
An analogy with a SaaS is having a full featured service that’s available 99% of time and dismissing it as every other toy service out there, only because it’s not available 99.99% of the time. That’s the situation with Tesla more or less. Granted the march towards more 9s is going to take some time.
EDIT: I looked up the "Tesla admitting level 2" and it's in regards to their *current* Autopilot software that's been around for years, not FSD Beta which is currently only rolled out to a few thousand people in US. So seems like you're not understanding the difference between Autopilot and FSD Beta. I recommend again that you watch "FSD Beta 10" videos on Youtube since you evidently have not.
> Knowing there are 5 levels and Tesla is at level 2 does not in any way give one a notion of how autonomous the car is
It literally does. SAE levels [1] are very clear in terms of who is in control, human supervision/take over expectations and Operational Design Domain. It’s not at all about mistake percentage, so the SaaS analogy is irrelevant.
At the end of the day, if you’re still in level 2, it means you’re not fully autonomous because you can’t take passengers from point A to point B and handle mistakes, including safely pulling over when necessary. Tesla is nowhere close to doing this.
Yes it is and SaaS is very relevant. The very page you've linked lists all sorts of "features" up to level 2 but level 3 and up is all about whether the driver should take over if the car asks them to. In fact, re-reading the levels, FSD Beta is at level 3 because:
- You are NOT driving when the features are active (the car accelerates, stops, turns, gives way, negotiates with traffic, waits for pedestrians, changes lanes, follows navigation, etc.).
- When the feature requests, you must drive. Check. FSD Beta will prompt the user to take over at times when it can't figure out the way forward.
- These features drive under limited condition and won't do so if conditions aren't met. Check too. FSD Beta will only become available when it has a good sense of the environment.
Well, thanks for the refresher. So FSD Beta is clearly at level 3 now.
> The very page you've linked lists all sorts of "features" up to level 2 but level 3 and up is all about whether the driver should take over if the car asks them to.
Thanks for making my point for me and conceding autonomy is, in fact, determined by who's responsible for safe operations and not just mistake percentage improvement.
> In fact, re-reading the levels, FSD Beta is at level 3 because:
> - You are NOT driving when the features are active (the car accelerates, stops, turns, gives way, negotiates with traffic, waits for pedestrians, changes lanes, follows navigation, etc.).
Clearly, you either didn't read the chart fully or didn't comprehend it well because you are going against Tesla's own claim that FSD is level 2. You also spectacularly missed the biggest condition why it's still level 2.
SAE level 2 in the chart says says:
> You are driving whenever these driver support features are engaged — even if your feet are off the pedals and you are not steering
> You must constantly supervise these support features; you must steer, brake or accelerate as needed to maintain safety.
Last I checked, FSD requires constant driver supervision and hands on the wheel. Tesla is very clear about this. So it is, in fact, level 2 by definition.
The key difference with level 3 is it doesn't require constant supervision — meaning a driver can read a book or watch a movie — and the system will alert in advance within a reasonable amount of time for a driver take over. Of course, nobody can really determine what "reasonable amount of time" is for a safety alert, which is why level 3 remains the most ambiguous of all the SAE levels.
You should really try to inform yourself of SAE level basics before spreading misinformation about a safety critical system.
You seem to be hung up on SAE definitions and missing my point which I'm going re-iterate, maybe from a different angle.
Moving from supervising the car to not supervising the car isn't a binary flip where suddenly in one software revision, you can take a nap while yesterday you couldn't. It's a spectrum. And that's why SAE levels between 2 and 3 are poorly describing this (not to mention how poorly level 2 itself is defined, as it covers a huge range of functionality, from something a bunch of cheap sensors can achieve with graduate level of CS knowledge to something Tesla AI has achieved with FSD Beta which has required custom computers, millions of miles of driving data and some of the biggest brains in AI world).
Since it's a spectrum, the only variable changing is how likely it is you as the supervisor need to take over control *because* your car either made a mistake or was about to. That's all it's reduced to — how often does you car make a mistake. That's all level 3 and up is. All the descriptions and charts do nothing but fog up this, which is unfortunate. Once you have a car that makes very few mistakes, you don't need to supervise it because the probability of it making mistakes is less than you as a human driver at which point it's a better driver than you anyway.
You can of course argue that reduction in mistakes is itself functionality. Well, I make a distinction between continuous and minor refinements and major enabling technology, like vector reconstruction of 3D space from images of cameras, or AI based route planning, which given more data, can plan better.
As far as I understand from Tesla's progress, they need to merely cover ever more corner cases to go up the levels.
And on the topic of supervision: whether you have to keep your hands on the wheel or otherwise supervise the car has a lot to do with policy and regulation. You can have a car today that is safe enough to drive while you asleep and good luck trying to sell it without telling the customers they must stay alert. This basically makes level 3 as defined in SAE subject not only to actual capabilities of a car but the regulatory environment in which it's sold.
> As far as I understand from Tesla's progress, they need to merely cover ever more corner cases to go up the levels.
I think this is the crux of the disagreements here. You say they need to merely cover more corner cases, while I think many (including myself) think that this endless list of corner cases is the primary almost-insurmountable problem.
From what I've seen of Tesla FSD (and competitors), these systems do pretty well in highly structured and orderly environments during clear desert weather. In order to deal with chaos in a blizzard etc, we're going to need far more than just a few tweaks. At this point, none of these companies are even doing any testing in extreme environments. They're still trying to stop their cars from hitting pedestrians in well lit areas on known crossing points. [1]
FSD Beta (not Tesla Autopilot) drives door to door right now. Go on youtube and search for "FSD Beta 10" to get a feel of it. It makes mistakes enough that you need an attentive driver who can take over, so you still need a steering wheel. Level 3-5 is all about ever less driver intervention but as far as functionality goes, Teslas can drive autonomously on highways and urban settings across the entire US.
I was under the assumption that 'Level 5' robo-taxis were coming in 2020 but it seems that we got something else called 'FSD' that still requires driver intervention and is admittedly 'Level 2' by Tesla Inc.
So where are the Level 5 approved Tesla robo-taxis?
> Yes it is. I even told you what to search for exactly and I've already pasted direct links to some of them in a sibling post.
No it is not. Even if one did search, there is not one video that describes what Tesla Inc. promised or predicted in 2020 which was a Level 5 approved Tesla Robotaxi.
> Be prepared to be disappointed again and again when it comes to cutting edge of tech. You're not waiting for the next Xbox.
Did you not realise that you just admitted that you don't know where the Level 5 approved Tesla Robotaxis that was supposed to be due for 2020 were?
You will never hear about all the times it's saved people's lives and avoided accidents, so until you show me that it has in fact increased accident rates, a link to a video means nothing, unless you are a journalist and your newspaper is on the verge of going under, in which case you need some juicy drama to sell ads.
Oh whoops, I posted the wrong list of videos (those are FSD Beta ones). For emergency braking and "maneuvering" out of the way, Whaam Baam Tesla Cam channel has you covered. Here are a few videos with some examples (and no, they do not go viral - no accident and no drama does not sell ads):
Oh and I have personally avoided an accident so far when a whole bunch of cars on the highway slammed on the break and autopilot sounded an alarm and braked. So there you go.
Seems you didnt understand me. "pedestrian" is not a car. I meant avoiding hitting living things, not property.
1 Mountain lion runs across, cant see car slowing down at all despite what the description text says. Cat barely makes it and car keeps going.
2 Bird almost hits windshield. Owners own description is he took over.
3 Property and "funny home videos"
4 Well, what do you know. EXACT SAME situation as in Jessa Jones clip happens at @2:20
"all of a sudden a deer ran out onto the road but autopilot didn't react at all, gracie's applied the brakes only moments before impact but it was too late " Living creature hit, $4500 bill an 2 weeks without the car.
@6:30 plows into road debris roughly size and shape of a human lying on the road.
@9:00 finally a human, on a crosswalk, 50 meters in front.
@11:00 Coyote, zero reaction and human takes over to avoid accident.
5 @3:30 At first looks like Tesla finally detects animal on the road, but no. It simply reacts to car in front (braking for the animal) and starts accelerating as soon as the car in front moves on, almost driving over the small deer in the process.
Tesla seems to be really good as spotting cars, and might even have a special case for humans on crosswalks, but every single clip with animal ends with accident or human taking over. 4 @6:30 shows what would happen if an unconscious person fell on the road.
Off topic: I love clip 4 @11:50. Hitting small wooden post at 20mph = totaled Tesla :o
Not driving into a pedestrian slowly walking on a crosswalk is not saving lives. That was the _only_ example of Tesla reacting correctly to a living thing, all others ended in accidents, death or human taking over. And those were your "good" examples.
That was me searching for a minute. If you actually care to learn something, you'd spend a few hours of your own time looking for what's actually true. If I was to go out of my way to show good examples (which I'm not going to do, for your lazy ass), you would say something like "oh great, my 10 year old nephew can do that".
So I'm not gonna bother with you pal — I'll convince people on the fence, they'll take care of convincing you.
Its not about humans being able to "do the same", its about Tesla not being programmed _at all_ to avoid anything other than Cars and maybe pedestrians on a crosswalk. It doesnt consider any other obstacles on the road and plows into them.
i’m sure that’s their cover story. but in reality they aren’t anywhere close to the level of self driving needed where you could give your full attention to the touch screen.
Sure, hence "pending software". And if you happen to follow their progress on youtube (just search FSD Beta 10), you'll see just how advanced it already is. And it's getting better at an exponential rate.
Scrolling through this I see a fair amount of references to subscription products as a long term growth strategy. HN sentiment seems pretty positive about Rivian so I'm curious what folks here feel about that aspect of their business?
In particular if one juxtaposes that strategy against what I perceive to be a general anti John Deere sentiment around here vis-a-vie subscriptions and their always-on products.
I think you have this backwards - subscription implies if it's broken that's their problem. John Deer if it breaks it's your problem because you own it but you can't fix it.
I don't think I have it backwards, but I may be wrong. My interpretation is that there is there is subscription cooked into how they understand the pricing and return (profit) of their product. Based off this document this is part of their long term strategy. You may quibble about the specifics but extracting money from their customers over time is cooked into their model and that does seem worth noting...
Some subscriptions say they own the product, but they cover any and all problems with the product and they'll service it and replace it and upgrade it etc. Other subscriptions say they own the product.... but nothing and you can't do anything either. That's the difference between the two.
Tesla is also focused on subscription services (more and more over time). I haven't heard much negative sentiment about them using the model other than from people who don't think certain features (notably self driving) are complete enough to sell.
We expect that a significant portion of our initial revenue will be from one customer that is an affiliate of one of our principal stockholders.
If we are unable to maintain this relationship, or if this customer purchases significantly fewer vehicles than we currently anticipate or none at all, our business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.
To date, we have generated minimal revenue from the initial sales of our R1T vehicles and have not generated any revenue from the sales of our other vehicles. Our future success depends on us commencing commercial sales and attracting a large number of customers for our vehicles. In the near-term, however, we expect that a significant portion of our revenue will be from Amazon Logistics, Inc. (“Logistics”). Amazon is the parent company of both Logistics and Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC (“NV Holdings”), which owns approximately % of our voting power as of , 2021.
In February 2019, we entered into a commercial letter agreement with Amazon, and in September 2019, we entered into a related framework agreement with Logistics. We refer to these agreements, together with any work orders, purchase orders, related agreements and amendments thereunder or thereto, collectively, as the “EDV Agreement.” Under the EDV Agreement, we and Logistics have agreed to collaborate to design, develop, manufacture, and supply EDVs and/or certain component parts and related services for use in Amazon’s last mile delivery operations. We also have agreed under the EDV Agreement that until the fourth anniversary of when Logistics first receives EDVs (the “Initial Delivery Date”), whether or not Logistics purchases any EDVs from us, we will exclusively provide last mile delivery vehicles to Amazon, and from the fourth anniversary to the sixth anniversary of the Initial Delivery Date, Amazon will have a right of first refusal to purchase last mile delivery vehicles that we produce. Under the EDV Agreement, Logistics has the right to decide how many EDVs to purchase, which may be fewer than expected, or delay the delivery of such purchases. Certain factors outside of our control may influence Logistics’ decision as to the number of EDVs to purchase from us and the timing of delivery, including Logistics’ ability to deploy a charging infrastructure across their delivery stations.
From the S-1 they have a fair amount of cash on hand and substantial borrowing facilities which are currently unused. They’re clearly able to raise funds privately.
Going public is as much about timing as it is about capital. There's also lots of investment opportunities that open up with funds and pensions that are limited to only investing in publicly traded companies.
They've already raised $10.5b privately. The private valuation is now up to something like $50b so the next logical step is an IPO where they will raise $5b+.
The stock market has always been a bit of a mystery to me. There is no requirement that company revenue be tied to a stock's value. Rather, the stock for a given company is entirely based on human sentiment.
Person A buys stock S at time t0 because he thinks it will be more valuable to person B at time t1.
Person B buys stock S at time t1 because he thinks it will be more valuable to person C at time t2.
...and so on.
Buying a small-volume of stock in company X provides no tangible value. You aren't getting a seat on the board with a few thousand dollars. Obviously, things like dividends and retirement tax-breaks have value, but I'm talking about pure speculative investing.
My question to the investors out there: Why should be there be a person C or D who buys the stock from you in the future? In the extreme case, you could buy stock X, and then never find someone to buy it from you.
A public company's value is based on a collective estimate of what people think its cashflows will look like in the future. For a mature company that you don't expect to change much, looking at present financials is a solid way to estimate future financials. For an earlier-stage, or more speculative company like Rivian with a wide range of possibilities in its future, current financials are not typically helpful, with a few exceptions (e.g. growth indicators, signs of poor management).
For example: Five years ago, I thought Tesla had a 30% chance of failing, 20% chance of being bought by a major auto manufacturer (for let's say ~30B), 30% chance of turning into a major auto manufacturer (est value ~100B), 10% chance of turning into the top auto manufacturer (est value ~300B), and 10% chance of turning into something that transcended auto manufacturing (est value ~1T). If you multiply this out, you get an expected value of 0+6+30+30+100 = 166B. At the time the market cap was around 40B, so I thought it was underpriced and bought some. Obviously I'm glossing over some things, but it's sensible enough and should illustrate how you can get there.
In terms of the notion of "what if you never find someone to buy it from you?" The short answer is that that's extremely unlikely. The longer answer is that you can also just price that into your probability distribution, but because of the low likelihood it's unlikely to affect your price much.
FWIW I don't know much about Rivian, but my sense is also that they are overpriced. You could go through the same little exercise above for Rivian and see if you agree. To summarize what my distribution would look like, I think they have a much higher chance of failure than Tesla in my example above (because they're much less far along), and not enough potential upside to justify the valuations being discussed. But I could easily be wrong.
Those in 2021 stepped down because they aren’t independent board members as needed for the IPO. In May 2020, Ford English replaced Hinrich as Ford’s representative on the board because Hinrich left Ford.
This is the last of the big three EV startups to go public. Lucid Motors (cars), Proterra (buses) and now Rivian (trucks). The valuation seems too high but they have a lot of momentum and enthusiasts behind them so I imagine there will be many buyers. I believe it will likely bring renewed focus on other EV makers especially Lucid who is somewhat in the same niche.
I was talking to a UPS driver the other day about EV's. They are very concerned about how these vehicles will perform in my neck of the woods. About a third of the year it is well below freezing here. As is the ICE UPS trucks have difficulty in the snow. The drivers are concerned that the problems will be compounded by cold batteries and having to charge them constantly given that Tesla's don't do well here at all and have to be charged often.
My concerns about this are entirely selfish of course. If I bought a bed locally it would have been about $3k. The same bed on Amazon was $700 including mattress and frame. I buy locally when it makes sense and what I want is available but sometimes it just doesn't make sense. Amazon only uses UPS here.
People have this extreme sceptisism towards electric vehicles for some reason. They have been out for many years now and have performed just fine in cold weather. Yes, they have a reduced range, that can be solved with a larger battery. I could also imagine design where a small gas/diesel engine provides heat for the batteries and interior cabin of the vehicle, leaving the batteries to power the drivetrain entirely.
In fairness the UPS drivers skepticism is well founded and possibly reflecting back on them in the form of karma and Murphy's law. They poke fun at the Tesla drivers that often get stuck on the side of the road from dead batteries. I find this fascinating as I understood the cars could tell you that you won't make it to {destination} on the current charge.
A hybrid solution does sound like a great idea. Are Rivian planning on doing this?
They're typically on the side of the road for the same kinds of reasons as any other cars - people stopping to fidget with phones or stuck with flat tires.
It's reasonable to expect (and reality appears to deliver) long and low-maintenance life from an electric vehicle [0]. There are, of course, issues of keeping the battery warm enough and cold weather climate control. One of the big advances in the Model 3 is using a heat pump for heating where previous models (and most other electric cars, like the Bolt that I drive) use a resistor.
Further mechanical improvements in insulation and thermal management will probably continue to push cold-weather performance quite a ways further. It is, however, always going to be a challenge. Your ICE vehicle produces quite a huge amount of waste heat which can be redirected to the cabin or the glass. And, of course, they're not completely immune to the cold themselves. Places with really serious winters have parking spaces with electrical outlets for engine block heaters. Those will continue to have utility in an electrified future to keep batteries warm and charged.
Personally I'm very excited to see urban delivery trucks electrify sooner rather than later. They're doing a lot of stop-and-go and idle a lot. And they don't drive very fast. So they're super-obvious low-hanging fruit that will really help reduce noise and air pollution in cities. Plus, cargo loading times are long enough to significantly mitigate charging times. Mid-range last-mile delivery in rural areas will be a little bit harder, but still seems plenty achievable with technology we have right now. Long haul seems more difficult and the benefits over a hybrid less clear.
In all cases, however, there's no excuse for being stuck on the side of the road for want of energy. All road vehicles, regardless of their source of energy, indicate how much they have left. Running out is an operator error.
I've never seen a Tesla on the road. I'm not sure they're made in enough quantity or sold across enough geographies and demographics to measure anything technical by collecting anecdotes.
I am told it is. This is by a couple UPS drivers. They could be telling my tall tales. I can only take them at their word. I will ask them to get pictures next time they see this.
It’s only a matter of time before they figure something out for this. Right now companies are concerned about at least having a product. Once they feel comfortable and they have a solid flow of cash and products I’m sure they’ll focus on these details.
It could be something like different cooling system that is very well isolated from the outside world and can maintain a controlled internal climate with little power or whatever.
I have faith in that it’s a fixable issue that requires just a bit of time.
Initially they might have to do heavier vehicles or change fleets half way through the day or something like that. Or have a small ICE to extend range
This winter I was riding my bike at -6°C (21.2°F) with my phone mounted on the handlebar. After about half an hour of riding, I stopped to take a picture with it.
The picture alone made the battery drop by around 3%, and after a minute I turned the screen on again for a very short time, afterwards the battery dropped from 80% to 8% in less than 5 minutes.
I had this phone on my handlebar for a couple of times at down to -7°C (19.4°F), as well as another one (I have my daily driver mounted for podcasts and photos and another cheap one as a Garmin replacement for tracking) and had never seen this before nor afterwards.
The difference is that your phone does not have thermal management for its battery, other than passive cooling. EV batteries, on the other hand, do actively manage their temperature; even a parked EV might, if the environment is too cold, use up a bit of its stored power to heat up the battery to keep it in the correct temperature range.
That's OK. EVs don't have to satisfy every edge case from day one. There are plenty of cities they can serve in less-than-freezing climate. This problem for now is solvable by brute-force by maintaining battery temperature, and this seems to work well enough for Norway.
Perhaps long routes in freezing temperatures will be a niche where hydrogen fuel cells turn out to be useful, or maybe just incremental improvements of existing battery tech and management will suffice.
How practical is an electric sports utility vehicle? I almost ran out of gas just going up into logging territory in northern California, I couldn't imagine going in an electric vehicle with less range.
Sounds pretty practical to me. Plenty of torque, plenty of range. Can definitely handle rough terrain. Awesome for camping out in the middle of nowhere. Etc. And you can plug into any wall socket to charge up.
Journeys into remote areas would require a bit of planning as to where, when and how to charge. But that's not that different from driving a petrol car. If you run out of petrol in the middle of nowhere, it's just as bad as running out of battery because you are stuck in the middle of nowhere with no easy way to fix it. The difference is that an electric car will tell you how much range it has and is pretty accurate about it and be able to guide you to the nearest charging point.
But if you insist on draining the tank or battery until there's nothing left before you top up, then yes, you are going to be taking a risk. Simple suggestion: try not to do that. If the absolute worst happens and you ignore all the warnings the car gives you, the solution would be to charge the battery. For example from another EV (some models actually support this). By driving up to somebody's house and begging for permission to plug in. Etc. Absolute worst case is you'll be towed away by somebody shaking their heads to a place where the car can be plugged in. People would be shaking their head because it would be your own fault.
Now some people have a genuine need for hundreds of miles of range because where they are going there is nothing. The good news is you can fix that. Put up some solar panels, truck in some batteries, etc. Easy to do. I imagine, many logging operations will end up doing exactly that sort of thing.
> But that's not that different from driving a petrol car
Of course it is! I can go pretty much anywhere in the CONUS and not have to worry about running out of gas because gas stations are everywhere. In the few cases where they aren't, there are usually clear indications, e.g., "next gas station 50 miles ahead" signs. Or if I'm that concerned, I can take a 5 gallon can full of gas with me.
> you are stuck in the middle of nowhere with no easy way to fix it
I've stopped to give people rides to the gas station (where you can rent/borrow a gas can) when they ran out. Probably won't be feasible with electric for quite some time.
Sure, people should plan their trips, but please don't make a false equivalence between gas & electric in this regard.
Mile range is competitive, and being able to plug into a wall charger means there are more places to charge than places to refill.
I think the downsides are that carrying extra fuel is easier (although it wouldn't surprise me if extra batteries you can load onto the truck become a thing), and also that the refill time is much worse.
