[logicOnly]

"There are obviously still people arranging test-drive promotions for YouTubers but their role isn’t in a traditional public relations capacity."

Remember when people used to say Tesla doesn't do marketing?

The last few years of Tesla has been quite sobering for myself as I had my worldview flipped upside down. With Elon/Tesla, as more information has come out with time, it's been disenchanting.

I was sold a capitalist trying to save the environment by making a car affordable to the masses who is also going to have humans on Mars in a few months. I was inspired, now I'm disgusted in myself for believing it.

[dougmwne]

I get that Elon is controversial and puts a lot of bull out there. And yet, without him, electric cars would still be in their infancy and rockets would not be landing themselves. These technologies do not develop themselves and market niches do not magically get filled. Many things happen in the world because a single wealthy person wants them to happen. My recommendation is not put too much stock in the future promises, but don't diminish the actual accomplishments, which are impressive by themselves. I think there are personal lessons to be gained too, about the power of picking a stretch goal that you know is within your means to achieve, then dedicating yourself to achieving it. Being an egomaniac is no requirement and probably holds him back. We may not be working on the billionaire problem space, but our own goals can be equally lofty.

[rsynnott]

> And yet, without him, electric cars would still be in their infancy and rockets would not be landing themselves

This seems... dubious? The chronology is: Smart EQ: 2007 (in tiny numbers; niche non-mass-market product)

Tesla Roadster: 2008 (in tiny numbers; niche non-mass-market product)

Nissan Leaf: 2010

Renault Zoe: 2012

Tesla Model S: 2012

The Leaf was a big seller, and the Zoe outsells Tesla's entire line-up in Europe.

I think it would be fair to say that Tesla really sold the idea of a _performance_ electric car, but not electric cars as a whole.

[gamblor956]

Mitsubishi's iMiev (2009) was the first EV to sell more than 10,000 units.

Toyota RAV4 EV was released in 2003 though it was only available for lease (leasors could buy the vehicle at the end of the lease). Indeed, the RAV4 EV 2nd Generation is the reason Tesla exists as a going concern today; without Toyota's cash infusion, Tesla would just be another Faraday Motors in car history.

Ford released an EV truck in 1998.

And the US granddaddy of them all (excluding vehicles only available to fleets) is the GM EV1, released back in 1996.

[rsynnott]

> Mitsubishi's iMiev (2009) was the first EV to sell more than 10,000 units.

Wow, hadn't realized that one sold that well; I had it filed in my head with the Smart EQ. I'd consider all the others on that list niche impractical devices, though. So the first practical one was probably the iMiev, not the Leaf, then.

[kanox]

> And the US granddaddy of them all (excluding vehicles only available to fleets) is the GM EV1, released back in 1996.

Yes, GM deserves much more credit for the EV revolution than Tesla.

[CrazyStat]

What new information has disenchanted you?

Full disclaimer: happy Tesla owner here.

[netsharc]

Not original commenter, but for one thing, all the emissions being saved by Teslas being electric? Tesla sold the credits to Fiat/Chrysler so their cars can have higher emissions: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/23/teslas-sale-of-environmental...

My math is wonky, does that mean on average, a Tesla is just as polluting as a Fiat/Chrysler car?

[CrazyStat]

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Tesla was awarded tradeable regulatory credits. They didn't have any use for them, so they sold them. I suppose they could have just sat on them and refused to sell.

There are valid criticisms around the environmental cost of building electric vehicles. There are also valid criticisms of the regulatory environment that Tesla operates in. I'm not convinced, though, that it makes sense to expect Tesla to refuse to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of unneeded credits out of principle.

[CrazyStat]

Replying to myself to elaborate.

The regulatory credit trading scheme is effectively the same as a system under which the government imposes extra taxes on FIAT/Chrysler while giving Tesla a tax break. Should Tesla refuse to take that tax break because the money is coming from FIAT/Chrysler?

[reitzensteinm]

I think Tesla should absolutely take the money.

But it means that buying an EV in the EU doesn't really help the environment as an individual action. The emissions are essentially locked in by government policy, although it's very aggressive.

I think this is better though. It doesn't rely on consumers being conscious of their externalities, because regardless of their choices the aggregate carbon efficiency will be improving steadily by the exact same amount year over year.

The program is clearly creating a vibrant BEV market and forcing economies of scale that will eventually make them profitable outside of compliance. It's a major win.

Buying an EV, buying its certificate and not letting anyone use it would mean you're not also allowing 10 ICEs to be sold. But that would really be going above an beyond.

And I don't think Tesla (as the only auto maker that could have this program) wants to draw attention to the dynamics at play.