Posted on 12/10/2018 4:05:49 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Summary The 60 Minutes interview exposes some major red flags. Elon Musk has no regards for authority or consumers. Autopilot liability may be substantial moving forward.
On Sunday night, CBS show 60 Minutes aired a long interview with Tesla (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk. The piece covered a lot of topics, from the Model 3's part in the company's near death, to the autopilot feature many consumers want to rely on. In the end, I encourage everyone to watch this interview, because there are several major red flags that need to be discussed.
First of all, Elon Musk came right out and said "I do not respect the SEC". He admitted that nobody at Tesla is pre-approving his tweets, which seems to go against the settlement he agreed to that specifically says "Tesla will establish a new committee of independent directors and put in place additional controls and procedures to oversee Musk’s communications." I don't necessarily argue with his stance that he is protected by the First Amendment, because while he champions Free Speech, he himself has done a lot to shut down critics, like Montana Skeptic who was a prominent contributor to Seeking Alpha.
When asked about the new Chairman of the Board put in place, Elon Musk was very direct. He argued that Robyn Denholm was his personal choice, and that she is not there to watch over him. Elon went as so far to say "I am the largest shareholder in the company, and I can just call for a shareholder vote and get anything done that I want." Part of the SEC settlement was to bring in two new independent directors to reduce Elon Musk's power over the board, but we are still waiting to find out who those new entrants will be. Corporate governance remains a...
(Excerpt) Read more at seekingalpha.com ...
“Rely on an autopilot in an automobile? OMG! I can think of so many scenarios where the human brain with years of driving experience is so much safer. “
Presently most accidents are caused by careless drivers.
And Musk would have plowed ahead with his plans without subsidies.
He’d be stupid to not take boatloads of money thrown at him for doing what he does.
Have you looked at early cars? That wagon like design of the suspensions with narrow tires wasn’t an accident.
The cars came first and the roads followed. Once roads improved then car design changed ... but that wasn’t why internal combustion cars beat out electric or steam cars early on.
So you would be wrong. Very wrong.
I’ll take the accidents and deaths over an ever more domesticated humanity unable to cope with their environment apart from some gadget to do something for them that they can easily do for themselves.
...and while you napping at 70 mph, here comes Jose in his POS Cadillac, drunk or high out his mind ...
No thanks.
The Tessa’s would be much, much more expensive. And much fewer in numbers.
Oh, and we would have pissed off less money at the federal level too ... which would be all bonus.
.
The roads are built with gas tax money.
.
When considering voltage loss during transmission and the energy cost to mine the lithium and construct the batteries, more energy will ultimately be spent to move a given mass from point A to point B. Assuming the rest of the components on a vehicle be it Electric or Internal Combustion is roughly the same.
Can you imagine Sammy Hagar screaming out “I can’t ride 55!”?
I recall when this story first surfaced in about 76 or 77. What makes it memorable is that I was transferring custom vans from a factory in Indiana to dealers out west.
“The roads are built with gas tax money.”
Tax == subsidy
You missed my point.
I think the Constitution should be ammended to guarantee you can own a gasoline powered car with a driver’s wheel and you are allowed to drive it yourself!
Well, since there’s no delegated power given the federal to forbid those they are already covered by the 10th Amendment.
In a word, no. Conversion efficiency in a central power station is on the order of 45%. Conversion efficiency of a gasoline engine is on the order of 20%. Yes, there are losses down the electricity conversion train, but they are nowhere near the direct losses in IC.
In a word, no. Conversion efficiency in a central power station is on the order of 45%. Conversion efficiency of a gasoline engine is on the order of 20%. Yes, there are losses down the electricity conversion train, but they are nowhere near the direct losses in IC.
No, I didn’t.
The roads were on average horrible when gas powered cars appeared. They were designed to be used on horrible roads. They still sold with no government handouts.
There was no federal expenditures to directly subsidize the purchase of gasoline powered cars. In contrast Tesla’s whole business model is rooted in subsidies to cover part of the purchase price of the cars.
And while we’re at it the Tesla cars do not contribute to the taxes to build and maintain roads that owners of gas powered cars pay.
So not only are they getting a direct subsidy to help purchase them, hiding their true costs from consumers, they are also mooching / freeloading off of other drivers.
Not sure why I am getting double posts. I think my trackball is going flaky.
.
Tax = taken from drivers at the pump!
” In contrast Tesla’s whole business model is rooted in subsidies to cover part of the purchase price of the cars.”
Perhaps you don’t know that tesla’s ‘subsidies’ are ending so our claim is false.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.