Seeking Alpha

Carnardie

Carnardie
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Carnardie's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Micro-Hybrids: The Fuel Efficiency Innovation Of The Decade [View article]
    Petersen: "Calling an EV with a range extender a hybrid is intellectually dishonest and a bastardization of the term."

    It's not just Toyota that disagrees with Petersen, Fisker calls it's own Karma model a hybrid:
    http://bit.ly/sNh79e
    http://bit.ly/vu5zD6

    As if that wasn't enough, Wikipedia also calls them all hybrids and echo's JRP3's description of the differences between parallel and serial hybrids. See http://bit.ly/vVI4Oe
    Nov 9, 2011. 11:15 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Electric Vehicle, Lithium-Ion Battery Investing For Imbeciles [View article]
    PaulTD: "...convincing poor working-class slobs to blow $40,000 of their hard-earned money on what may be the biggest automobile debacle..."

    I'm sorry about your reading comprehension problems. What I did actually suggest was that people consider Tesla as an investment due to their sound business plan, superior technology, and ability to create desirable products.

    Since I started posting here, TSLA is up over 45%, so those "poor slobs" who listened to me (if there were any) aren't so poor anymore. They probably don't mind the likes of you insulting them.
    Nov 9, 2011. 01:47 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Electric Vehicle, Lithium-Ion Battery Investing For Imbeciles [View article]
    PaulTD: The DetroitBureau article is over a year old - from Oct 2010. Matter of fact, it came out 2 months BEFORE the car was available in the US. Furthermore, no sources were identified and there has not been any confirmation that the proposal was even considered from Nissan. The "few months" the article states a decision would be coming in have long since passed.

    But, thanks for posting unsubstantiated, out of date news. It really convinces people.
    Nov 8, 2011. 06:18 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Electric Vehicle, Lithium-Ion Battery Investing For Imbeciles [View article]
    Petersen: "Different people can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions. ... The mere fact that I don't share your hopium clouded optimism does not mean I'm wrong."

    The fact was that Petersen didn't have the facts, yet that didn't prevent him from sharing conclusions. He based those conclusions on invalid assumptions and his own bias, not the facts. That does make them wrong.

    I presented the facts, supported them, and invited readers to draw their own conclusions. I'm not surprised that Petersen hasn't changed his opinion despite the facts (from his point of view) changing. It's clear to me that his bias is strong and he won't let something like facts change them.
    Nov 8, 2011. 05:50 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Electric Vehicle, Lithium-Ion Battery Investing For Imbeciles [View article]
    Petersen: " the remote chance that the battery pack won't need replacing"

    Once again, Petersen writes based on ignorance. He has his facts wrong. Even worse, he doesn't bother to get the facts first.

    The battery replacement wording says that the owner can demand the free battery after 7 years. There's no performance metric requirement. The agreement is here: http://bit.ly/t0LYCN, which was the first hit from the Google search "tesla battery replacement agreement."

    Also, Roadster margins are not at 30%. But then Petersen doesn't bother checking Tesla's financials for facts, either.

    At today's rates, Tesla's 53KwH battery pack should sell for about $26,500. After 7 years, $12K with interest might be around $15K. You can draw your own conclusions about what Tesla is thinking, but my guess is they're convinced battery prices will be half what they are today.
    Nov 8, 2011. 04:01 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Plug-In Vehicles: Weighed In The Balance, And Found Wanting [View article]
    "...detailed analysis that confirms the basic truth."

    Yeah, 150+ pages and they rely on an entertainment show for the assumptions on which their flawed analysis is based. 'noff said
    Nov 8, 2011. 12:02 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Electric Vehicle, Lithium-Ion Battery Investing For Imbeciles [View article]
    Petersen: "Do you really believe the world thinks your desire for an EV is more important than somebody else's need for electric lights, a washing machine and a refrigerator?"

    The idea that "importance" or "world thinking" will determine where copper will go is ludicrous. If EV manufacturers are willing to pay more for copper than washing machine and refrigerator companies are, then the copper will go to the EV manufacturers. That may be tough on developing countries, but it will also open up opportunities for engineers to design products that use less copper.

    Unlike oil & gas, used copper can be, and is, heavily recycled. In the US, more copper is recycled each year than is newly mined.
    Nov 7, 2011. 01:19 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Electric Vehicle, Lithium-Ion Battery Investing For Imbeciles [View article]
    What's the most equivalent BMW to the Model S? Well, the Model S is a big luxurious 5-door hatchback that goes 0-60 in about 5.6 seconds. The BMW 550i GT is a big luxurious 5-door hatchback that goes 0-60 in 5.5 seconds.

    The BMW costs almost 66K base, and has BMW's EfficientDynamics (including both regen and Petersen's much hyped Start-Stop), which results in an astounding combined EPA rating of 18mpg. So, gas cost alone is over $0.22/mile at today's gas price, if you're in a good location (I'm not).

    What's amazing about this comparison is that even without accounting for the higher maintenance costs of the BMW ICE drivetrain, even without BMW AGM battery replacement costs (Petersen's talked so much about how one battery SS solutions are trouble waiting to happen), and even without accounting for the inevitable rise in gas prices over the next 10 years, etc., etc., The Model S leaves you with $15K more in your pocket to invest over the next 10 years.

    Run a true TCO analysis, and the Model S blows the BMW 550i GT away.
    Nov 6, 2011. 06:32 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Electric Vehicle, Lithium-Ion Battery Investing For Imbeciles [View article]
    Petersen: "I'm saying the Model S is a $30,000 car with a $25,000 battery pack that wears out with use."

    Then you get the first battery pack free when you buy the Model S, since the ICE vehicle is the same price out the door.

    "...a properly maintained BMW 5 Series is good for at least a couple hundred thousand miles without major maintenance or repair problems."

    Petersen has obviously never owned a BMW for that length of time/mileage. My experience that in half that mileage you'll be running into both major maintenance and repair problems.

    "simple minds need simple examples"

    I agree Petersen needs simple examples, but counting the battery cost of the Model S twice goes beyond simple and into intentional mis-information.
    Nov 6, 2011. 06:01 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Electric Vehicle, Lithium-Ion Battery Investing For Imbeciles [View article]
    "Any questions?"

    Yeah - you really want to stand by that analysis?

    You really think a proper analysis factors in the cost of batteries as if they were an add-ons? You're effectively saying the Model S 160 costs $25K more than the equivalent 5-series, which it doesn't.

    You really think a proper analysis factors in the expected lifetime of the batteries but not the expected lifetime of the gas engine, transmission, fuel system, exhaust system, etc.?

    You really think a proper analysis doesn't factor in the differing maintenance costs of the two vehicles?

    You really think a proper analysis assumes drivers get better than the EPA combined mileage (22mpg) for the equivalent performance 5-series?

    You really think a 10-year analysis should assume gas remains at $4/gallon? Where I live, the premium gas the BMW is already more than that.

    Calculating TCO is complex and must be based on many assumptions, all of which Petersen has hand-waved away. What's interesting is that even with this extremely biased analysis, the difference comes out to about 1% of the vehicle cost per year. Not only is this minuscule for this class of buyers, it indicates that any proper analysis will show that the Model S will have a lower TCO than the BMW 5-series.
    Nov 6, 2011. 02:19 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Stop-Start Idle Elimination Crushing Vehicle Electrification? [View article]
    Petersen: "Axion has always planned on implementing an platform technology business model based on Intel's."

    Intel makes its own chips in Fabs that it owns and operates. Those chips go into computers and mobile devices, etc. The equivalent would be for Axion to build and operate factories to make batteries which go into cars and trucks, etc.

    Your #3 is the ARM model. ARM is eating Intel's lunch in the mobile space, and Intel has no-where to go since ARM's profit per chip is way less than Intel demands. Interestingly, manufacturing is so important a profit center for Intel that they've signed up to make ARM chips, and pay ARM a licensing fee.
    Nov 6, 2011. 01:20 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Electric Vehicle, Lithium-Ion Battery Investing For Imbeciles [View article]
    Petersen: "By the time you figure in wear and tear on the battery pack gasoline wins by a mile."

    Got any numbers to back that up?
    Nov 6, 2011. 12:01 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Electric Vehicle, Lithium-Ion Battery Investing For Imbeciles [View article]
    Petersen: "The 6 billion couldn't care less about a car, but they all think electric lights, washing machines and refrigerators are more important ..."

    Are you investing in companies that make electric lights, washing machine, and refrigerators, then? If so, which ones and why?
    Nov 6, 2011. 11:49 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Stop-Start Idle Elimination Crushing Vehicle Electrification? [View article]
    Petersen's article is focused on the economics of Start-Stop. He even goes so far as to quote Vinod Khosla on the sole importance of economics. However, the article he just referenced from The Telegraph brings up serious economic concerns on a current Ford UK car with Start-Stop technology.

    In fact, that article concludes that one would need to drive over 210,000 miles a year to make the SS system cost effective. The system costs $1200 for a 3.6 MPG gain on a car that already gets over 70mpg. This hardly fits into Petersen's cost-effectiveness requirement - and that's with Europe's already start-stop friendly mileage calculations in play.

    For another data point, Kia plans to offer a Start-Stop "Eco" option on its Rio line in the US next year at a cost of $400 (and another package is required to be able to order it in the first place). But the SS system doesn't help the EPA mpg ratings at all according to the SAE (see http://bit.ly/tZXzNF/). Also, there are a number of caveats around when Kia's system kicks in (see http://bit.ly/vEMzrs). Thus, the system isn't always functioning, reducing the potential fuel savings. One would expect that a $400 option with no demonstrable benefit to be a tough sell for Kia.

    If these two vehicles are the current state of the art in Start-Stop technology, they are perhaps indicative that adoption of this technology will not be any faster than adoption of hybrids have been. Petersen is found of repeating a saying about green in wallets versus green in the environment. It appears that saying might be more applicable to SS than to some of the EVs he bashes. And so perhaps we have our first clue as to why Petersen can't promote SS technology without bashing EVs.
    Nov 5, 2011. 08:37 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Electric Vehicle, Lithium-Ion Battery Investing For Imbeciles [View article]
    Petersen: " I can't tell you when Tesla will be a $5 stock, but I'm certain that it will be a $5 stock within the next 18 months."

    Surely, one who is CERTAIN that a stock will drop from its current price of almost $30 to $5 in 18 months (that's April 2013) has figured out a way to profit from that certainty. If I knew for "certain" that a stock, any stock, would go from $30 to $5 in 18 months, I'd be all over it - and so would Petersen.

    But, he's not. The truth is Petersen doesn't believe his own hype. He writes here in SA over and over with the desperate hope of convincing all he can that Axion has the keys to the future and that companies like Tesla with competing solutions (or pieces of solutions) are crap.

    His citing of current revenue and current losses is about the blindest piece of stock analysis I've ever seen. Whether you believe Tesla is a good or bad investment for the next 18 months, you're not basing that on the intentionally limited production run Roadsters, you're basing it on the potential profit (or not) of the Model S that's scheduled for Summer 2012.
    Oct 30, 2011. 08:41 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
259 Comments
552 Likes