vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt; Even if Tesla takes care of the issue quickly and gave me a loaner, it's still hours if not a day that I wouldn't have a drivable car. The thing is, it's really not. They can come get your car from wherever it is and drop off a loaner at the same time. The loaner is generally a Model S (unless they run out, and then they offer you a free rental of something cool - I got offered a Jaguar for my Roadster's warranty service once, but chose to take a Leaf instead because I am fully over gasoline). Oftentimes they can pick up the car while you're at work and have it back to you by the end of the day. Like they mentioned, I think only 2 repairs required an overnight stay - and they had access to a loaner at the time anyway. Further, they mention multiple times that many of the repairs were for issues related to early production cars - the door handle problem, for example, was only in the first 1,000 cars or so before a software update fixed it. The software update for that one was applied over the air. &gt;and my admittedly short experience with our own Camry so far Interestingly, CR dropped their recommendation for the Camry last year (according to the most recent info I could find, which is [from October](http://www.cnbc.com/id/101148312), so there may be something more recent than that), while they still recommend the Model S based on their review and reliability survey. That article even claims the Model S to be above average in reliability (though I think they may have gotten that wrong). &gt;Since these two reviews switched me from being interested in Tesla to being apprehensive, I'd say that they were quite unfavorable. Again, I wonder if you read the full reviews, or followed their various updates on the long-term tests. Because both have been overjoyed with the car all along, and like I said, it almost feels to me like they're hunting for things to say they had problems with just so they seem to be objective. One of the guys even said something to that effect in the CR talking cars segment on Youtube.
Until you use the supercharger stations too much and the car automatically starts limiting you to slower recharging speeds to prevent damage to the battery. It's an unfortunate side effect of quickly charging existing battery technologies, it should be alleviated once solid state batteries become widely available though.
I'm a die-hard Tesla fan who doesn't yet own a model 3. I fully expect to pay at least $45 for the model 3 I would want. I'm not sure expectations have been tempered yet. How many people will be expecting all the bells and whistles for $35k minus the rebates? Even for just this next car release in a few weeks, their actual demand and production ability are volatile.
With the current models, yes.  With the upcoming low-cost Tesla it would be a real boon to people who drive constantly, especially for taxis, transplant delivery companies, city-to-city messenger services, etc.  Tesla needs to be very careful and perhaps exclude commercial vehicles/commercial use or they may wind up paying for repairs for a lot of taxicabs.
"Right now, I think Tesla is scared of being wounded by being too successful. If the Model 3 is as popular as I think it will be, and they can't crank them out fast enough, there's going to be a constant barrage of negative publicity. I guess they now see anything that can mitigate demand to a more reasonable level as a good thing. Talking about ditching the tax credits is easy when you're on top, but a few years ago, it was hard to get a straight price out of them on how much the cars actually cost, because of all the weasel math. The price they preferred to tell you was minus the tax credit(s) and even incorporated savings from not buying gasoline factored in. ""Yeah, that's all good and well, but how much does it actually cost?"""
I still don't understand this, you have an option between two cars, they are exactly the same except for one is cheaper and has less battery capacity, that means the company who built it is making less money on the cheaper one, and you have the choice between the two cars. You could very easily just buy the more expensive one if you have the money then, or you can afford it now until you have the money later, always your choice. If you don't like it, buy the more-expensive bigger battery, not the cheaper car that costs the same net price after the upgrade. What's wrong with that?
" Panasonic is partnering in their battery factory, and will be responsible for much of the production. And Panasonic has been making quite a tidy profit on their battery manufacturing for several years thanks to Tesla. &gt;the ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES declined to spend massive capital for a plant to supply TSLA cars Literally in the same exact call that this article is about, on the same day, Panasonic and Tesla announced that Panasonic is spending massive capital for a plant to supply TSLA cars. Not only have they increased production at their own plant tremendously over the course of the last few years, they will end up spending a billion dollars on the Tesla plant (on the call, Elon said ""Tesla will provide 40-50% of the total cost. **Panasonic about 20-40%**. States 10% and other partners 10,15,20% depending on how vertical they go with the factory"", Panasonic has already committed 200-300 million for the initial buildout per the press release on earnings day, and will be onboard for at least a billion, but Elon thinks they may do more in the end). So no, you really, *really* don't understand it."
"&gt;Every word is true.  No, really, none of it.  &gt;Taxpayers get tax credits for buying them. If taxpayers didn't get those tax credits then TSLA would have to lower the price of the car and they would be a loss.  In what world is $7,500 26.9% of $100k (their ASP, something close to 100k)?  Please, show me the math on that.  &gt;See above.  See *what* above?  You picked that number out of your ass.  &gt;I said competition is ""coming"", not that it's here.  Yeah, and name one that's coming.  Go ahead.  Nothing?  Thought so.  Not to mention, of course, that Tesla's company mission statement is to get other cars to compete with it.  That's literally the entire purpose for the company's existence.  And they recently told everyone else they can use their patents if they want to.  &gt;TSLA has worse battery tech than the cutting edge battery companies whose batteries are coming in the new competition  Oh, the competition which is coming, which you seem to know everything about and yet can't name?  Of *course* the current battery technology is worse than the technology of the future, no shit.  That's because battery tech improves at 8-10% per year.  It's been doing this for decades."
&gt; The company also emphasizes its green credentials, pointing out traveling in all-electric vehicles does not emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  [Popular Mechanics](http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a3259/electric-cars-pollute-more-than-gasoline-cars-17535339/) as well as [Scientific American](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/) among many others disagree  also, if the traffic is hell if you drive your car, how is it better if a Tesla is the vehicle?  &gt; Given the notorious traffic conditions on I-5
The article in the OP talks about the Model S outselling competitors' luxury cars and even says they outsold three different manufacturers' cars *combined* in that category. Yet BMW sold 61,514 7-series cars alone last year. Tesla sold under 80,000 cars *in total* last year.   They must be picking a very specific luxury car from a series range to make those claims add up.    Tesla is a NICHE automaker. A better comparison would be to Lotus, Koenigsegg, etc.  They are simply and utterly dwarfed by any real OEM and that isn't going to change for at least a decade or more.
"Sure it is.  I plug it in when I park it, I go do whatever other things I was going to do anyway, and when I use the car it's got the charge I need to get where I need to be.  How is that functionally different from it taking 5 seconds to charge?  I have spent less time charging in the years I've owned an EV than I spent in gas stations over the same amount of years owning a gas car.  Therefore, the EV takes less of my time to charge.  And I'm telling you this because I've actually experienced both.  And EV owners who have actually experienced both can tell you that the EV is generally more convenient to use.  You don't have to go out of your way and spend your time and money at a gross gas station, the car just gets charged in the same place it's parked all the time anyway.  Cars spend 95% of their time parked, might as well make that time productive.  If you're that concerned, make your next car a PHEV with enough range to cover your daily driving (so a Volt, maybe Clarity PHEV, or i3 with ""range extender"" option) and then you'll experience how much more convenient it is to charge and how you'd much rather do that than go to gas stations."
Read the article, the Tesla model S 60 has a 75kwh battery the same as a 75, they were sold as a cheaper car with an upgrade option at any time, this only upgraded all 60s to 75s temporarily to escape from the hurricane, any owner of a 60 knows they can activate this at any time by paying up to the 75 price. They are not extending into the higher and lower charge capacity than the recommended ban
What's really worrisome is that people are buying larger and more expensive vehicles. People look at longer terms as an opportunity to buy something they really shouldn't be since hey, I can take it for two more years for the same payment.
Do new automobiles typically release in low numbers? and later you say The car released 2 days ago. I called around and discovered local dealers only have ~10 2018's total for all trims. So you are calling local dealers and they have ten after two days. Let's say you are in New York City, population eight million (about 2.5% of the United States population). That would suggest that there are around four hundred produced in two days (10 is 2.5% of 400), or two hundred a day. That would be four thousand a month (assuming four weeks, each with five workdays). Considering that the most sold in a month were 14,207 in June of 2013 and March's 7727 was the best this year, that seems to be a decent pace if a little slow to start. Now, let's assume that you are using a local area with a population of only two million. This could still be New York City if you only call dealers in a quarter of the area. Their two day pace would put them on a rate to produce sixteen thousand the first month, which is more than they can reasonably expect to sell. If your local area is an even smaller portion of the US overall, this might not actually be low inventory. Don't forget that some dealers may also still have 2017 vehicles left. They might want to sell those before they order too many new vehicles. Particularly as they may not know what feature packages sell best yet. If they're willing to tell you that they have three 2018s (and sold a fourth), they should be eager to tell you how many 2017s they have. A high 2018 price gives them a better chance to sell the 2017s at a profit. If you really want to check if they are having production problems, ask how long it will be to order a vehicle. For a US manufactured car, special order should fall in the five to eight weeks range. If that's what they're quoting, then there probably are not production problems. When trading with a dealer, do your research, tell them what you believe a fair price is, and then be ready to walk if they won't give it to you. Be up front.
They lobbied to get a monopoly on direct to buyer cars (no dealership), they also receive subsidies on each car, as they aren't affordable for consumers. Their goal is more to take over the electric car market, not to put consumer desires first. I'm probably going to hell for pointing this out, but I thought you could know.
"I think that there is insufficient infrastructure to support a company the size of GM selling only electric cars. They would be making a huge assumption that people actually want what they're offering, and that the vast majority of the US will have the infrastructure to support it in a meaningful way.  Imagine if ~~Pentium~~ Intel said, ""You know what, we're only going to make cell phone processors from now on. Cell phones are the future, and they're more energy efficient, so that's all we'll be making in 5 years.""  Do you really think that so many people will stay loyal to the brand, rather than jumping to AMD or some other competitor who actually makes full-size processors, that their business will stay afloat at its current size?  I'm also going to guess that the segment of people who 'buy American' and are loyal to General Motors as a company has a pretty small overlap with people who want a glorified golf cart. What about all the people that need big work trucks with hauling power that can run all day? Sounds like they're being left out in the cold, and I'm sure Ford would be thrilled to pick them up with the gas-guzzlingest trucks they can produce. Throwing away an entire segment of your customer base isn't a very strong move when you're trying to keep a business afloat. Hydrogen fuel cells sound nice, but I haven't seen any proof that the technology has been developed enough to actually run a car in normal day-to-day. They're making a promise that nobody has delivered on.  Electric cars are a fine offering *in addition to* the internal combustion engines that still run the world. But to replace them completely? They're nowhere close to that, and the expenses to get that sort of project into full swing would bankrupt GM even if poor sales don't.  I think the big mistake is that people are looking at Tesla's success and attributing it to a huge consumer thirst for electric cars, rather than to the savvy marketing and hype that formed around Elon Musk. It's a cult of personality. People want a Tesla because it's cool; they don't want a Leaf because it's so darned economical. GM obviously doesn't get that."
It bothers me how your being downvoted in a goddamn business sub. Like I get people like Tesla and think it's going to be a good company but as of right now this company doesn't make money and isn't that the whole point of a business? Sure it might have huge and amazing potential but that's all it is: potential. I like Tesla as much as the next guy. I'm kicking myself for not buying the stock when I first saw it mentioned on Reddit and I considered buying it. That was at like $70.   But there is a simple fact that the company may be overvalued. It's valued like a tech company when it's currently operating like a car company. Sure you can argue they are really a tech company or will be in the future when/if they dominate the battery market but then that means news like this shouldn't even make a dent on their price.   You gave your simple and valid reasons for why you wouldn't buy Tesla. But obviously people don't want to hear it and will downvote it instead of actually making a discussion from it.    Sometimes I think that Elons marketing team has Reddit completely figured out and is just abusing it.
"&gt;Every major car company is doing research. There is going to be massive competition. You failed to address the part where I said Tesla *wants* major car companies to compete. That has been the entire point all along, from the very start. And competition would be good for Tesla, because instead of Tesla alone having to spend resources on educating the ignorant public (e.g. you), this way other auto manufacturers would be able to help. And Tesla would have other yardsticks to compare to, and to say ""see, we're better than them."" Tesla welcomes this. Auto companies are behind the times because they've outsourced nearly all of their engineering expertise. They are good at volume production and engines. That's most of what's left of any major auto manufacturer. So take away the engine, and they have nothing. To make a compelling EV, they need to start from scratch, and it takes years to develop a car. This is why competition hasn't come, and why compelling competition isn't coming. The only companies with somewhat compelling offerings are those who started very early - BMW and Nissan - or those who have partnered with Tesla - Mercedes and sort-of-Toyota. Porsche has a chance since they still have engineers, but they're dragging their feet. Everyone else is basically fucked. And not just because of the lack of engineering, but because of the nature of large companies. It takes a lot to right a large ship. Companies will be loathe to release compelling EVs because they will compete against themselves, they will have to advertise the EVs as if they are better than their gas offerings which still make up 99% of their sales. This puts them in a sort of paralysis and they can't do anything about it. *Someone* is going to take bites out of their market share, and it's either going to be them or it's going to be Tesla. &gt; In the real world there is specialization. Some companies design cars, others design batteries. Have you seriously never heard of vertical integration? My previous paragraph talks about the perils of the sort of specialization you're talking about.
Obviously it must have been an esthetics thing because they didn't sell, did they? And for any real change to occur is massive adoption of new modfes of transportation and massive capital outlays by Government. Anyone who thinks the private sector is capable of making this change on it's own is delusional.  BTW - here are some new technologies that will be hitting the market in coming decade:  http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/fuel-economy/6-prototype-engines-to-get-your-brain-firing#fbIndex1  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15735478  http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/science-scope/top-10-solar-power-advances-to-watch/1509  http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Solar-power-advances-bringing-down-cost-1398100.php
"&gt; I'm not sure how to answer that. It's all just speculation. The competition is waiting for the first big mover to do just what TSLA is going.. being the first mover, then coming in and wiping the floor with them. It's very funny that you call an analysis of the *current* state of the industry speculation, and then go on to talk about something you think is going to happen...which, by the way, has had six years to happen and hasn't yet. Also, it's as if you don't think first mover advantage exists. Six years is a long time to build up a lead, especially in automotive, where product cycles and development times are so long. &gt;If you want to argue that all of the last 30 years of free markets and the value of specialization is wrong, go ahead. Honestly, look up the words ""vertical integration"" before continuing the conversation. And the word ""Panasonic"" as well. &gt;They are committing massive capital to old technology. That's a loser play, but it will help the industry as a whole and those that are going to come in with the next generation of batteries while TSLA is stuck with massive capital in lithium ion. But wait, I thought you said they were wrong because ""ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES"" aren't involved? And that ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES know better than them? But I guess the ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES don't actually know anything, and they should listen to an idiot on the internet who has so far proven himself to be wrong about everything he's said? &gt;It seems Panasonic is not as optimistic about the plant as you are. Well, again, if you listened to the call, which is a pretty basic first step to talking about the quarterly results, which for some reason you insist on continuing to do despite being completely ignorant of them, then you might not be saying such stupid things. Panasonic, you see, is a rather conservative Japanese company. This is even mentioned in your article when they talk about plasma displays. This is why they are always measured in their public statements, because that's what Japanese companies do.
What is bad about this is the state of someones emergency ought to be in their own hands. If you are going to push the battery to its limits because you downright need it right now then it ought to be something I can do without Tesla deciding its an emergency they think is worthy.
I've heard this is true, and that's what I plan to do personally. But I know people who ditch their cars every few years for something newer and better. If they could be convinced to buy a Tesla instead of a giant Jeep, that is still progress.
&gt;Financial Position &gt;Tesla had cash and cash equivalents of $2.7 billion as of Jun 30, 2014, compared with $845.9 million as Dec 31, 2013. Long-term debt was $2.4 billion as of Jun 30, 2014, versus $586.3 million as of Dec 31, 2013. &gt;Cash flow from operating activities amounted to $57.1 million in the first half of 2014, compared with $28.8 million in the year-ago period. Capital expenditures increased to $317.0 million from $98.2 million in the first half of 2013. &gt;Gigafactory Update &gt;Tesla has signed a formal agreement with Panasonic Corp. (PCRFY) for partnership in the Gigafactory. Under the agreement, Panasonic will invest in production equipment for the manufacture of lithium-ion battery cells, while Tesla will invest in land, buildings and utilities for the Gigafactory as well as production equipment for battery module and pack production. Moreover, Tesla will be responsible for the management of the Gigafactory. Other partners will also be involved in the Gigafactory for manufacture of the required precursor materials. &gt;In June, Tesla broke ground for the potential construction of the Gigafactory near Reno, NV. While the location of the Gigafactory has not been decided yet, Tesla is planning to hold ground-breaking ceremony for the factory at three sites to avoid any delay in construction. Construction work will begin at one of the three sites by the end of the year and will be wrapped up by 2017. &gt;Outlook &gt;Tesla expects to record a marginal adjusted profit in the third quarter of 2014. Production volume in the third quarter of 2014 is expected to be 9,000 cars, up 2.7% from 8,763 cars produced in the second quarter of 2014. This includes the impact of the two-week production shutdown at the Fremont factory for the transition to the new final assembly line, which is expected to result in production loss of about 2,000 cars in the third quarter. However, due to the enhanced factory capacity, Tesla expects production volume to increase to an average of 1,000 cars per week in the fourth quarter of 2014 from 800 cars at present.
"I wouldn't say that they are ""begging"" for it.  Just realizing that there is a competitive advantage for the larger car companies.  However that incentive is necessary for the large companies to invest in electric, and it is a great benefit for consumers as well.  Most people can't afford a low cost electric car without the tax credit (not to mention a luxury item like a tesla).  This brings the technology to a larger market share."
&gt;  It's got autopilot features, intelligent diagnostic systems, and the current line of Tesla are the safest vehicles on the planet. Not to mention it's extremely reliable.  Actually things like autopilot are optional and very expensive.  Extremely reliable? Might want to look at some reviews. Consumer Reports took back their recommendation after all the issues. There are tons of issues
Just skimmed the article, but any mention of Uber/Lyft's role in this?  I've gotten so many rides in relatively newish Chrystler 200s , and always wondered why anyone would every buy one since it's consistently ranked last in the mid-priced sedan market in almost every metric.  My gut feeling when I read the headline is all those Uber/Lyft drivers who bought a brand new car to start driving left and ending up having to default on the car.
Alternative: buy a recent-model used car in good condition. Or buy an older car in good condition. Let someone else pay the heavy depreciation that happens the moment you drive a new car off the dealer's lot.