Tesla Semi truck should start production in 2019

Tesla should start production of the electric Semi truck starting in 2019.

The Semi will share many components with the Model 3. The Semi will use four Model 3 electric motors and the two touchscreens on the driver’s console.

The Semi design is being improved with a new battery module that is lighter, better, and cheaper than the original design.

In the Q1 2018 Tesla earnings call, Musk said that there were about 2,000 total pre-orders of the Semi.

As of November 2017, companies already developing their own electric trucks include Volkswagen Group, Einride, Thor Trucks, Cummins, Daimler AG, Nikola Motor Company, Toyota, BYD, Kenworth, Proterra, Inc., and Uber.

115 thoughts on “Tesla Semi truck should start production in 2019”

  1. If you want to know who is Warren the Ape, you may be interested to have a look here bit.ly/2MeWYZT Thank you

  2. How is my going after the idiots-known-as-Kool-Aid-drinking-Musk-fluffers translate as ‘wishing him to fail’? Pretty much, only those very same Kool-Aid drinking Musk fluffers would even think that way.

  3. Musk is not the second coming but I don’t understand the people that wish him to fail. Even if he is 50% con man its hard to deny that he is landing rockets on barges in the ocean. If he fails at everything else we should at least be appreciative that he moved the ball forward for rocket science. NASA certainly hasn’t done anything interesting in the launch vehicle arena for quite some time.

  4. Three big lawsuits by investors jilted by Musk’s securities fraud have been filed. And you can bet those are the tips of the iceberg. The SEC is ramping up their investigation. Musk had better come up with that ‘secured funding’ he had claimed to have in that first Tweet of his…or all you Musk Fluffers can kiss everything you worship-like-the-second-coming goodbye! Including this semi truck.

  5. If you want to know who is Warren the Ape you may be interested to have a look here bit.ly/2MeWYZT Thank you

  6. How is my going after the idiots-known-as-Kool-Aid-drinking-Musk-fluffers translate as ‘wishing him to fail’?Pretty much only those very same Kool-Aid drinking Musk fluffers would even think that way.

  7. Musk is not the second coming but I don’t understand the people that wish him to fail. Even if he is 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} con man its hard to deny that he is landing rockets on barges in the ocean. If he fails at everything else we should at least be appreciative that he moved the ball forward for rocket science. NASA certainly hasn’t done anything interesting in the launch vehicle arena for quite some time.

  8. Three big lawsuits by investors jilted by Musk’s securities fraud have been filed. And you can bet those are the tips of the iceberg. The SEC is ramping up their investigation. Musk had better come up with that ‘secured funding’ he had claimed to have in that first Tweet of his…or all you Musk Fluffers can kiss everything you worship-like-the-second-coming goodbye!Including this semi truck.

  9. You have no reason to believe it is not in fact a signed, notarized, executable contract, and for that matter as long as he had the word of an agent able to speak for the sole proprietor of the KSASWF, he had that funding at that time. It doesn’t matter if the deal later falls through.

  10. Tom, I’m not arguing with with your appraisal of WTA. I will point out that his rendition of the facts concerning Musk’s blunder statement about having funding is true given the public news. The SEC has not yet made a move thus far mostly because of Musk’s popularity. They will likely make their move after a reasonable amount of time. Because it is illegal to try to manipulate publicly traded stocks. That may not have been Musk’s intent but it was its effect. BTW, what is the reason for making booster catching ships with nets? Why not land them in nets in a remote landing site on land? Eventually, when the process is perfected I’m sure that will be the case.

  11. How about the fact you claim people who only observe the truth out loud are to you “idiots-known-as-Kool-Aid-drinking-Musk-fluffers” and you never back up your contrsary assertions with a fact? You never accept a true thing said about Musk and his endeavors if it’s good. You continue to spread BS about SpaceX being “nationalized” and never show how it could happen, or would even be lawful. You’re a sockpuppetting troll who changes his account name to try to shed accountability for your past transgressions (some of which are documented here bit.ly/2MeWYZT0 , such as editing people’s comments without their permission and disappearing them).

  12. No. FUNDING SECURED means SECURED. Not ‘kinda-sorta-maybe-secured’. If that funding was NOT SECURED when he made that tweet, he’s busted. That’s how it works. And it is been widely reported by various people now that he has been on the phone, desperately trying to secure that funding ever since this has happened. Three lawsuits have been filed already, by people who have had suffered financial loss from this. More will be filed, no doubt.

  13. I used to work at UPS. The trailers were always well below the statutory maximum weight, even when full, because of all the packing inside the parcels. The trailers could have carried tons of auxiliary batteries, along the chassis rails without losing any payload. I suspect this would be true for most less than load carriers.

  14. The cab-over design is a good choice for a class 6 truck. It is not popular in the US, but is preferred layout everywhere else. All other things being equal, CO is shorter, allowing a shorter turn radius with the same trailer. US built CO tractors are more expensive. I suspect that is because of their lower rate of production. It’s biggest drawback is that the cab surrounds the engine/transmission, so the cab must lift for engine access, and of course the cab is louder, and hotter than the engine forward design. Cab forward is more aerodynamic, since there are fewer corners on the cab to cause turbulence, and the tractor can be shorter. CO is also lighter all things being equal. I think CO layout is a particularly good choice for an electric class 8 tractor, because access to the motor, and transmission is less of an issue, and because noise, and heat will be less problematic. There will also be more room for batteries all things being equal.

  15. It’s already been reported that Saudi investment is a major player in the “funding secured”. So, your kinda chasing a shadow.

  16. It means available. Nowhere is it defined as a term of art which can only mean a signed notarized executable contract. And it is … filed”” no doubt. “” “””

  17. Tom I’m not arguing with with your appraisal of WTA. I will point out that his rendition of the facts concerning Musk’s blunder statement about having funding is true given the public news. The SEC has not yet made a move thus far mostly because of Musk’s popularity. They will likely make their move after a reasonable amount of time. Because it is illegal to try to manipulate publicly traded stocks. That may not have been Musk’s intent but it was its effect. BTW what is the reason for making booster catching ships with nets? Why not land them in nets in a remote landing site on land? Eventually when the process is perfected I’m sure that will be the case.

  18. How about the fact you claim people who only observe the truth out loud are to you idiots-known-as-Kool-Aid-drinking-Musk-fluffers”” and you never back up your contrsary assertions with a fact? You never accept a true thing said about Musk and his endeavors if it’s good.You continue to spread BS about SpaceX being “”””nationalized”””” and never show how it could happen”” or would even be lawful.You’re a sockpuppetting troll who changes his account name to try to shed accountability for your past transgressions (some of which are documented here bit.ly/2MeWYZT0 “” such as editing people’s comments without their permission and disappearing them).”””

  19. No. FUNDING SECURED means SECURED. Not ‘kinda-sorta-maybe-secured’. If that funding was NOT SECURED when he made that tweet he’s busted. That’s how it works.And it is been widely reported by various people now that he has been on the phone desperately trying to secure that funding ever since this has happened.Three lawsuits have been filed already by people who have had suffered financial loss from this. More will be filed no doubt.

  20. I used to work at UPS. The trailers were always well below the statutory maximum weight even when full because of all the packing inside the parcels. The trailers could have carried tons of auxiliary batteries along the chassis rails without losing any payload. I suspect this would be true for most less than load carriers.

  21. The cab-over design is a good choice for a class 6 truck. It is not popular in the US but is preferred layout everywhere else. All other things being equal CO is shorter allowing a shorter turn radius with the same trailer.US built CO tractors are more expensive. I suspect that is because of their lower rate of production. It’s biggest drawback is that the cab surrounds the engine/transmission so the cab must lift for engine access and of course the cab is louder and hotter than the engine forward design. Cab forward is more aerodynamic since there are fewer corners on the cab to cause turbulence and the tractor can be shorter. CO is also lighter all things being equal.I think CO layout is a particularly good choice for an electric class 8 tractor because access to the motor and transmission is less of an issue and because noise and heat will be less problematic. There will also be more room for batteries all things being equal.

  22. It’s already been reported that Saudi investment is a major player in the funding secured””. So”””” your kinda chasing a shadow.”””

  23. There is none But at least some new people may be incouraged to know who is that guy WTA. By the way, this is Luca here, I just have to use my new name as when I try to register as Luca Mazza I get blocked. Freedom of information in the US right ? Just saying

  24. Matheus, you wrote that webpage. And it just contains stuff that Warren posted here. So where is the new information?

  25. Have to admit I am not even sure what this run on word/statement means “idiots-known-as-Kool-Aid-drinking-Musk-fluffers” My command of the English language may be lacking. From what I gather you are against Elon Musk supporters. However your name calling of Musk supporters does not mean that you wish him to fail.

  26. It means available. Nowhere is it defined as a term of art which can only mean a signed, notarized executable contract. ” And it is … filed, no doubt.

  27. Have to admit I am not even sure what this run on word/statement means idiots-known-as-Kool-Aid-drinking-Musk-fluffers”” My command of the English language may be lacking. From what I gather you are against Elon Musk supporters. However your name calling of Musk supporters does not mean that you wish him to fail.”””

  28. No his rendition”” is not true. It is never illegal to say a true thing which benefits your companies’ stock”” in fact a CEO has a fiduciary duty to do so.The nets aren’t to catch boosters”” but the payload fairing halves.”””

  29. You have no reason to believe it is not in fact a signed notarized executable contract and for that matter as long as he had the word of an agent able to speak for the sole proprietor of the KSASWF he had that funding at that time. It doesn’t matter if the deal later falls through.

  30. The main issue I have with the design is that it appears to me that in a 45mph+ collision, the driver has very little hope of survival if the contact is high such as hitting the rear of another truck’s trailer. That windshield will not protect squat. I suppose, if the AI is doing its job, the risk of these collisions will go way down. However, it is only going to take a few well published grizzly deaths, for Tesla to be gasping for air. Reputation is their greatest asset. Trashing that could really hurt. I suppose I could be wrong and those columns could be insanely strong. I think I would like to see a safety test…fully loaded. 80,000 lb, 40mph into the back of a trailer…preferably at least two foot offset. Dead center accidents are fairly rare. Usually someone tries to avoid at the last second, or both vehicles are just not exactly the same distance from the line.

  31. Tractor trailer accidents are second only to “train wrecks” in their seriousness. I don’t agree that the driver would be unsafe in a Tesla rig because it would be built to comply with NHTSA requirements. They aren’t going to allow a company to sell an unsafe vehicle. On top of that insurance companies have a lot of pull; if a vehicle is costly to repair, like the single piece hood/fender combination of older Chevrolet Corvettes, then the insurance company may apply pressure to reduce component cost.

  32. Tom, there is – not yet – any evidence of a legally enforceable right or agreement to have funding provided for the transaction (ie SEC definition). And because Musk can’t provide evidence (obviously before the announcement) this will probably get Musk in trouble, from slap on the wrist to much more than that, from the SEC (if you like I could go on about how SEC does enforcement). Much more importantly, imho, is what happens with the lawsuits. But besides all this, going public for a company like Tesla (already highly leveraged) is a massive undertaking. I don’t think the PIF has the capacity to pull it off as a LBO. “talks” have been on-going for years and KSA has bigger fish to fry (like SABIC). Besides, for the Saudis, they have real questions whether such a transaction can pass CFIUS, especially under the new rules. If they really truly wanted to invest in Tesla (not talking about Spacex here, only TSLA), they would have already. The key question, I think, is why haven’t the Saudis confirmed Musk’s assertions? Except for owning a model S, I have no position in TSLA. I wish them the best, but they keep shooting themselves in the foot.

  33. Tractor trailer accidents are second only to train wrecks”” in their seriousness. I don’t agree that the driver would be unsafe in a Tesla rig because it would be built to comply with NHTSA requirements. They aren’t going to allow a company to sell an unsafe vehicle. On top of that insurance companies have a lot of pull; if a vehicle is costly to repair”” like the single piece hood/fender combination of older Chevrolet Corvettes”” then the insurance company may apply pressure to reduce component cost.”””

  34. Tom there is – not yet – any evidence of a legally enforceable right or agreement to have funding provided for the transaction (ie SEC definition). And because Musk can’t provide evidence (obviously before the announcement) this will probably get Musk in trouble from slap on the wrist to much more than that from the SEC (if you like I could go on about how SEC does enforcement). Much more importantly imho is what happens with the lawsuits. But besides all this going public for a company like Tesla (already highly leveraged) is a massive undertaking. I don’t think the PIF has the capacity to pull it off as a LBO. talks”” have been on-going for years and KSA has bigger fish to fry (like SABIC). Besides”” for the Saudis they have real questions whether such a transaction can pass CFIUS especially under the new rules. If they really truly wanted to invest in Tesla (not talking about Spacex here only TSLA) they would have already. The key question I think is why haven’t the Saudis confirmed Musk’s assertions? Except for owning a model S I have no position in TSLA. I wish them the best”” but they keep shooting themselves in the foot.”””

  35. Tom, “secured funding” was not a true statement. As a professional investor, I thought that Tesla indeed had a confirmation agreement and this was cleared by the board (though I couldn’t make the LBO target price/leverage work, but there might be more to it in the details e.g., restructure of SolarCity). When I discovered there was nothing there (yet), I realized Musk made a serious error. He is a seasoned executive of a public firm and should have known better. But he made the matter worse. His” explanation” proves it. Read it carefully. He admits to not having the funding, no board approval, and no interaction with the regulators. That’s pretty damming and I wonder if his chief counsel even read it before it was released. If so, I am really flabbergasted. His “fiduciary” duty, as you call it, failed. Twice. In one week. He will face serious problems with all this. I am surprised the board hasn’t fired him (obviously a problem in itself without Musk at Tesla). Tesla is one of the most highlighted firms on the planet. Their cheerleader-in-chief is off the reservation. His problem now is that anything he says next will be questioned. Sales, production figures, earnings, debt repayments, capital raising etc etc all the other “boring” CEO stuff. Maybe shareholders can live with this, maybe not. From the look at the share price, not. My bet is that Musk is worried the convertibles might not hit target price (360) and will have to pay in cash, or rollover – a financial disaster – so he is trying to “do what it takes” and breaking rules. Maybe he thinks the SEC or investors don’t care?

  36. Journal reporter Sarah Nassauer: Walmart Chief Executive Doug McMillon has so far kept sales growth intact through the retailer’s heated battle with Amazon. Consumer spending is strong, a wind in the sails of the world’s largest retailer as it reports second-quarter earnings today. But as Walmart spends heavily to grow online across the globe, Mr. McMillon needs to show investors that it is paying off. sarah.nassauer@wsj.com 3. The SEC served Tesla with a subpoena. Federal regulators are ramping up an investigation into Chief Executive Elon Musk’s tweet last week that he had secured funding to take the electric-car maker private. The subpoena seeks information from each of Tesla’s directors, the Journal reports. It isn’t known what information is being sought. The subpoena indicates senior SEC officials have authorized a formal probe of the company, a step up from the initial inquiries the regulator made to Tesla last week.

  37. Tom secured funding”” was not a true statement. As a professional investor”” I thought that Tesla indeed had a confirmation agreement and this was cleared by the board (though I couldn’t make the LBO target price/leverage work but there might be more to it in the details e.g. restructure of SolarCity). When I discovered there was nothing there (yet)”” I realized Musk made a serious error. He is a seasoned executive of a public firm and should have known better. But he made the matter worse. His”””” explanation”””” proves it. Read it carefully. He admits to not having the funding”” no board approval and no interaction with the regulators. That’s pretty damming and I wonder if his chief counsel even read it before it was released. If so”” I am really flabbergasted. His “”””fiduciary”””” duty”” as you call it failed. Twice. In one week.He will face serious problems with all this. I am surprised the board hasn’t fired him (obviously a problem in itself without Musk at Tesla). Tesla is one of the most highlighted firms on the planet. Their cheerleader-in-chief is off the reservation. His problem now is that anything he says next will be questioned. Sales production figures earnings debt repayments”” capital raising etc etc all the other “”””boring”””” CEO stuff. Maybe shareholders can live with this”” maybe not. From the look at the share price not. My bet is that Musk is worried the convertibles might not hit target price (360) and will have to pay in cash”” or rollover – a financial disaster – so he is trying to “”””do what it takes”””” and breaking rules. Maybe he thinks the SEC or investors don’t care?”””

  38. Journal reporter Sarah Nassauer:Walmart Chief Executive Doug McMillon has so far kept sales growth intact through the retailer’s heated battle with Amazon. Consumer spending is strong a wind in the sails of the world’s largest retailer as it reports second-quarter earnings today. But as Walmart spends heavily to grow online across the globe Mr. McMillon needs to show investors that it is paying off. sarah.nassauer@wsj.com3.The SEC served Tesla with a subpoena. Federal regulators are ramping up an investigation into Chief Executive Elon Musk’s tweet last week that he had secured funding to take the electric-car maker private.The subpoena seeks information from each of Tesla’s directors the Journal reports. It isn’t known what information is being sought. The subpoena indicates senior SEC officials have authorized a formal probe of the company a step up from the initial inquiries the regulator made to Tesla last week.”

  39. This, he also stated that purpose of Tesla was to make electrical cars cool, that one worked very well. Now he will probably loose against a lots of players with 100 year experience making cars and deeper pockets than him, going into car computer systems instead sounds safer.

  40. This he also stated that purpose of Tesla was to make electrical cars cool that one worked very well. Now he will probably loose against a lots of players with 100 year experience making cars and deeper pockets than him going into car computer systems instead sounds safer.

  41. Unfortunately not, even if I have always suspected Shrillar was the Sockpuppet of Galileo and then Libtars and Warren. Basically he is a troll. Please help me spread the word -> bit.ly/2MeWYZT

  42. Unfortunately not even if I have always suspected Shrillar was the Sockpuppet of Galileo and then Libtars and Warren. Basically he is a troll. Please help me spread the word -> bit.ly/2MeWYZT

  43. You never accept a true thing said about Musk and his endeavors if it’s good. ” More lies on your part, Luca. “you never back up your contrsary assertions with a fact?” I do all the time. You just respond by calling me ‘moron’ and/or totally ignoring said facts. Because you can’t deal with that fact that your God is not a god at all. Musk Fluffing! They are CRAZY.

  44. Exactly! I *WISH* Musk wasn’t such a con-man, actually. Because when you remove that from the situation, he’s awesome. His accomplishments are on par with Henry Ford and Howard Hughes in the 20th Century, at the very least.

  45. Yes I do. Because Musk backtracked on his second Tweet. And members of this own board are now telling the media that they knew nothing about what he tweeted the first time. AND Tesla’s lawyers have taken control of his Twitter account. None of which would be happening if there was a signed, notarized, executable contract (which the Board would have to approve in order for it to be ‘signed’ as you claim).

  46. It is never illegal to say a true thing which benefits your companies’ stock in fact” a CEO has a fiduciary duty to do so.””What true thing? If he had the funding secured”” he could have proved it by now by providing evidence publicly. He has not. Members of his own board have come forward and outright said that they themselves were caught unaware and haven’t heard anything since.AND his lawyers have taken over his Twitter account. Lawyers do not do that when someone tells the truth and does so in a legal manner.It is not a CEOs fiduciary duty to engage in securities fraud with the companies stock. Maybe in Italy or Japan”” Matteo. But not in the US.”””

  47. You never accept a true thing said about Musk and his endeavors if it’s good. “”More lies on your part”””” Luca. “”””you never back up your contrsary assertions with a fact?””””I do all the time. You just respond by calling me ‘moron’ and/or totally ignoring said facts. Because you can’t deal with that fact that your God is not a god at all. Musk Fluffing! They are CRAZY.”””

  48. Exactly!I *WISH* Musk wasn’t such a con-man actually. Because when you remove that from the situation he’s awesome. His accomplishments are on par with Henry Ford and Howard Hughes in the 20th Century at the very least.

  49. Yes I do. Because Musk backtracked on his second Tweet. And members of this own board are now telling the media that they knew nothing about what he tweeted the first time.AND Tesla’s lawyers have taken control of his Twitter account.None of which would be happening if there was a signed notarized executable contract (which the Board would have to approve in order for it to be ‘signed’ as you claim).

  50. You are dealing with a Troll. He really doesn’t care what Musk did or what he (Tom Perkins/Luca Mazi/Matteo Martini) has said in the past that you are now proving is a bunch of BS. He just does this because he thinks he is (successfully) nailing me to the wall…with lies upon lies as he does so. The truth doesn’t matter.

  51. It is never illegal to say a true thing which benefits your companies’ stock, in fact, a CEO has a fiduciary duty to do so.” What true thing? If he had the funding secured, he could have proved it by now by providing evidence publicly. He has not. Members of his own board have come forward and outright said that they themselves were caught unaware and haven’t heard anything since. AND his lawyers have taken over his Twitter account. Lawyers do not do that when someone tells the truth and does so in a legal manner. It is not a CEOs fiduciary duty to engage in securities fraud with the companies stock. Maybe in Italy or Japan, Matteo. But not in the US.

  52. You are dealing with a Troll. He really doesn’t care what Musk did or what he (Tom Perkins/Luca Mazi/Matteo Martini) has said in the past that you are now proving is a bunch of BS.He just does this because he thinks he is (successfully) nailing me to the wall…with lies upon lies as he does so.The truth doesn’t matter.

  53. He’s no con man at all, he has never run a con. But thank you for slipping up and attacking him personally just like you claim you don’t.

  54. If on the Internet you don’t want people to see what you’ve done, you shouldn’t do it in the first place. Of course, you’re just a troll.

  55. While I’d have to look through probably unavailable comments to prove it, I recall WarrenTheApe already admitted to having used the name ShrillaryForPrison. Also at one point he admitted to having with SolidOpinion, that he bought the rights to change people’s comments without their permission, and then a few months later he denied it. He’s really just a troll, no redeeming value to him. He should be banned.

  56. Tom, there is – not yet – any evidence of a legally enforceable right or agreement to have funding provided for the transaction (ie SEC definition).

  57. He’s no con man at all he has never run a con. But thank you for slipping up and attacking him personally just like you claim you don’t.

  58. If on the Internet you don’t want people to see what you’ve done you shouldn’t do it in the first place. Of course you’re just a troll.

  59. While I’d have to look through probably unavailable comments to prove it I recall WarrenTheApe already admitted to having used the name ShrillaryForPrison. Also at one point he admitted to having with SolidOpinion that he bought the rights to change people’s comments without their permission and then a few months later he denied it. He’s really just a troll no redeeming value to him.He should be banned.

  60. Tom” there is – not yet – any evidence of a legally enforceable right or agreement to have funding provided for the transaction (ie SEC definition). “” “””

  61. Good faith? Are you familiar with UCC law and SEC rules? If anything, he has displayed bad faith in negotiation, as defined by law. He publicly fessed up to his mistake, that he misled investors. That does NOT meet “good faith” standards. The “only thing that matters” is what the consequences of this will be both to him and his companies. The Saudi Q. By not confirming his assertion, the door to buying them has been closed as long as Musk would still play a role. By not confirming they have effectively lowered the cost of acquisition but made the CEO both look foolish and communicate incorrect information. IF they NOW want to go ahead Musk would have to leave, or the new owners would be facing pretty serious legal costs and trouble. It is a practiced buyout method if you want a company for a lower price and not the management with it. A Tesla without Musk may still work. Besides, even an acquisition of this nature would have to be approved in the new CFIUS environment – seems like a long shot.

  62. Good faith? Are you familiar with UCC law and SEC rules? If anything he has displayed bad faith in negotiation as defined by law. He publicly fessed up to his mistake that he misled investors. That does NOT meet good faith”” standards. The “”””only thing that matters”””” is what the consequences of this will be both to him and his companies.The Saudi Q. By not confirming his assertion”” the door to buying them has been closed as long as Musk would still play a role. By not confirming they have effectively lowered the cost of acquisition but made the CEO both look foolish and communicate incorrect information. IF they NOW want to go ahead Musk would have to leave or the new owners would be facing pretty serious legal costs and trouble. It is a practiced buyout method if you want a company for a lower price and not the management with it. A Tesla without Musk may still work. Besides”” even an acquisition of this nature would have to be approved in the new CFIUS environment – seems like a long shot.”””

  63. Are you familiar with UCC law and SEC rules? Please quote where saying something you know is true is fraud. ” He publicly fessed up to his mistake, that he misled investors.

  64. Are you familiar with UCC law and SEC rules? Please quote where saying something you know is true is fraud. He publicly fessed up to his mistake” that he misled investors. “” “””

  65. Are you familiar with UCC law and SEC rules? Please quote where saying something you know is true is fraud.

    ” He publicly fessed up to his mistake, that he misled investors. ” <- No, and neither you nor WarrenTheTroll have or will quote anything such. That's because that is only your dubious interpretation of what he said, and dare I say, it is a forward looking interpretation on your part. "Forward Looking" is an actual SEC defined term of art. USC 15 Section 78u-5 By the way, still waiting on you or WarrenTheTroll to show where "funding secured" has such a legal definition... " By not confirming his assertion, the door to buying them has been closed as long as Musk would still play a role. " <-- More interpretation on your part. More reasonable than your interpretation that the SEC has the unconstitutional authority to overthrow several thousand years of Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, but still interpretation. " but made the CEO both look foolish and communicate incorrect information ": <-- Now that statement is actually stupid of you. It can only have been incorrect based on what was known by Musk at the time, not by what was decided later. " A Tesla without Musk may still work. Besides, even an acquisition of this nature would have to be approved in the new CFIUS environment - seems like a long shot. " <-- Not possible for Tesla to work without Musk, he is Tesla. Without him they will be a faded also ran within 2 years; and, your assumption of a new CFIUS is speculative at best.

  66. Good faith? Are you familiar with UCC law and SEC rules? If anything, he has displayed bad faith in negotiation, as defined by law. He publicly fessed up to his mistake, that he misled investors. That does NOT meet “good faith” standards. The “only thing that matters” is what the consequences of this will be both to him and his companies.

    The Saudi Q. By not confirming his assertion, the door to buying them has been closed as long as Musk would still play a role. By not confirming they have effectively lowered the cost of acquisition but made the CEO both look foolish and communicate incorrect information. IF they NOW want to go ahead Musk would have to leave, or the new owners would be facing pretty serious legal costs and trouble. It is a practiced buyout method if you want a company for a lower price and not the management with it. A Tesla without Musk may still work. Besides, even an acquisition of this nature would have to be approved in the new CFIUS environment – seems like a long shot.

  67. While I’d have to look through probably unavailable comments to prove it, I recall WarrenTheApe already admitted to having used the name ShrillaryForPrison. Also at one point he admitted to having with SolidOpinion, that he bought the rights to change people’s comments without their permission, and then a few months later he denied it. He’s really just a troll, no redeeming value to him.

    He should be banned.

  68. ” Tom, there is – not yet – any evidence of a legally enforceable right or agreement to have funding provided for the transaction (ie SEC definition). ” <-- And that literally does not matter, because the only legally important questions is whether he made that tweet in good faith. " The key question, I think, is why haven't the Saudis confirmed Musk's assertions? " <-- How do it serve their interests so say anything about it right now?

  69. You are dealing with a Troll. He really doesn’t care what Musk did or what he (Tom Perkins/Luca Mazi/Matteo Martini) has said in the past that you are now proving is a bunch of BS.

    He just does this because he thinks he is (successfully) nailing me to the wall…with lies upon lies as he does so.

    The truth doesn’t matter.

  70. ” It is never illegal to say a true thing which benefits your companies’ stock, in fact, a CEO has a fiduciary duty to do so.”

    What true thing? If he had the funding secured, he could have proved it by now by providing evidence publicly. He has not. Members of his own board have come forward and outright said that they themselves were caught unaware and haven’t heard anything since.

    AND his lawyers have taken over his Twitter account. Lawyers do not do that when someone tells the truth and does so in a legal manner.

    It is not a CEOs fiduciary duty to engage in securities fraud with the companies stock. Maybe in Italy or Japan, Matteo. But not in the US.

  71. “You never accept a true thing said about Musk and his endeavors if it’s good. ”

    More lies on your part, Luca.

    “you never back up your contrsary assertions with a fact?”

    I do all the time. You just respond by calling me ‘moron’ and/or totally ignoring said facts. Because you can’t deal with that fact that your God is not a god at all.

    Musk Fluffing! They are CRAZY.

  72. Exactly!

    I *WISH* Musk wasn’t such a con-man, actually. Because when you remove that from the situation, he’s awesome. His accomplishments are on par with Henry Ford and Howard Hughes in the 20th Century, at the very least.

  73. Yes I do. Because Musk backtracked on his second Tweet. And members of this own board are now telling the media that they knew nothing about what he tweeted the first time.

    AND Tesla’s lawyers have taken control of his Twitter account.

    None of which would be happening if there was a signed, notarized, executable contract (which the Board would have to approve in order for it to be ‘signed’ as you claim).

  74. Unfortunately not, even if I have always suspected Shrillar was the Sockpuppet of Galileo and then Libtars and Warren. Basically he is a troll. Please help me spread the word -> bit.ly/2MeWYZT

  75. This, he also stated that purpose of Tesla was to make electrical cars cool, that one worked very well.
    Now he will probably loose against a lots of players with 100 year experience making cars and deeper pockets than him, going into car computer systems instead sounds safer.

  76. Tom, “secured funding” was not a true statement. As a professional investor, I thought that Tesla indeed had a confirmation agreement and this was cleared by the board (though I couldn’t make the LBO target price/leverage work, but there might be more to it in the details e.g., restructure of SolarCity). When I discovered there was nothing there (yet), I realized Musk made a serious error. He is a seasoned executive of a public firm and should have known better. But he made the matter worse. His” explanation” proves it. Read it carefully. He admits to not having the funding, no board approval, and no interaction with the regulators. That’s pretty damming and I wonder if his chief counsel even read it before it was released. If so, I am really flabbergasted. His “fiduciary” duty, as you call it, failed. Twice. In one week.

    He will face serious problems with all this. I am surprised the board hasn’t fired him (obviously a problem in itself without Musk at Tesla). Tesla is one of the most highlighted firms on the planet. Their cheerleader-in-chief is off the reservation. His problem now is that anything he says next will be questioned. Sales, production figures, earnings, debt repayments, capital raising etc etc all the other “boring” CEO stuff. Maybe shareholders can live with this, maybe not. From the look at the share price, not. My bet is that Musk is worried the convertibles might not hit target price (360) and will have to pay in cash, or rollover – a financial disaster – so he is trying to “do what it takes” and breaking rules. Maybe he thinks the SEC or investors don’t care?

  77. Journal reporter Sarah Nassauer:

    Walmart Chief Executive Doug McMillon has so far kept sales growth intact through the retailer’s heated battle with Amazon. Consumer spending is strong, a wind in the sails of the world’s largest retailer as it reports second-quarter earnings today. But as Walmart spends heavily to grow online across the globe, Mr. McMillon needs to show investors that it is paying off.

    sarah.nassauer@wsj.com
    3.
    The SEC served Tesla with a subpoena. Federal regulators are ramping up an investigation into Chief Executive Elon Musk’s tweet last week that he had secured funding to take the electric-car maker private.

    The subpoena seeks information from each of Tesla’s directors, the Journal reports. It isn’t known what information is being sought. The subpoena indicates senior SEC officials have authorized a formal probe of the company, a step up from the initial inquiries the regulator made to Tesla last week.

  78. Tractor trailer accidents are second only to “train wrecks” in their seriousness. I don’t agree that the driver would be unsafe in a Tesla rig because it would be built to comply with NHTSA requirements. They aren’t going to allow a company to sell an unsafe vehicle. On top of that insurance companies have a lot of pull; if a vehicle is costly to repair, like the single piece hood/fender combination of older Chevrolet Corvettes, then the insurance company may apply pressure to reduce component cost.

  79. Tom, there is – not yet – any evidence of a legally enforceable right or agreement to have funding provided for the transaction (ie SEC definition). And because Musk can’t provide evidence (obviously before the announcement) this will probably get Musk in trouble, from slap on the wrist to much more than that, from the SEC (if you like I could go on about how SEC does enforcement). Much more importantly, imho, is what happens with the lawsuits.

    But besides all this, going public for a company like Tesla (already highly leveraged) is a massive undertaking. I don’t think the PIF has the capacity to pull it off as a LBO. “talks” have been on-going for years and KSA has bigger fish to fry (like SABIC). Besides, for the Saudis, they have real questions whether such a transaction can pass CFIUS, especially under the new rules. If they really truly wanted to invest in Tesla (not talking about Spacex here, only TSLA), they would have already. The key question, I think, is why haven’t the Saudis confirmed Musk’s assertions?

    Except for owning a model S, I have no position in TSLA. I wish them the best, but they keep shooting themselves in the foot.

  80. The main issue I have with the design is that it appears to me that in a 45mph+ collision, the driver has very little hope of survival if the contact is high such as hitting the rear of another truck’s trailer. That windshield will not protect squat. I suppose, if the AI is doing its job, the risk of these collisions will go way down. However, it is only going to take a few well published grizzly deaths, for Tesla to be gasping for air. Reputation is their greatest asset. Trashing that could really hurt.

    I suppose I could be wrong and those columns could be insanely strong. I think I would like to see a safety test…fully loaded. 80,000 lb, 40mph into the back of a trailer…preferably at least two foot offset. Dead center accidents are fairly rare. Usually someone tries to avoid at the last second, or both vehicles are just not exactly the same distance from the line.

  81. There is none
    But at least some new people may be incouraged to know who is that guy WTA.

    By the way, this is Luca here, I just have to use my new name as when I try to register as Luca Mazza I get blocked. Freedom of information in the US right ? Just saying

  82. Have to admit I am not even sure what this run on word/statement means “idiots-known-as-Kool-Aid-drinking-Musk-fluffers” My command of the English language may be lacking. From what I gather you are against Elon Musk supporters. However your name calling of Musk supporters does not mean that you wish him to fail.

  83. It means available. Nowhere is it defined as a term of art which can only mean a signed, notarized executable contract.

    ” And it is … filed, no doubt. ” <-- But it's already established you'll believe and shout any BS told about Musk as long as it's bad.

  84. No, his “rendition” is not true. It is never illegal to say a true thing which benefits your companies’ stock, in fact, a CEO has a fiduciary duty to do so.

    The nets aren’t to catch boosters, but the payload fairing halves.

  85. You have no reason to believe it is not in fact a signed, notarized, executable contract, and for that matter as long as he had the word of an agent able to speak for the sole proprietor of the KSASWF, he had that funding at that time. It doesn’t matter if the deal later falls through.

  86. Tom, I’m not arguing with with your appraisal of WTA. I will point out that his rendition of the facts concerning Musk’s blunder statement about having funding is true given the public news. The SEC has not yet made a move thus far mostly because of Musk’s popularity. They will likely make their move after a reasonable amount of time. Because it is illegal to try to manipulate publicly traded stocks. That may not have been Musk’s intent but it was its effect.

    BTW, what is the reason for making booster catching ships with nets? Why not land them in nets in a remote landing site on land? Eventually, when the process is perfected I’m sure that will be the case.

  87. How about the fact you claim people who only observe the truth out loud are to you “idiots-known-as-Kool-Aid-drinking-Musk-fluffers” and you never back up your contrsary assertions with a fact? You never accept a true thing said about Musk and his endeavors if it’s good.

    You continue to spread BS about SpaceX being “nationalized” and never show how it could happen, or would even be lawful.

    You’re a sockpuppetting troll who changes his account name to try to shed accountability for your past transgressions (some of which are documented here bit.ly/2MeWYZT0 , such as editing people’s comments without their permission and disappearing them).

  88. No. FUNDING SECURED means SECURED. Not ‘kinda-sorta-maybe-secured’.

    If that funding was NOT SECURED when he made that tweet, he’s busted. That’s how it works.

    And it is been widely reported by various people now that he has been on the phone, desperately trying to secure that funding ever since this has happened.

    Three lawsuits have been filed already, by people who have had suffered financial loss from this. More will be filed, no doubt.

  89. I used to work at UPS. The trailers were always well below the statutory maximum weight, even when full, because of all the packing inside the parcels. The trailers could have carried tons of auxiliary batteries, along the chassis rails without losing any payload. I suspect this would be true for most less than load carriers.

  90. The cab-over design is a good choice for a class 6 truck. It is not popular in the US, but is preferred layout everywhere else. All other things being equal, CO is shorter, allowing a shorter turn radius with the same trailer.
    US built CO tractors are more expensive. I suspect that is because of their lower rate of production. It’s biggest drawback is that the cab surrounds the engine/transmission, so the cab must lift for engine access, and of course the cab is louder, and hotter than the engine forward design. Cab forward is more aerodynamic, since there are fewer corners on the cab to cause turbulence, and the tractor can be shorter. CO is also lighter all things being equal.
    I think CO layout is a particularly good choice for an electric class 8 tractor, because access to the motor, and transmission is less of an issue, and because noise, and heat will be less problematic. There will also be more room for batteries all things being equal.

  91. How is my going after the idiots-known-as-Kool-Aid-drinking-Musk-fluffers translate as ‘wishing him to fail’?

    Pretty much, only those very same Kool-Aid drinking Musk fluffers would even think that way.

  92. Musk is not the second coming but I don’t understand the people that wish him to fail. Even if he is 50% con man its hard to deny that he is landing rockets on barges in the ocean. If he fails at everything else we should at least be appreciative that he moved the ball forward for rocket science. NASA certainly hasn’t done anything interesting in the launch vehicle arena for quite some time.

  93. Three big lawsuits by investors jilted by Musk’s securities fraud have been filed. And you can bet those are the tips of the iceberg. The SEC is ramping up their investigation.

    Musk had better come up with that ‘secured funding’ he had claimed to have in that first Tweet of his…or all you Musk Fluffers can kiss everything you worship-like-the-second-coming goodbye!

    Including this semi truck.

Comments are closed.