Things are undoubtedly bad at Tesla. Its sales are dwindling. Its profits are plunging, as is its share price. There are regular protests outside its showrooms. The Cybertruck is a flop. And somehow, it’s actually a lot worse than that.

The 71% drop in net income it just reported may have been overshadowed by CEO Elon Musk’s announcement that he would be stepping back from his controversial duties at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But that drop is just one indication of serious financial sickness at the EV maker, problems brought on by falling sales for the first time in its history and falling prices for electric vehicles.

The bottom line problem at Tesla is its vanishing bottom line. A deeper look at its first quarter report shows it’s now losing money on what should be its ostensible reason for existence – selling cars.

It was only able to post a $409 million profit in the quarter thanks to the sale of $595 million worth of regulatory credits to other automakers.

But if the Trump administration gets its way, the company can kiss those regulatory credits keeping it in the black goodbye, too.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Not good. There’s still some remnant of the idealistic vision, hiding from the Nazi.

    • robotaxis will eventually be a good thing, but it will be a long time before they’re profitable. I’m all for the experiment, whether teslas approach succeeds or not, but Tesla can no longer afford to stick to a money losing experiment
    • the semi has huge potential to disrupt the trucking industry and rapidly decarbonize it. While I do see other companies experimenting with battery trucks, no one else has the potential combining mass produced parts from other vehicles, mass produced charging stations and mega storage, nor are taking the risk to scale up manufacturing. We need to electrify trucking and like it or not Tesla has some unique strengths that may help them succeed first. We need this
    • these are teslas big upcoming efforts and they’re both an attempt to be revolutionary, which means risky, money losing. While I can get onboard the protest bandwagon, deprive the Nazi of his god level wealth, we need the EV revolution in trucking
    • tfm@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      robotaxis

      It’s going to be a disaster. Tesla “FSD” is glorified cruise control on level 2 on the autonomous driving scale.

      semi

      It’s already a disaster. The economics don’t add up and the few on the road break down all the time.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          22 hours ago

          There are other electric semi trucks out there, but none (at least as of last year) compare in specs and capabilities. The big issue is their power consumption is much higher than the Tesla Semi which has been repeatedly validated by their testers as even better than what Tesla advertises. Efficiency will be king in this kind of business.

          Worse efficiency = less range = more batteries = less load capacity = less money per delivery

          E.g this is from DHL

          https://www.dhl.com/global-en/delivered/responsibility/dhl-tests-tesla-semi-electric-truck.html

          Over a two-week trial period this summer, DHL Supply Chain USA took a thorough look under the hood of the Tesla Semi, integrating the e-truck into 3,000 miles (5,000 km) of normal operations out of Livermore, California. The trial included one long haul of 390 miles (625 km) – fully loaded with a gross combined weight of 75,000 pounds (34 metric tons) – confirming the Tesla Semi’s ability to carry typical DHL payloads over a long distance on a single charge.

          During the trial, the trial vehicle averaged 1.72 kWh/mile operating at speeds exceeding 50 mph (80 km/h) on average for over half its time on the road. The result exceeded our expectations and even Tesla’s own rating.

          Putting the Tesla Semi to the test allowed us to validate whether it could travel 500 miles with a fully loaded trailer and see what our drivers thought of the truck’s performance. We were encouraged by how quickly they gained confidence with the vehicle and leveraged the Tesla’s smart features to help improve performance, comfort, and the overall driver experience.

          Edit: Just some examples… I don’t know if these have been verified in use unlike the Tesla, so all theoretical based on the advertised miles/battery size.

          • Mercedes: 1.935 kWh/mile (310 miles)
          • Kenworth: 2.5 kWh/mile (200 miles)
          • Volvo: 2.05 kWh/mile (275miles)

          And those are all shorter range at that.

          Edit: I should also add… we don’t know the price of the Tesla Semi. Its possible that its ridiculously priced and the increased efficiency is negated even over the life of the vehicle compared to the other trucks. That’s a big unknown given these are pilot vehicles.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I tried fsd demo this spring and it’s getting pretty good. I wouldn’t use it but it was perfect on well marked roads. The thing is it made me realize just how poorly maintained our roads are and everything is an edge case. For example it didn’t stay in lane at one Intersection but the intersection was a weird offset plus the lines were all faded away. Although I also disnt give it any chance to recover so I suppose it could have been ok: Im not risking it not recovering

        It might surprise everyone but mostly by staying in a well maintained well mapped area, like Waymo did. There’s no way it fulfills the claim of self-driving everywhere without more improvements

        The robots is will have the next generation computer and higher resolution cameras which may help. However that also allows more overhead for the next ai update

        • tfm@europe.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          I get what you mean but it’s still stuck at level 2 and it always will be. No matter how good it is, if you move your eyes from the road, it will eventually kill you. Cameras alone are not sufficient enough for autonomous driving.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Cameras alone are not sufficient enough for autonomous driving.

            I disagree with this assertion, because they’re correct that the only being that can currently drive is relying on vision. Vision alone is sufficient for driving.

            But autonomous driving really hasn’t succeeded yet. We still have no idea what is required for autonomous driving or whether we can do it at all, regardless of sensors.

            So you’re implying that we can definitely do autonomous driving but can’t do it the way humans do, whereas I say we won’t know the requirements until we find some that succeed, and we may never

            • tfm@europe.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Yeah sure. If you want the same bad results as humans deliver, in terms of crash rates, than it’s possible. I wouldn’t trust it. Also human vision and processing is completely different from computer vision and processing.

              • AA5B@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 hours ago

                Presumably we have the intelligence to set requirements before something can be called self-driving - that’s usually what the fuss is about, whether the marketing is claiming it’s something it’s not.

                If they fail with their approach, I’m fine with that, just like I’m fine if Waymo fails with their approach. Of either succeeds, why should I care how? Obviously there’s a problem if it runs over some old lady at a stop sign and drags them down the street but that’s clearly a failure for them

                  • AA5B@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 hours ago

                    We already have that

                    Yes, we have the definitions, but I haven’t read about whether they’re effectively required. Is there a test, a certification authority, rules for liability or revocation? Have we established a way to actually require it.

                    I hope we wouldn’t let manufacturers self-certify, although historical data is important evidence. I hope we don’t aid profitability of manufacturers by either limiting liability or creating a path to justice doomed to fail

                  • AA5B@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 hours ago

                    The thing is humans are horrible drivers, costing a huge toll in lives and property every year.

                    We may already be at the point where we need to deal with the ethics of inadequate self-driving causing too many accidents vs human causing more. We can clearly see the shortcomings of all self driving technology so far, but is it ethical to block Immature technology if it does overall save lives?

                    Maybe it’s the trolley problem. Should we take the branch that leads to deaths or the branch that leads to more deaths