"Crushing it" is straight up propaghanda and fancy book-cooking. The hypocrisy is also hilarious, considering when Tesla "missed" by a similar % not long ago, the fanboys made all manner of excuses. But now a minor, and frankly poor, increase in demand considering the infancy of the product, is "crushing it." Um. NO.
GM sales were up 19% in Q2. Where's the thread on that, "Crushing it?"
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2023/07/gm-sales-figures-numbers-results-united-states-q2-2023/
Toyota and Ford were up 5% and 10% respectively? Also, "Crushing it?" What, no threads on that?
I've looked at Tesla business model and ran all manner of numbers in prior threads on this nonsense - and yes I'm more than qualified to do so - with open source (and often questionable figures - Tesla hides a lot of data very well). "Crushing it" would be doubling demand in a short term, and sending stock prices to all time highs. LOL. Far, far from these metrics.
The REALITY is the stock is STILL off 35% from the highs. So much for "more demand." Ample consumer articles that support the fact that demand is waning. It's much over-promising, under-delivering, and dis-satisfaction. Furthermore, considering the economic limitations (it's a product for the ultra wealthy), geographical limitations (most US cars are sold in a handful of warm climate states, the bulk being California), the customer profile (in addition to wealthy, it's generally people who have homes, can charge at home, and have short drives - think rich bored with short commutes and at least 1 gasoline vehicle), and the virtue signaling folks of the world. Most are going to have tax-payer subsidized solar panels we middle class pay for so the elites can brag about saving the Earth (which is a complete lie). One more example of the elites sticking it to the middle class, with the subsidized cars and solar panels living in the sunshine states ... But there's a FINITE number of people who fit that profile of wealthy virtue signaling folks who live in warm climates. And the subsidies will end at some point.
(PS OIL is subsidized because it is a multi-use product that is important for national defense, agriculture, shipping, construction, heavy machinery, lubrication, fighter jets, tanks, etc. The world would cease to function normally without oil. The world would do fine, without EVs.)
I doubt a single EV proponent here lives in an apartment or dormitory, or on a farm, or rural community with long drives, or relies on the EV as their only vehicle with a long commute in a cold weather state. No, EV owners are universally wealthy people who own a gas vehicle, house, with a garage and charging at home. And other universal characteristics.
I've said it before and will say it again, the current nationwide ownership is around 5%, heavily concentrated in a few California zip codes, followed by a handful of warm states. EV ownership will peak around 10%, again mostly in warm states with the above user profile, because it's simply not practical for every-day people to adopt them.
They make great little mopeds, golf carts, and small cars that require short ranges. Considering the infrastructure is decades away and last year I believe 8 of the top 10 selling vehicles were truck platforms and SUVs, EVs are simply not going to be widely adopted by Americans in the near term.
Futhermore, the shams are being exposed gradually but publically, the climate nonsense, the batteries, the solar panels, wind mills, etc. are all big boondoggles of over-promising but in reality a net loss for the environment at this state. All manner of corruption, kickbacks, stock front running schemes by dirty people in public and private sectors with much power and influence.
The other big auto makers struggle to make profits on EVs, which tells me that this is more about BRAND (Tesla) and STATUS, and other superficial nonsense, than much else.
