> Tesla is probably a bit overvalued but not by much.

Tesla's current market cap only makes sense if they're producing more vehicles than every other US manufacturer, combined. That's a little more than "but not by much".

I think their value went too high... But I think of them as an energy company. They sell the cars and the "gas stations" and the "oil wells" and all the retail spots.

They also do that without spend on advertising. Honestly, that's pretty impressive. Is it worth more than all other auto companies combined? Will it last?

No idea.

That's even worse. I'm struggling to think of any large energy company that ever had a tech-ish P/E ratio. There was Enron, I suppose, but that was because it was a fraud, and wasn't _really_ an energy company anyway. As a general rule, the energy industry doesn't have huge margins.

Energy companies aren't worth much of anything, so even if you value Tesla as an energy company that still doesn't justify its valuation.

Tesla is basically in all the high capital with low margin businesses (cars, electricity, solar, batteries).

Rednecks already understand the value of heavy torque. The automotive-minded ones are the ones pushing the boundaries all the time.

Google up 'hold my beer'. You'll see.

Is your claim that Ford should be valued more as a tech company now? I’d be curious if you could elaborate why

>When rednecks find out what “instant full torque” means the Lightning will sell very well.

The grid in rural areas suck, in general. The reliability is terrible and there may not be enough capacity for everyone to start charging their vehicles when they get home from work. Rural people also tend to drive many more miles (and sometimes much more energy intensive miles), and range can be a serious challenge. If they’re hauling, range is significantly diminished, and it’s not like you can throw a few extra batteries in the bed for when you’re out of juice. With a diesel, you can throw a 100gallon transfer tank in the bed for under $1000 and make it clear across the lower 48 without stopping (though that’s not normally what they’re for).

All that said, electric has promise. Longer vehicle lifetime and less maintenance is a huge plus.

A lot of people make this case that you can go X distance without stopping. But that's completely impractical. There are many laws that regulate the trucking industry. For example you can only drive 11 hours consecutively, and then you're required to spend at least 10 consecutive hours not driving. There are also more rules about having to take breaks after a certain number of hours, and limits on number of hours per week they can work.

So if you're following the law, you will end up having to stop anyway. And as charging tech improves that stop will get shorter and shorter until it's no longer a concern. And again, once people see the economics of it and see how much money is being saved, they'll gladly trade off a little bit more time waiting for charging if necessary.

You’re right, but I’d wager that 70+% of truck buyers have never used any considerable amount of the payload capacity and don’t tow anything that a crossover SUV couldn’t tow.

The reality is that most of the people buying trucks do it because they like trucks and perhaps think it's more practical. It's not for actual work use. The same way most people buying SUV's aren't actually doing any off-roading or towing as well.

> According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...

If they're "rednecks", they almost certainly have. Dirtbikes if nothing else.

Dirtbikes aren't exactly very heavy. Even a sedan with a small trailer can pull a few dirt bikes.