• Skip to main content

tslaQ.org - Crowdsourced Tesla Research

Hide Search

Journal

Solar Testing Structures at Fremont

December 17, 2019 By Machine Planet

December 18, 2019

On August 1, 2019 Lora Kolodny of CNBC reported that Tesla had obtained building permits for “a test structure to evaluate Tesla solar roof product and installation process” at the company’s auto factory in Fremont, California. The Shorty Air Force (SAF), which has been flying occasional survey missions at Fremont for nearly a year, began looking for these structures, but did not identify them until December 2nd, when an analyst noticed what appeared to be two single family houses under construction in the extreme southwest corner of the property. This is not an area that had been of interest previously; the SAF’s primary focus is on auto manufacturing operations, which are largely on the east and north sides of the property.

A review of photos from previous flights established that framing of the houses had begun sometime before August 12th.

A much better photo of the structures was obtained on December 5th. After approximately four months of construction, no solar equipment is visible at the site, but the houses appear to be nearing completion.

On December 12th, what appeared to be framing for tent structures appeared at the site.

Two days later, tent canopies had been erected over both of the houses.

On December 17th, Lora Kolodny posted a new CNBC story about the tents, based on information drawn from building permits. On the same day, the SAF obtained another view of the site.


  • https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/tesla-builds-tents-to-conceal-solarglass-test-houses.html
  • https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/01/tesla-plans-solar-roof-testing-at-fremont-car-plant-permits-reveal.html
  • https://tslaq.org/solarcity-lawsuit/

Who is Elon Musk?

December 17, 2019 By Machine Planet

December 18, 2019

Who is Elon Musk? A visionary hero to be worshipped by all? A dangerous narcissist that needs to be called out for his evil behavior? Both? Neither? Something in between? Read this and decide for yourself.

On July 3, 2018, @lopezlinette published a shocking article. She reported that Elon Musk ordered his team to skip a critical brake test in order to achieve his goal of 5000 Model 3s produced in a week.

Elon Musk ordered Tesla engineers to stop doing a critical brake test on Model 3s

  • Tesla CEO Elon Musk ordered his employees to stop putting nearly finished Model 3s through a critical test before leaving the company’s factory in Fremont, California, according to an internal document viewed by Business Insider.
  • It’s called the brake-and-roll test, and it ensures the car is correctly aligned.
  • An industry expert told Business Insider that every automaker does this test to ensure quality and function.
Linette Lopez
Jul 3, 2018, 8:20 AM

What was Elon Musk’s response? He viciously smeared her good name on Twitter by asking her boss if she bribed Martin Tripp. Was he attempting to get her fired? If Elon Musk had any evidence to back up his smear, we’d have seen it by now, no?

Image

On June 8, 2016, @Tweetermeyer published a shocking article. He reported that the NHTSA was investigating the use of NDAs by Tesla to cover up possible suspensions issues (aka whompy wheels).

Tesla Suspension Breakage: It’s Not The Crime, It’s The Coverup

June 8, 2016 By Edward Niedermeyer

What was Elon Musk’s response? He viciously smeared Ed’s good name in a Tesla blog by accusing him of fabricating the story for financial gain. If Elon Musk had any evidence to back up his smear, we’d have seen it by now, no?

Tesla Blog Excerpt, June 9, 2016

Finally, it is worth noting that the blogger who fabricated this issue, which then caused negative and incorrect news to be written about Tesla by reputable institutions, is Edward Niedermeyer. This is the same gentle soul who previously wrote a blog titled “Tesla Death Watch,” which starting on May 19, 2008 was counting the days until Tesla’s death. It has now been 2,944 days. We just checked our pulse and, much to his chagrin, appear to be alive. It is probably wise to take Mr. Niedermeyer’s words with at least a small grain of salt.

We don’t know if Mr. Niedermeyer’s motivation is simply to set a world record for axe-grinding or whether he or his associates have something financial to gain by negatively affecting Tesla’s stock price, but it is important to highlight that there are several billion dollars in short sale bets against Tesla. This means that there is a strong financial incentive to greatly amplify minor issues and to create false issues from whole cloth.

Certainly Elon Musk would not deliberately cover up a severe safety issue and viciously attack a critic or whistleblower, would he? Nah, surely not. Wheels fall off of ICE cars all the time, don’t they?

Image

Fast forward to March 29, 2018. Elon Musk is still attacking journalists on Twitter, pretending he cares about safety. The evidence strongly suggests Tesla has a policy on recalls, and Elon Musk’s tweet doesn’t capture it.

Image

On April 16, 2018, @reveal published a shocking article. They reported on devastatingly unsafe conditions inside the Tesla factory at Fremont, holding Elon Musk personally responsible for much of the problem.

Tesla says its factory is safer. But it left injuries off the books

Concerned about bone-crunching collisions and the lack of clearly marked pedestrian lanes at the Fremont, California, plant, the general assembly line’s then-lead safety professional went to her boss, who she said told her, “Elon does not like the color yellow.”

What was Elon Musk’s response? In an official statement, Tesla said @reveal was ‘an extremist organization working directly with union supporters to create a calculated disinformation campaign…’

Tesla Blog Excerpt, April 16, 2018

We welcome constructive criticism, but those who care about journalistic integrity should strive for the truth above all. Unfortunately, the writers at Reveal have published an article that paints a completely false picture of Tesla and what it is actually like to work here. In our view, what they portray as investigative journalism is in fact an ideologically motivated attack by an extremist organization working directly with union supporters to create a calculated disinformation campaign against Tesla. 

In response to that nonsense, @reveal thoroughly embarrassed Elon Musk in the attached thread. If Elon Musk had any evidence to back up his smear, we’d have seen it by now, no?

1/ So before yesterday’s investigation came out, @tesla released a statement accusing us of being an “extremist organization” who’s “working directly with union supporters to create a calculated disinformation campaign.”

A LOT to unpack right there. So let’s do it. pic.twitter.com/Yerg8DoWPW

— Reveal (@reveal) April 17, 2018

Incidentally, Tesla and Elon Musk were found guilty of union busting by the NLRB in September of this year. The details of the case are, quite frankly, shocking. For Elon Musk to smear @reveal in the way he did is classic gaslighting.

Tesla and CEO Elon Musk violated federal labor law, judge rules

The judge ordered Tesla to reimburse one pro-union worker for lost wages and rescind rules aimed at union activity.

In late July, 2018, Elon Musk used information derived from the doxxing of Montana Skeptic to personally call his employer and threaten to sue him if Montana kept writing critical articles about

Get a Load of This Ridiculous Story About How Elon Musk Called a Tesla Critic’s Boss to Complain About Him (Updated)

This week, CEO Elon Musk took time off from his purportedly “busy” schedule to personally call the employer of a Tesla bearish critic who writes about the company under a pseudonym, and threatened to sue him if he didn’t stop writing about the company. Here’s the icing on the cake: the critic might work for an oil investor.

Martin Tripp blew the whistle on Elon Musk and Tesla for allegedly allowing dangerously defective battery packs to be released to consumers. What was Elon Musk’s reaction? He tried to destroy Tripp. Read it for yourself here:

When Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower

After @pac_watson blew the whistle on Tesla’s onsite safety clinic, somebody called California child protective services and fabricated nonsense about her children. Who would do such a thing? Read tweets 1-13 in this thread and hazard a guess.

Inside Tesla’s factory, a medical clinic designed to ignore injured workers

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
Really? I neglect my children. That’s what you want to bring to my children for the holidays. Bring it. MY CHILDREN ARE NOT SCARED OF YOU EITHER. @elonmusk @mayemusk #DRBESH Tesla pic.twitter.com/1etuEIHdP6

— Pac_Watson🤕🤒😷 (@pac_watson) November 21, 2018

After emailing Elon Musk directly with her concerns about the quality of parts Tesla was using, @3d_Cristina left the company. Like other whistleblowers, she too had to be destroyed. Read about it here:

In new lawsuit, ex-Tesla engineer claims company is trying to ‘catastrophically damage’ her

Tesla sought and obtained a temporary restraining order against @skabooshka for what Elon Musk described in an email as attempted murder. After smearing his good name, it came time to produce evidence. Elon Musk dropped the case.

After @aarongreenspan properly notified Elon Musk of his need to preserve documents because of a likely intent to sue for libel, Elon Musk went ahead and smeared Aaron again via email.

Image

Incidentally, because @russ1mitchell (an L.A. Times reporter who writes skeptically about Tesla) once gave $50 to @aarongreenspan’s amazingly useful non-profit @plainsite, Elon Musk appears to have tried to get him fired on Twitter by harassing his boss.

Image

There’s not much more that needs to be said about the pedo guy incident. The evidence strongly suggests Elon Musk fabricated the entire smear in a fit of narcissistic rage. Read it for yourself here:

Elon Musk Wants You To Know The ‘Pedo Guy’ Thing Has Been Very Hard On Elon Musk

Image

According to reporting by @danahull, Elon Musk was investigated by the Tesla board for allegedly shoving an employee and threatening to ‘nuke’ him. Of course, the worst board in America gave Elon Musk a pass.

Tesla Board Probed Allegation That Elon Musk Pushed Employee

“I will nuke you”: Elon Musk was accused of shoving and threatening a former Tesla employee – but the company’s board says there was no physical altercation

According to reporting by @WSJ, Elon Musk released Autopilot long before it was safe and many on the team quit in shock. If you’ve made it this far, you can’t be surprised.

Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparked Dissent Among Its Engineers

There are countless other examples I could have covered. To all the enablers of Elon Musk I say this: Shame on you. History will not be kind to you and nor should it be. Short burns and stock price bro aren’t going to make $tslaQ go away. This is bigger than money.

@TeslaCharts
November 11, 2019
Minor revisions and updated links December 18, 2019

Tesla Shareholder Lawsuit SolarCity Acquisition

February 7, 2019 By Machine Planet

Update December 18, 2019

$tslaQ contributor @TeslaCharts‘ June 2018 Twitter thread on the acquisition of SolarCity by Tesla must now be seen as remarkably prescient, as virtually the entire piece has been validated by unsealed court deposition transcripts obtained and published by plainsite.org, a non-profit organization that promotes transparency in the legal system.

A summary of key findings from the transcripts was published by CNBC on September 23, 2019.

The transcripts in full are available at PlainSite.

February 7, 2019

Recent news reports from WIVB in Buffalo, NY have brought new attention to Tesla’s “Gigafactory 2” in Buffalo, formerly a SolarCity factory. Tesla acquired SolarCity in November 2016, a deal that eventually led to a shareholder lawsuit against Tesla, which is ongoing at this time.

WIVB Report, February 4, 2019
WIVB Report, February 6, 2019

In June 2018, $tslaQ contributor @TeslaCharts wrote the following concise history of the events surrounding the Tesla acquisition of SolarCity, occasioned by release of a judge’s opinion which allowed the lawsuit to proceed. Minor changes have been made for clarity; a link to the original Twitter thread is here.

With the recent release of the judge’s ruling allowing the shareholder lawsuit against Tesla on the SolarCity deal to proceed, we are now able to piece together the history of this deal in a way that was not possible before. 

Memorandum Opinion Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

SolarCity was founded by Elon’s cousins, brothers Peter and Lyndon Rive in 2006, based on a suggestion by Elon for a solar company concept. Elon was the biggest shareholder with more than 20% ownership. He was also chair of the board, the strongest of equity fiduciaries imaginable.

Although a strong revenue growth story, by February, 2016 it was becoming clear to the market that SolarCity was in trouble. There were whispers of a liquidity crisis, and the stock had fallen 80% from its February, 2014 high to below $20 a share.

In the months prior to February, 2016, SpaceX was a frequent purchaser of SolarCity bonds. Of course, Elon was also the largest shareholder and CEO of SpaceX.

SolarCity Lawsuit Memorandum Opinion 03/28/2019

SpaceX was the largest holder of Solar Bonds. In March 2015, SpaceX bought $90 million in Solar Bonds, and then $75 million in June 2015 and $90 million in March 2016. Id. In November 2015, a Musk-affiliated entity acquired $10 million in Solar Bonds and Lyndon purchased $3 million. Id. When SolarCity sought to raise $124 million in an August 2016 bond offering, Musk purchased $65 million of these Solar Bonds, and Lyndon and Peter each purchased $17.5 million.

In February, 2016, during a SolarCity board meeting that Elon chaired, the true state of the liquidity situation was discussed.

SolarCity Lawsuit Memorandum Opinion 03/28/2019

In February 2016, a SolarCity Board presentation (the “February 2016 SolarCity Board Presentation”) acknowledged that the company faced “significant liquidity concerns” and that SolarCity’s cash balance would not meet the Revolver’s required level at least three times in 2016—in May, August and September.¹⁰⁶ To make matters worse, $1.23 billion of SolarCity’s debt was scheduled to become due by the end of 2017.¹⁰⁷ Musk, Gracias and Buss attended the February 2016 meeting and were well aware of SolarCity’s “significant liquidity concerns” at the time Musk brought the proposed acquisition of SolarCity to the Tesla Board.¹⁰⁸

Days later, at the Tesla board meeting, which Elon also chaired, he proposed for the first time that Tesla should acquire SolarCity. The board did not agree on that day, citing potential management distractions.

SolarCity Lawsuit Memorandum Opinion 03/28/2019

D. Musk Persistently Presents the SolarCity Transaction to the Board.

The Tesla Board held a special meeting on February 29, 2016.114 At the meeting, Musk and Tesla CFO, Jason Wheeler, presented a preliminary plan for Tesla to acquire SolarCity.115 Musk led the presentation.116 The stated purpose of the proposed transaction was “to complement the Company’s Energy business, grow the Sales operations of the Company and to create other product, service and operational synergies through the combination of the companies.”117 Musk’s focus was on a potential acquisition of SolarCity; he did not mention and the Board did not consider other companies in the solar industry or other strategic transactions.118 The Board “decided not to proceed with an offer to SolarCity at [that] time because of the potential impact on the management team’s time and resources in the near term.”119

Two weeks later, Elon tried again. The board again deferred.

SolarCity Lawsuit Memorandum Opinion 03/28/2019

Two weeks passed, and Musk was before the Tesla Board again to propose a possible acquisition of SolarCity (and only SolarCity) during the Board’s March 15, 2016 meeting.120 And, again, the Board deferred the discussion.121

Now things get really interesting. On May 23, 2016, after Elon’s second attempt at convincing the Tesla board to buy SolarCity, the SEC begins extensive correspondence with SolarCity, inquiring about their accounting and liquidity situation. (Source: SolarCity SEC filings)

A little over a week later, Elon is back at the Tesla board again. Surprise! They agree to his plan to make an offer on SolarCity.

SolarCity Lawsuit Memorandum Opinion 03/28/2019

Less than three months later, on May 31, 2016, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board, Musk was back to propose (again) a possible acquisition of SolarCity.122 This time, the Board appeared to share Musk’s view of “the possible benefits . . . [of] acquiring a solar energy company in the context of the Company’s strategic plan.”123 The minutes of the meeting reflect that “the Board discussed the possibility of evaluating an acquisition of SolarCity Corporation . . . as a potential target of opportunity in the solar energy space.”124 Once again, SolarCity was the only target on which the Board trained its sight.125

Three weeks later, at the Tesla June 20, 2016 board meeting, the merger gets the green light.

SolarCity Lawsuit Memorandum Opinion 03/28/2019

The Tesla Board called a special meeting for June 20, 2016 (the “June 2016 Special Meeting”) “to further explore a potential strategic transaction between the Company and a participant in the solar energy industry.” 129 Musk opened the meeting by “remind[ing] the board that the issue [of acquiring SolarCity] had been raised and discussed but ultimately deferred at previous meetings and review[ing] some of the strategic considerations that the board had evaluated at those previous meetings.”130 It is alleged that, as if on cue, the Board heeded Musk’s “tacit order” and promptly authorized its advisors to make an offer for SolarCity.131

The next day, June 21, 2016, Tesla makes its offer public.

SolarCity Lawsuit Memorandum Opinion 03/28/2019

E. The Offer for SolarCity

On June 21, 2016, Tesla announced its offer to acquire SolarCity in a stock-for-stock transaction at an exchange ratio of 0.122x to 0.131x (the “Offer”).138 The Offer valued SolarCity at $26.50 to $28.50 per share, the equivalent of $2.6 to $2.8 billion.139 The proposed purchase price reflected a 21% to 30% premium to SolarCity’s closing price on June 20, 2016.140

During a call with investors the day after the offer, on June 22, 2016, Elon makes this odd comment. We know now that he was fully aware of the liquidity crisis at SolarCity.

SolarCity Lawsuit Memorandum Opinion 03/28/2019

Musk was active in his sponsorship and backing of the Offer and the eventual Acquisition both before and after the announcement of the deal. First, during a June 22, 2016, call with investors and analysts, one day after Tesla announced the Offer, Musk stated:

Like the opinion is unanimous for both companies. So, I mean, unless there’s something discovered that like that I have no idea about or just that nobody on the board has any idea about, which is extremely unlikely, then the board would—the independent board members would recommend in favor of completing a transaction somewhere in the price range that was mentioned, most likely.141

Two weeks later, on July 5, 2016, the Tesla board finds out from Evercore Partners about the true state of the liquidity crisis at SolarCity.

SolarCity Lawsuit Memorandum Opinion 03/28/2019

F. Due Diligence Reveals SolarCity’s Liquidity Crisis and Other Issues

In a July 5, 2016 presentation to the Tesla Board, Evercore warned the Board that SolarCity had $3.164 billion in outstanding debt as of March 31, 2016, and that significant debt would mature in a three-to-five year window. 148

Two weeks later, on July 19, 2016, at yet another special meeting of the Tesla board, the liquidity situation at SolarCity is becoming more acute.

SolarCity Lawsuit Memorandum Opinion 03/28/2019

At its July 19, 2016 special meeting, the Tesla Board discussed SolarCity’s liquidity situation. 150 As predicted in the February 2016 SolarCity Board Presentation, SolarCity was heading towards cash balances below the minimum level required by the Revolver for the weeks of July 22, August 5 and August 12.151

And presto! On the very next day, July 20, 2016, Elon releases his Master Plan, Part Deux. This was the plan all along, and only SolarCity will do.

SolarCity Lawsuit Memorandum Opinion 03/28/2019

And finally, one month following the announcement of the Offer, on July 20, 2016, Musk published his “Master Plan, Part Deux” to Tesla’s website.144 This “manifesto” of sorts updated the original Master Plan that Musk published in 2006 and detailed Musk’s vision for Tesla’s future.145 The Master Plan, Part Deux, states, in relevant part:

The first master plan that I wrote 10 years ago is now in the final stages of completion. It wasn’t all that complicated and basically consisted of:

  1. Create a low volume car, which would necessarily be expensive
  2. Use that money to develop a medium volume car at a lower price
  3. Use that money to create an affordable, high volume car

And . . . Provide solar power. No kidding, this has literally been on our website for 10 years.

On August 1, 2016, Tesla and SolarCity announce they have signed an agreement to merge.

SolarCity Lawsuit Memorandum Opinion 03/28/2019

H. Tesla and SolarCity Announce the Merger Agreement

On August 1, 2016, Tesla and SolarCity announced they had executed an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated July 31, 2016 (the “Merger Agreement”),pursuant to which Tesla would acquire SolarCity in an all stock deal.173 The Merger Agreement provided for each share of SolarCity common stock to be converted to 0.110 shares of Tesla common stock (the “Exchange Ratio”). 174

On August 9, 2016, SolarCity files its Q2 10Q, and warns of its liquidity constraints. This is pretty stark language for a 10Q. It is clear SolarCity is running out of money.

On August 23, 2016, SolarCity offered solar bonds to the market, which didn’t go very well. Musk and other insiders ultimately purchased the majority of the offering. This was spun as Musk giving a personal vote of confidence in SolarCity. 

We find out at the end of the month that Elon didn’t put fresh capital into SolarCity. He pledged more of his shares in the company (Tesla) to finance the bond purchase.

Think about where we are in September, 2016. This is a partial summary of Elon’s complex position. From the perspective of Tesla shareholders, could he be more conflicted? There’s only one mission. SolarCity MUST be saved, or the whole thing collapses.

By September 1, 2016, the market begins to sour on the SolarCity deal. The stock trades well below the offer price, indicating that the street thinks the deal won’t get done.

On October 28, 2016, Elon does the now infamous solar shingle reveal. According to reports that surface after the deal closes, this reveal comes as a surprise to many internally at both companies. And the roofs on display are fake.

The shareholder vote happens on November 17, 2016. The deal closes on November 21, 2016. The SpaceX bonds are ultimately paid off. Elon’s SolarCity stock gets converted to Tesla stock. He rolls his personally owned SolarCity bonds into new Tesla debt. And poof. Problem solved.

But what happened to this great business Tesla shareholders bought? Tesla is now looking down the barrel of billions in SolarCity debt. And here are the historical megawatts (MW) installed, before and after this ‘merger’.

What does this have to do with Tesla today? I think everything. I still believe in the US capital markets. I hope the SEC does too.

@TeslaCharts
June 15, 2018
Minor revisions and updated links February 7, 2019

Tesla Safety

February 5, 2019 By Machine Planet

Tesla vehicles are held, in the popular imagination, to be exceedingly safe. Tesla CEO Elon Musk frequently cites statistics that seem to support that notion. In early 2018, we began a crowd-sourced list of fatal accidents involving Teslas, so that quantitatively-minded investigators could test Musk’s claims against reality. We first published this data in May 2018. Several months later, the data contributed to this exhaustive analysis, which find’s Musk’s claims to be wholly without foundation.

Because we rely on submissions from the public, this list is unlikely to be complete, particularly for deaths occurring in non English-speaking territories.

@ElonBachman


TeslaDeaths.com

Storage Sites User Notes

February 1, 2019 By Machine Planet

  • All photos and other information presented here was gathered and collated through the voluntary efforts of many $tslaQ participants.
  • Every site that has been updated one or more times includes a link to the previous report; as many as six previous reports can be viewed by using these links.
  • The vast majority of sites listed are not Tesla-branded facilities, but some Delivery/Service Centers are included. More are likely to be added as inventory levels continue to rise.
  • Most entries include a link to the original Twitter thread in which the material was first presented. We strongly recommend that users review these threads, as they provide much detail and context for the hundreds of photos presented here.
  • Car counts are generally approximate, except for SAF aerial surveys which include precise counts.
  • The current list of 52 sites represent about 5000 cars, which is substantially lower than inventory calculated from Tesla’s own public statements.
  • It is probably impossible to locate all places in the US where Tesla is storing cars. We believe that since July 2018, when it was discovered that thousands of new Teslas were parked at a former glass factory in Lathrop, California, the company has made a concerted effort to hide inventory.

Return to the index

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 20
  • Go to Next Page »

Copyright © 2025 by tslaQ.org. | Privacy Policy
Photos may be freely reproduced with the $tslaQ and/or SAF/SGF Photo watermarks intact. This site contains no investment advice.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
Creative Commons License