Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Line 1 + line 2 = 1200+ 2500= 3700 units

Is that feasible , or is there another constraining isssue ?
Is the feed into these lines a constraint factor?
Frankly I don't know much about the manufacturing.
Anybody better informed please explain.
In a very crude way, the whole process is
Press line -> body line -> assembly line -> paint shop.
We know the press line and paint shop are already geared up for Model 3 level production capacity. But we have little information on the production capacity of the assembly line. So the assembly line could be a constraint factor.
 
There are so many things wrong with the argument that the Tesla-SolarCity merger doesn't make sense. I've said all that needs to be said.

1) The lawsuits don't make sensed and are based on emotion not facts.

**they may be frivolous to you or many but some people don't like the merger and litigation in Chancery Court is one of the only ways for small share holders to fight it. I do not know the motivations of these 4 parties and agree that 'legal extortion' may be the reason but I do not know**

2) The only people who don't support the merger are journalists and newspapers, many of which are owned by the oil industry.

**There are several people I know that, like me, don't support the merger. I am not a journslist and have great interest that we get off fossil fuels**

3) Chanos is a chode who clearly doesn't understand SolarCity's business model.

* no comment*

4) New York supports the deal. According to Elon, institutional investors overwhelmingly support the deal.

*agreed*


5) Investors holding SolarCity convertible bonds might be a bit nervous because of the conversion rate.

6) The deal makes logical and economic sense.

* I do not think it is illogical and I think it is debatable about the economic sense*
If were totally logical and made economic sense then there would be no debate and no arbitrage*
 
Bit surprised nobody has posted this yet:

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/AV policy guidance PDF.pdf

Seems to be the document that we were expecting from the Feds.

In a preliminary read through the DOT document, I am most impressed with the new term HAV (highly automated vehicles), which covers automation levels 3 and above. Make no mistake that there were people arguing that a jump over SAE Level 2-3 and directly to 4 (autonomous driving in certain settings) was the only safe way to go. The DOT rejected this narrow approach and adopted language that support's Tesla's method of incremental improvements to move from Level 2 to Level 4.
 
* I do not think it is illogical and I think it is debatable about the economic sense*
If were totally logical and made economic sense then there would be no debate and no arbitrage*

We will only be able to tell in hindsight if the deal passes how logical or illogical it was. I'm cautiously optimistic, but don't love the timing but as a tesla investor i think you have to expect this kind of boldness from Elon, it just sort of comes with the territory. Also it isn't like Elon hasn't said in the past that he plans to turn Tesla Motors into Tesla Energy.
 
The first part is belied by the caption:
"
PART II

INFORMATION NOT REQUIRED IN THE PROSPECTUS; UNDERTAKINGS"

Boilerplate maybe, but apparently Tesla chose to re-emphasize it after it was included in the original S-4, perhaps because of the four shareholder derivative suits. The irony is Tesla buys D&O insurance but self insures its product liability exposure.
No, the "INFORMATION NOT REQUIRED..." is just the header required to be used per Form S-4. See https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/forms-4.pdf

Again, they updated all of part II of Form S-4 in the amendment (Items 20, 21 and 22) so they restated (without any changes) that indemnification section because it's required disclosure in Part II of Form S-4. They also restated the Undertakings in Item 22, which is in no way related to lawsuits.

There's no connection here. Like I said, that indemnification language is the same in all registration statements. When I draft Form S-8s (to reserve shares for grant under an equity plan or ESPP or whatever) I include the same exact required indemnification language for clients. Trust me, it has nothing to do with the derivative lawsuits and nothing is being emphasized.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: vgrinshpun
From the S-4 filed today, pertaining to the merger.

5.1 Opinion of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz as to the validity of the securities being registered +
8.1 Opinion of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz regarding certain tax matters +
8.2 Opinion of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP regarding certain tax matters +
23.1 Consent of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (included in Exhibits 5.1 and 8.1) +
23.2. Consent of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (included in Exhibit 8.2) +
23.3 Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, independent registered public accounting firm ++
23.4 Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, independent registered public accounting firm ++
24.1 Power of Attorney (included in signature page) ++
99.1 Consent of Evercore Group, L.L.C. ++
99.2 Consent of Lazard Frères & Co., LLC ++
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeC
My understanding was that the Assembly line 2 was designed to transition to producing both S and X and this transition would free up the space of assembly line 1 to be used with Model 3. The much heavier use of robots on Assembly Line 2 is necessary to allow both S and X to be produced at suitable speed on the same line.

One of Tesla's early "innovations", was that the robots would change the tools, so you could have one robot performing 3-5 different tasks, like welding or installing glass. But changing tools takes time, so I think they are now prepared to pay more to save the time needed to change tool heads.

In addition to the fact that Body Line 1 is designed to handle less complex Model S, while Body Line 2 - both more complex MX and MS, as noted by Papafox, Line 2 has capacity of 2500 cars per week, while Line 1 has capacity of about 1200 cars a week.

Another interesting thing is that a while ago some analysts were speculating that if required, based on demand projections, Tesla could keep both Body Lines in operation, while increasing the throughput of the General Assembly line from about matching the throughput of Body Line 2 to matching Body Line 2 + 1.

The significant new information from the article is that Production of MS body-in-white was not blended into Body Line 2 yet. I think that such blending could require some slowdown for debugging the process. Hopefully Tesla would be able to build some extra bodies-in-white as a buffer prior to blending MS production onto Body Line 2.

Line 1 + line 2 = 1200+ 2500= 3700 units

Is that feasible , or is there another constraining isssue ?
Is the feed into these lines a constraint factor?
Frankly I don't know much about the manufacturing.
Anybody better informed please explain.

Here is the deal with the factory folks.
Line 1: few robots, with lots of tool changes. Cheap line to deploy when TSLA was a baby. Makes model S exclusively, and relatively slowly.
Line 2: More robots with fewer tool changes required. Designed to do both X and S but I think has only ever done X.
Line 3: will be built where they warehouse now.

(source: recent factory tours)

Stamping has hugely excess capacity
Paintshop 2 has 500k/yr capacity. I actually think that paintshop 2 was an addition to the original paintshop by the way. I think there is a mothballed paintshop 1 of some capacity.

Final assembly is combined X and S, and appears to be the limiter of the whole factory (or they really are selling to a capped demand). After that is QC prep and delivery which for all we know is at capacity--- I often wonder about this forgotten factory step.

Here is a rough, rough, rough, not-to-scale sketch of the Fremont factory. There is a long strip in front of the factory that is used for storage, and line 1 and 2 are behind them:

tesla-fremont-factory-map_large.png



(I may have 1 and 2 swapped, but 2 is bigger than 1). the "storage" place is where the line for model 3 is supposed to go. I didn't get a straight answer if M3 will have it's own assembly line but it HAS to. nothing else makes sense.

Here is a crude model of the factory throughput, based on what I understand:

factory_model.JPG



So the stamping is more or less ok for M3. Paint is more or less ok for M3. Final assembly limits the current production. I was told (and MF Daniel too) that the warehouse space will be the M3 line. However, note that if BIW line 2 really can do a high capacity of S/X they can retire the line #1. I have seen a lot of people write on this forum that that is the plan but Tesla has never said that. However it makes sense... they could actually redeploy some of the BIW line robots/equipment into the line 3 seemingly without impacting anything. However, I think the BIW line #2 is really just for X and only theoretically can do the S. And I think TM really wants to make the M3 line from scratch to incorporate all the best learning from the other lines.

Also, they have a whole upstairs that they use for light manufacturing like circuit boards. That stuff could be offshored if needed. They just have the space so they are using it.

Edit: Daniel's article highly implies there will be seperate M3 final assembly line so probably not a mystery.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any theories why SCTY/TSLA might file apparently gratuitous 8k's predicting a record date during the week of September 19th?
I was predicting a voting/merger finished date of late Nov/Dec. I think the record date will end up being early October if I had to guess; need to wait for the PR announcement. I think the original 8-k was simply responding to the (probably hundreds) of requests to their IR departments asking for when the record date would be, nothing more. They were just guessing as to the date, it wasn't official.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: stealthology
I was predicting a voting/merger finished date of late Nov/Dec. I think the record date will end up being early October if I had to guess; need to wait for the PR announcement. I think the original 8-k was simply responding to the (probably hundreds) of requests to their IR departments asking for when the record date would be, nothing more. They were just guessing as to the date, it wasn't official.

So then you think the chance that the lawsuit delays the vote/merger is pretty small?
 
  • Like
Reactions: stealthology
Line 1 + line 2 = 1200+ 2500= 3700 units

Is that feasible , or is there another constraining isssue ?
Is the feed into these lines a constraint factor?
Frankly I don't know much about the manufacturing.
Anybody better informed please explain.

Final assembly (or demand) is the constraint, depending on who you want to believe.

In a very crude way, the whole process is
Press line -> body line -> assembly line -> paint shop.
We know the press line and paint shop are already geared up for Model 3 level production capacity. But we have little information on the production capacity of the assembly line. So the assembly line could be a constraint factor.

Paint happens prior to assembly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.