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

2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually I'd say the opposite, the pics you reference are from farther away and at an angle which would hide the misalignment. The large, close, side on shot is much more likely to be accurate. That trim on the door isn't going to pop up like that because of lighting. I've seen other pre-production M3's with the same issue.

More obvious in the large version if you haven't seen it: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DERHYrbW0AAtBFB.jpg:large

Is this what you guys are talking about? Like for real? Quick cancel your order, i'm happy to move up in queue by 1.
I'd care more (still negligible) if the price of the car was equal to a similar ICE. Considering it's like a $90,000 car for $45,000 the value is unreal.
If the one of the first cars popped out of the production line looking that good, I think we're golden.

m3.JPG
 
Last edited:
Biggest hurdle was getting tesla to launch m3 without months of delays and that has now happened..
Umm... we really don't know that now. Remember what happened with Model X lauch. After the first few deliveries there were virtually none for months. I'm not saying that this time it is the same, just that we can't yet say anything about the launch.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
Yeah, you can skip ahead of me and take the misaligned vehicle, I'll wait for the one built correctly. I wouldn't accept that trim misalignment on any brand new car, regardless of price. The door gap may just be a lighting issue but that trim does not look correct.
As a current Leaf driver in Arizona whose battery isn't holding up too well, I'll gladly take that 200+ mile misaligned $35K car.;)
 
I don't know if anyone else read the paper today but there is a pretty humorous article that presents 4 key threats to Tesla's plan for EV dominance. This is in the USA Today Money section. Not exactly a serious source for financial news but it probably is read by a lot of people. It takes up 3/4 of a page in the paper. According to the article, "unexpected manufacturing problems and the sudden emergence of competition" are serious concerns for Tesla backers. Here are the 4 key threats:

1. Luxury brand competition from VW via Porsche and Audi, Mercedes, and BMW.
2. Mainstream model competition from GM with the Bolt, which gets 238 miles on a battery charge compared to Model 3s 215.
3. Manufacturing problems illustrated by the recent announcement from Tesla that it faced "severe" shortfalls in supply of high range batteries during the 2nd quarter that caused the company to miss its sales goals for the quarter. This underscores the difficulty of manufacturing one of the most complex consumer products on the planet. "The worlds major automakers simply have more experience at it, potentially giving them an edge when production ramps up." "That's something their competitors have much more experience in," Edmunds.com analyst Jessica Caldwell said." Other major automakers have "scale advantages" with their worldwide operations, and that likely means that the cost per vehicle advantage will not be meaningful," Barclays analyst Brian Johnson said in a note to investors.
4. Uncertain demand. Serious questions remain about the long-term demand for its vehicles. After the deposit orders are filled, how much demand is there? There's already evidence that "demand is plateauing" for the Model S and X, Johnson said.

Wow. These are all pretty funny. I don't know how anyone would take this article seriously but I am certain many who read USA Today would. I especially find it enlightening that Tesla's major advantage in battery technology and production is cited in the article as a problem for Tesla, with the major auto manufacturers having the advantage there. Hard to believe here but most people out there still don't realize what is happening.
 
But if EPA has confirmed Model 3's numbers, aren't they public? Or can they be kept secret if manufacturer wants?

If Elon's car indeed is officially street-legal as we speak, wouldn't it need EPA numbers now, not 28th?

I don't about the specifics of EPA releasing data but the EPA's website I gather is not updated that frequently even though it says it is updated regularly on workdays.

The 2018 Buick LaCrosse I know for a fact is being manufactured and has new transmissions which result in new EPA numbers but still is not on the fueleconomy.gov website.

I remember the Bolt's 238 mile range and other EPA numbers were released at an official GM unveiling not by the EPA/fueleconomy.gov
 
But if EPA has confirmed Model 3's numbers, aren't they public? Or can they be kept secret if manufacturer wants?

If Elon's car indeed is officially street-legal as we speak, wouldn't it need EPA numbers now, not 28th?
I'm speaking from memory here, but I believe EPA numbers aren't actually required on the Monroney sticker immediately, only after a certain number of cars are sold (maybe it was 1000)? So they have a little while to get the EPA ratings.
 
Sure... but that's a big part of the reason why we are back in the 315's, in a likely trading range of 295 - 340. Right now, the July 2017 build of the first one can be seen as "faked" as it can be hand built to final, deliverable spec. But the financial performance and therefore the stock price is looking 3-9 months ahead and wondering what the next few quarters will bring. And specifically, is the volume ramp really going to be in Q3 or in Q4? That's why it is even more important that we, as investors, understand where Tesla stands in the ramp. And maybe the company knows their ramp at this juncture, barring unexpected surprises and maybe they don't. In any case, the new guidance for the ramp is already far better than the Model S and X.

Model 3 guidance: 30, 100, 1500+, x, y, 5000/week at some point
Model S: 12, 19, 43, 86, 300, 400, 1790
Model X: 6, 4, 5, 199, 270, 270, 1860

Overall, we are still stuck in the aftermath of the badly botched Model X launch. It causes a significant discounting of what the company says at times. And so we have a lot of volatility.

Too many weak longs sold out at the first real sign of trouble... it's part of having run up so far so fast. I did think we would drop, but I thought we would be in a new range... and we just need a little bit of re-assurance now I think to get back a bit. It took a NASDAQ roll over, a loosely coordinated bear attack that includes lots of media pieces, a disappointing but met-lower-end-of-guidance delivery number, and a missing sentence on number of cars in transit to get us here. I do think it's overdone. But the kind of news to get us back on track above $350 is going to be about production.
is the drop overdone?... not the run up?... Tesla was trading higher than ALL US auto companies... and while everyone focuses on the best case scenario, which is still ill defined... even during "release" month... what's a realistic worst case scenario?... ramp starts happening in Q1 2018... virtually no M3s delivered in 2017... 100k to 150k in 2018... and now you're reeling with hate for the short trolls as you read... but then realize two things... shorts have been more accurate than longs on timing... this is absolutely true... and #2 is... Elon's tweet said: "Looks like we can reach 20,000 Model 3 cars per month in Dec"... it's a tweet... it says "looks like"...

not only is there no guidance for M3 deliveries... they can't even provide shareholders with a committed delivery rate... "looks like"... does not mean "we will".

in the meantime... their competitors... in the auto industry... in which they really do compete... have targets for 2018 through 2020... and this whole time Tesla being "ahead" really just meant that the most optimistic and completely unrealistic target dates set by Elon were wrong and instead it turned out to be pretty much inline with what the rest of the auto manufacturers were targeting.

and here we are... Tesla today produces and delivers 1/30th of it's competitor's volume... but trades at 1x+... and it's suggested that it's "oversold"?

my opinion is... it could sell all the way back down to $180 in the next 2 weeks and then we could start talking about realistic valuations again.
 
I'm speaking from memory here, but I believe EPA numbers aren't actually required on the Monroney sticker immediately, only after a certain number of cars are sold (maybe it was 1000)? So they have a little while to get the EPA ratings.

Monroney sticker is required by Federal Law (15 USC 1231-1233).

A fine of up to $1000 applies for each vehicle sold without Monroney.

Didn't we have a few hundred Model S 100D sitting undelivered at the factory and Tesla stores because they had no Monroney not too long ago?
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: Matias and neroden
Monroney sticker is required by Federal Law (15 USC 1231-1233).

A fine of up to $1000 applies for each vehicle sold without Monroney.

Didn't we have a few hundred Model S 100D sitting undelivered at the factory and Tesla stores because they had no Monroney not too long ago?

The law requiring the Monroney sticker law doesn't actually require the EPA numbers. I just looked it up.

The EPA numbers must be required by some other law which I haven't found.

I know spots can be left blank on the sticker; I've seen that.
 
but then realize two things... shorts have been more accurate than longs on timing... this is absolutely true...

Absolutely laughable...


Anton Wahlman, "GM To Deliver Inexpensive 200-Mile EV 2 Years Ahead Of Tesla", 2/2015
GM To Deliver Inexpensive 200-Mile EV 2 Years Ahead Of Tesla - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha

Tesla’s equivalent Model 3 now looks to enter volume production in 2018, but with a possible interpretation of a slip into 2019.


Montana Skeptic, "Tesla's Model 3 Mess Has Become Much Messier", 11/2016
Tesla's Model 3 Mess Has Become Much Messier - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha

Production versions of the Model 3 will not be here until Q2 of 2018, at the very earliest.

The comments in those articles and many others like them paint a very different picture.

in the meantime... their competitors... in the auto industry... in which they really do compete... have targets for 2018 through 2020... and this whole time Tesla being "ahead" really just meant that the most optimistic and completely unrealistic target dates set by Elon are pretty much inline with what the rest of the auto manufacturers were targeting.

And so... what volumes of BEVs do you think all of the luxury auto marquees will produce in 2018? 2019? 2020? Which models will ship and at what price points and what volume? What is the marketshare of all of the rest of the auto industry in long range BEVs in 2020 or 2021? I'm curious what marketshare you think Tesla will have versus everyone else, restricting ourselves to vehicles designed and available for purchase in EU and U.S. (ie. Chinese production of scooters and vehicles that cannot pass worldwide homologation excluded).
 
Last edited:
Monroney sticker is required by Federal Law (15 USC 1231-1233).

A fine of up to $1000 applies for each vehicle sold without Monroney.

Didn't we have a few hundred Model S 100D sitting undelivered at the factory and Tesla stores because they had no Monroney not too long ago?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't believe that Elon is particularly worried about paying a $1k fine on his M3.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.