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.
I hadn't seen this graphic from UBS before. Wow. Certainly interesting. How many mistakes/assumptions can we find?

I see at least two obvious mistakes.
The main thing I think is that they list a number of concept cars or other cars that have yet to enter production.

I'm going to introduce a car called the Boomer, it has a 600 mile range on one charge, and recharges from being in the sun for 30 minutes. (That's how it gets such a long range, it pretty much just runs on solar power. I'll neglect to mention it only carries one person at a maximum speed of 20mph.) Now, throw it up on that chart, and I can put everyone to shame.

As long as the media keeps pulling this kind of ill-researched nonsense, or posting statistics about vehicles that aren't yet in production as if they are in production, credibility in my book remains low. Sadly even sites like Electrek have to post rumor stories and such to maintain page load counts, even if the majority of their content is good. C'est la vie.
 
I improved on it a bit:

View attachment 237989
Thank you. This is actually useful!

Did you have to give Microsoft/Bill more money?

... I wonder how it resolves if you keep the time axis the same, but use circle diameter for range and the Y axis for price?

This should show potential market size for each of the products a little differently, as it would indicate length of time eligible for the tax credit (annual sales volumes at that price point) - as that may be a motivator for someone introducing a product expected to carry the advantages of the credit for its lifetime (I-Pace vs. Bolt) ... Pointing out competition that forces the S and X to deliver based on better design and value chain may be more suitable for this forum.

Is that easy with Bill's help, or a night at the drafting board?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The main thing I think is that they list a number of concept cars or other cars that have yet to enter production.

I'm going to introduce a car called the Boomer, it has a 600 mile range on one charge, and recharges from being in the sun for 30 minutes. (That's how it gets such a long range, it pretty much just runs on solar power. I'll neglect to mention it only carries one person at a maximum speed of 20mph.) Now, throw it up on that chart, and I can put everyone to shame.

As long as the media keeps pulling this kind of ill-researched nonsense, or posting statistics about vehicles that aren't yet in production as if they are in production, credibility in my book remains low. Sadly even sites like Electrek have to post rumor stories and such to maintain page load counts, even if the majority of their content is good. C'est la vie.
Cramer was right.
 
Thank you. This is actually useful!

Did you have to give Microsoft/Bill more money?

... I wonder how it resolves if you keep the time axis the same, but use circle diameter for range and the Y axis for price?

This should show potential market size for each of the products a little differently, as it would indicate length of time eligible for the tax credit (annual sales volumes at that price point) - as that may be a motivator for someone introducing a product expected to carry the advantages of the credit for its lifetime (I-Pace vs. Bolt) ... Pointing out competition that forces the S and X to deliver based on better design and value chain may be more suitable for this forum.

Is that easy with Bill's help, or a night at the drafting board?
I used a different computer. I couldn't get the sheet to cooperate in flipping around the data. I can see if I can get it to cooperate. Until, then, I added some more cars. (It becomes more speculative as we move beyond 2017, but for the most part, it should be in the ballpark.)

Tesla 4.png
 
There were few members commenting on the lack of expected new information coming out of the Model 3 reveal. Aside from the potential for some surprise regarding the autonomy (very unlikely at this time imo) another hugely important and, I believe, widely overlooked spec that I personally dying to know is ... Model 3 weight. I expect it to be on par with the comparable premium compact sedans, which, if comes true, will be huge. This is key for two fundamental reasons.

  1. Financially, the success of Model 3 will depend on ability of Tesla to get to the Model 3 cost of manufacturing reductions that they planned. The 20% reduction in weight of Model 3 over Model S is a key metric addressed by Elon many times. So getting to weight of less than 3,500 lbs for a base variant would be an indication/proof that Tesla indeed got there cost-wise and will bode very well for the company finances going forward.

  2. In terms of competitiveness against performance peers, Model S had to overcome a several hundred pounds weight disadvantage. Model S performed this very challenging task admirably, competing very well against peers (low weight is paramount for overall dynamics of a car, including balance, handling, performance, etc.). Now just imagine what is possible if Model 3 completely closes the weight gap against the performance ICE peers. Although I doubt that Market will immediately care, this is going to be huge. If this indeed pans out, just watch for the accolades to start pouring in from the automotive media.
So I personally am really excited to see Model 3 weight to be revealed as part of the package that includes key specifications.

Thank you for this post. Could you please expand on how the weight of a car affects the three vectors of dynamics you listed: balance, handling, and performance?

Performance, obvious. Handling, I understand that the heavy battery being flat at the bottom ensures low center of gravity, but that's true for both heavier and lighter BEVs. And balance?
 
I used a different computer. I couldn't get the sheet to cooperate in flipping around the data. I can see if I can get it to cooperate. Until, then, I added some more cars. (It becomes more speculative as we move beyond 2017, but for the most part, it should be in the ballpark.)

View attachment 237998

The size of the circles being price is throwing off the usefulness of this graph.

I suggest making two graphs (one for luxury vehicles and one for mass-market) and using the size for production capacity.
 
I used a different computer. I couldn't get the sheet to cooperate in flipping around the data. I can see if I can get it to cooperate. Until, then, I added some more cars. (It becomes more speculative as we move beyond 2017, but for the most part, it should be in the ballpark.)

View attachment 237998

With the new computer the square grid is like oscilloscope marks. If a circle that touches the edges of one square = 300 (or maybe 250) miles of range, it will be pretty easy to read range from size quickly.

I really should pitch in. Thank you for compellingly high standards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willuknight
Thank you for this post. Could you please expand on how the weight of a car affects the three vectors of dynamics you listed: balance, handling, and performance?

Performance, obvious. Handling, I understand that the heavy battery being flat at the bottom ensures low center of gravity, but that's true for both heavier and lighter BEVs. And balance?

See VroomGirls.com :)
 
With the new computer the square grid is like oscilloscope marks. If a circle that touches the edges of one square = 300 (or maybe 250) miles of range, it will be pretty easy to read range from size quickly.

I really should pitch in. Thank you for compellingly high standards.
Here's the diagram with the flipped data. I'm not sure if it's very useful.

Tesla 5.png
 
Passed some time today reading online articles about amazon between year 1999-2000.

Scathing Report of Amazon Is a Must-Read for Stock Owners / Analyst builds powerful case against company
"
While stock analysts generally focus on the income statement, Suria concentrates on cash flow, a complicated analysis that most investors ignore.

"During the fourth quarter of last year, Amazon evolved from a virtual business to a real-world retailer," he writes. "While the operational characteristics of Amazon are not that different from an online retailer, they are a lot more distressed than even mediocre real-world retailers."

The "fundamental problem," he continues, "lies in the fact that Amazon does not generate positive net cash flow per unit of product it sells.""


Amazon.bomb
“"Once Wal-Mart decides to go after Amazon, there's no contest," declares Kurt Barnard, president of Barnard's Retail Trend Report. "Wal-Mart has resources Amazon can't even dream about.””

I don't know why I thought it was relevant to a tesla investing forum though.. :rolleyes:

Wal-mart? WAL-MART? Oh lord. They've been working on their online presence for how long? and it still looks like caca. I try to order various things from their site and iOS app, and get random errors here and there.
Bonus: Order 10 different things from Wal-Mart, food, video discs, and some other random consumables. It will come in 4 different packages. They are most certainly losing money on their online sales in shipping alone.
Amazon deals in the full spectrum of consumers, high end to low end. Everybody buys stuff from Amazon. Wal-Mart deals primarily in the low end, and it shows when you buy things from their site. The experience is decidedly low-end. Doing store pickup is a miserable experience, doing a store return is an even more miserable experience.. Unless Wal-Mart decides to upgrade to a high-end experience, they will never compete except in the more rural areas where there simply aren't other choices.

Whole Foods spoils me every time I step in the door. I loathe shopping at Wal-Mart now. Whole Foods has people checking out my groceries, properly packaging meats together and away from my fresh fruits and veggies, offering small bags of ice to keep my meat cold on the way home. Wal-Mart has their employees throwing bloody meat packages alongside my leafy greens that may or may not get cooked, how do they know?

Certainly I pay more for that Whole Foods experience, which is why Amazon did well to purchase a high profit margin business, instead of the cut-throat commodities business that Wal-Mart engages in. There's also a big culture difference between Wal-Mart and Amazon/Whole Foods. Amazon and Whole Foods embrace much greater diversity in thinking than Wal-Mart, in my opinion. (Which is based merely on articles discussing Amazon where actively disagreeing with coworkers in order to point out flaws is encouraged, versus my interactions with Wal-Mart corporate on a number of occasions where group think appears to still run rampant, especially when ideas are presented by people high up the chain. Example: Who thought it a good idea to have random Wal-Mart employees do home deliveries from stores? I would NEVER want a Wal-Mart employee knowing what I ordered AND delivering it to my home. NEVER. But this idea was dreamed up by some executive who thought it a brilliant solution, and I guarantee it was like George Lucas in doing the prequel movies, nobody stepped up to say "umm, that's not a good idea.")
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drax7
There were few members commenting on the lack of expected new information coming out of the Model 3 reveal. Aside from the potential for some surprise regarding the autonomy (very unlikely at this time imo) another hugely important and, I believe, widely overlooked spec that I personally dying to know is ... Model 3 weight. I expect it to be on par with the comparable premium compact sedans, which, if comes true, will be huge. This is key for two fundamental reasons.

  1. Financially, the success of Model 3 will depend on ability of Tesla to get to the Model 3 cost of manufacturing reductions that they planned. The 20% reduction in weight of Model 3 over Model S is a key metric addressed by Elon many times. So getting to weight of less than 3,500 lbs for a base variant would be an indication/proof that Tesla indeed got there cost-wise and will bode very well for the company finances going forward.

  2. In terms of competitiveness against performance peers, Model S had to overcome a several hundred pounds weight disadvantage. Model S performed this very challenging task admirably, competing very well against peers (low weight is paramount for overall dynamics of a car, including balance, handling, performance, etc.). Now just imagine what is possible if Model 3 completely closes the weight gap against the performance ICE peers. Although I doubt that Market will immediately care, this is going to be huge. If this indeed pans out, just watch for the accolades to start pouring in from the automotive media.
So I personally am really excited to see Model 3 weight
I don't think so!

Steel body vs aluminum and why do you think that the M3 battery is that much lighter than the MS-MX battery?

And why do you believe that the battery profits can be determined by the weight?​
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: DurandalAI
I don't think so!

Steel body vs aluminum and why do you think that the M3 battery is that much lighter than the MS-MX battery?

And why do you believe that the battery profits can be determined by the weight?​

When Elon stated that Model 3 is 20% lighter than Model S he obviously was aware of what metals are used for both cars, so aluminum vs. steel was accounted for.

As for the battery pack, take a look at the gravimetric pack level energy density of PowerPack 2 vs. PowerPack 1. It about doubled. The chemistry for TE and TA is obviously different, but the increase in energy density going from the pack based on old cell chemistry and 18650 format to an improved chemistry and 2170 format should be similar.

It is not me, it is Elon who thinks that cost is correlated with weight. See the Q4 2015 ER call quoted upthread.

For more color on how Elon thinks about this see recording posted by @JeffK here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rarity
As for the battery pack, take a look at the gravimetric pack level energy density of PowerPack 2 vs. PowerPack 1. It about doubled. The chemistry for TE and TA is obviously different, but the increase in energy density going from the pack based on old cell chemistry and 18650 format to an improved chemistry and 2170 format should be .
Do you believe that Tesla improved the cell chemistry only for the 2170's? If so why?
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: DurandalAI
  • Informative
  • Love
Reactions: MitchJi and Lump
Remind me. What's the current SP? So........investors clearly didn't care when the dust settled. Did they? Nope. They did not.

Ok, I will remind you - $22 less than it was the day deliveries were announced - and that is going into the M3 launch - an event that was/is supposed to drive the SP up significantly (and it has). So, even the M3 launch can't get us back to where we were before the deliveries were announced. But, you and VA are right - the deliveries, and now the earnings, don't matter much.

I will only ask you this. If deliveries had been in line with expectations, do you still think we'd have seen the $60 drop? And where do you think the SP would be right now without the deliveries miss?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.