how do you figure?... a typical $60b market cap company (that's the valuation you speak of)... is selling 2 million to 10 million cars... according to your chart... Tesla is currently valued for the year 2027... not today.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
how do you figure?... a typical $60b market cap company (that's the valuation you speak of)... is selling 2 million to 10 million cars... according to your chart... Tesla is currently valued for the year 2027... not today.
for every Tesla vehicle on the roads in the US... there are 2000 ICE... and you're calling people "purposefully obtuse" for arguing against your extrapolation of how wonderful the world would be if all the vehicles in Florida ***right now*** were Teslas?
Also, I wonder how much of the wear-out affect of supercharging is limited to the >72kW part of the curve? Since these are meant to be used regularly this could be them conceding that this is the safe range.
Well, except that if you use the assumption that the base Model 3 pack is ~55KWh, (as has been conjectured), then charging at 72KW is a ~1.3C rate. That's actually higher than a Model S 100KWh on a traditional supercharger.... and about the same rate as a 90KWh car.
I don't think this is really any "concession" on Tesla's part.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
Thank you for your question. The following is the crucial mistake most Tesla skeptics are making:
The "typical $60 billion market cap" is not reflective of the current fact that they're "selling 2 to 10 million [ICE] cars." It's reflective of market's estimate that they will likely trail Tesla in the all-electric future.
As the market's estimate gradually moves closer to Musk/TMC estimates for the future, Tesla's market cap will rise, and "competition's" combined market cap will decline. Or vice versa.
Last edited:
reasonable explanation... except that ALL auto manufacturers trade within a tight range of valuation... if they were scattered and the group I was comparing Tesla to fit into your explanation... then you'd be correct... my use of "typical" is throwing you off here... I said "typical $60b"... but all auto companies are in a tight range of valuation.... ALL... except Tesla... which lies outside the range by hundreds (to thousands) of percent.
now... if what you're implying is that the valuation is reflective of all auto companies declining because Tesla is "just about to take" 20% of the market... then... yeah, that's basically the delusional madness I'm arguing against on a daily basis.
dennis
Model S Plaid
That is because all auto manufacturers are expected to grow revenues within the same tight range, which currently averages 6.5%/year and is likely to decline in 2018. While Tesla has been growing revenues at 50%+ per year, which is expected to continue or increase in 2018. The market pays for growth.
racer26
Active Member
Its the entire auto industry that has strange valuations out of whack with the norms.
Normal companies get valued with P/E ratios of 5-40 depending on their growth rates and tons of other factors. Essentially all of the legacy automakers have P/E's less than 1. Very very few companies have a valuation of less than one year's earnings.
In addition to that, Tesla's enterprise value includes the supercharger infrastructure and all of the stores/galleries/service centers. The traditional automakers valuations do not include the value of their dealer networks, nor the value of gas stations, and therefore Tesla's valuation ought to be proportionally higher simply because it includes more.
Reciprocity
Active Member
The value of the data coming from the car is bigger then most realize, but its only valuable to someone who can leverage it. The high def mapping company that was made up of ex Tesla employees is paying 1-5c per mile for you to put a dash cam in your car to record images for high def maps: www.getpayver.com I believe is the url. If you assume the best case scenario for that one solution, the average value of 10 years worth of driving is ~$7000 per car. Now I am sure the value will go down over time and that is assuming 5c per mile, but you can kind of start to get an idea of how even a tiny part of the data has a large amount of value and this is completely unrelated to ad tech. Certainly if Tesla was not getting their own data, they would have to pay someone for the data and though it probably wouldn't be $7000 per car for high def map data, its not free either.
The main question for me would be, is Tesla the type of company that can fully leverage that data? Maybe Google or others might be better at fully leveraging the entire value from the data, but there is no reason why Tesla could not partner with other companies, which also goes to the value of the data. If you are Google, who do you want to partner with.. the company with a billions of miles of highly detailed sensor data or the mapping company above. I would also assume that Apple would not want to partner with Google for this data.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
Depends on your definition of "just about." I do think Tesla will eventually command more than 20%, but not until after 2025.
Very high-level, I think Elon will be proven optimistic in his "half of new vehicles will be all-electric by 2025" prediction. If that percentage is, say, 30% by 2025, and I estimate about one-third to one-half of all-electric sales will be Tesla, then we're looking at ~12-15 million cars for Tesla in 2025.
Note that I'm assuming the number of cars sold each year will approach 100 million for a few years (as is Bloomberg is showing in that graph), because the replacement cycle will speed up through 2030 due to the massive wave of innovation, just like happened with the iPhone.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
VW may not be worried about Tesla but they are certainly copying them. The dash clearly influenced by Model 3, though not executed as well.
My opinions:
Having the legislation/ regulation at the Federal level is good, since it eliminates the potential fracturing of different state/ local requirements.
The manufacturers still have to provide proof/ assurance that their vehicles are safe as/ safer than humans before they can unleash the hounds.
Then the manufacturers get a time period of having a small fleet out on all the roads to refine and add to the confidence level.
Meanwhile, legislature hashes out the changes needed to the vehicle code to support autonomous driving.
Once the new laws are finalized, the manufacturers align their systems to meet/ exceed the legal requirements and go to mass release.
Tesla has an advantage since their cars have HW (assuming AP 2.5 is sufficient) to perform all the steps, and once the laws are set, a software update will bring all the HW capable cars up to the new standard. In the interim, no one has to pay for FSD who can't use it.
FSD capable vs FSD legal:
So yeah, no one will be able to do full market self driving until the regulations are updated (at the speed of legislature). So Tesla, like all other OEMs, will not be able to do full release until then. In the mean time, the new guidance allows for faster evaluation and confirmation of performance.
tl;dr; Under current regulations, FSD is not possible (outside of 2,500 vehicles per year with exemption). Under the new proposal 25k-100k cars can be FSD anywhere in US. This will accelerate getting the data and legislation needed to allow > 100k vehicles per year.
VW guys like to play games.
This latest example: they said they will spend $84 billion on EVs by 2030. That sounds really big, right? Turns out they plan to use the majority of that money to buy batteries.
China said all manufacturers will be required to generate EV credits that equal to 8% of sales in 2018, 10% by 2019, and 12% by 2020. The rule applies to both foreign and domestic car makers. German companies tried hard to derail that requirement.
Now it seems the rule will stay, that means VW will need $50 billion of batteries just to satisfy China's minimum requirement through 2030. In reality the requirement is likely to go much higher than 12% after 2020. Also VW will need batteries to satisfy other countries' EV requirements.
They are planning for minimum compliance requirement, they made it sound like a major commitment for progress. They must think we are all dumb.
I see VW in big trouble. If they stay with ICEs, they will go out of business because of Tesla. If they switch to EVs, they will get very little profit in the future, because of Tesla.
This latest example: they said they will spend $84 billion on EVs by 2030. That sounds really big, right? Turns out they plan to use the majority of that money to buy batteries.
China said all manufacturers will be required to generate EV credits that equal to 8% of sales in 2018, 10% by 2019, and 12% by 2020. The rule applies to both foreign and domestic car makers. German companies tried hard to derail that requirement.
Now it seems the rule will stay, that means VW will need $50 billion of batteries just to satisfy China's minimum requirement through 2030. In reality the requirement is likely to go much higher than 12% after 2020. Also VW will need batteries to satisfy other countries' EV requirements.
They are planning for minimum compliance requirement, they made it sound like a major commitment for progress. They must think we are all dumb.
I see VW in big trouble. If they stay with ICEs, they will go out of business because of Tesla. If they switch to EVs, they will get very little profit in the future, because of Tesla.
Late Monday the California legislature worked a deal with the Governor for $1.5 billion of cap-and-trade spending. Of that amount, $895 million will be for new vehicles. The allocation is: $140 million for the ports, $85 million for farm vehicles, $140 million for electric car rebates, and unclear where the remaining $530 million goes. Could be associated with an "EV truck highway" proposed for the I-710 freeway coming up from the ports. Will find out more when they approve it on Friday:
Big money for clean vehicles in California cap-and-trade spending deal
Big money for clean vehicles in California cap-and-trade spending deal
racer26
Active Member
I was caught up by the headlines yesterday touting VW's "commitment" to EVs and $84B "investment" but VW is talking out of both sides of its mouth.
The article @MartinAustin linked this morning quoting VW's CEO reaffirming its commitment to diesel (diesel has a "great future") and stating that VW will be "patient and relaxed" about introducing EVs and that the industry needed to fight diesel bans made me want to gag. Volkswagen believes Tesla is not a threat and plans to stick with diesel engines
He also said VW plans to sell 1 million "battery driven vehicles" in 2025 which will likely be a small fraction of what Tesla is selling by then.
The shift in VW's thinking toward EVs still appears to be glacially slow, with fossil fuel vehicles clearly intended to be the core business for the foreseeable future.
Last edited:
racer26
Active Member
The automakers are being dragged kicking and screaming into the EV future.
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
Yes. Great observations.
This new pedestal design looks to make it far easier to lay the conduit on the floor between the pedestals.
As you've noted, instead of tearing up the asphalt or concrete floor, the construction crews simply create a raised tray (about the height of a curb) between the pedestals. Looks as if the electrical conduit resides within this tray.
The tray appears to be covered with plate steel sheets (like diamond plate)
I'm guessing this significantly reduces construction time and cost
Given the long timeframes we are talking about, it seems increasingly likely that we will see Chinese manufacturers with EV production capacity and experience improve their designs and quality and, together with Tesla, knock many of the legacy manufacturers out of the market or absorb their brands ala Geely/Volvo.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
