-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Trip is a trip and may be a detriment to Tesla - even though he acts like he wants to help out. Can they stifle him at all?
Krugerrand
Meow
I don't understand the criticism. (Well, yeah. Actually I do but that's a different forum.) He IS doing his research. He's just not doing it the way *you* would choose to do it.
It matters not that he didn't know muck removal was the limiting factor. He knows it now and he only had to dig a few feet to find out. When he resolves the muck removal limiting factor, be sure to be equally as critical of all the expert tunnel diggers past and present who were never able to figure it out.
I've actually thought the same of you from time to time. Just sayin...
But no, he doesn't think he's an expert on things. He thinks he can solve whatever problem faces him. That's very different.
You've got a decimal misplaced on the amount of revenue on the Mira Loma project. At least.
Krugerrand
Meow
You believe that? Really?
racer26
Active Member
I agree. I'm just quoting what the Benzinga article suggested Trip Chowdry had to say. There is no way a system 20x larger gets sold for 3.5x the price. It just didn't happen. Maybe 15x or something, cause y'know, buying in bulk generally gets you a discount, but the number Trip is suggesting is way off.
This could be incorrect information. On the other hand, the arrangements for some of these are presumably PPAs v. cash sales so under GAAP they may only be able to recognize a small fraction of the revenue each quarter. Presumably they can accelerate revenue recognition by selling off the PPA income stream as they have started doing with some of the legacy SCTY PPAs but I have not looked into that so perhaps someone else can weigh in.
Systems include a variety of labor and inverters. Tesla may only be booking revenues for the powerpacks themselves, which are now 200kWh each, versus the prior 100kWh. In these cases those numbers are small if they are that number of units. But are you referring to 22000 kWh? That could be held in
ABB is in a unique position in the energy storage business. They design and install large data centers and provide the power management requirements for them. They will be growing their storage business in this area and could scale to utility based storage due to their large-scale utility integration services. ABB bought renewables inverter supplier PowerOne a couple years ago but they are also well ahead in many areas of power. Big companies like ABB and GE will be big players in this very wide market.
Krugerrand
Meow
Krugerrand
Meow
So @drinkerofkoolaid I'm confused by your disagree. Does it mean you don't believe what you posted about the relative number of people on this forum who have remained consistently optimistic about Tesla's trajectory. Or is it that you disagree I pointed out you were wrong in your assessment of the number of people here who have remained consistently optimistic about Tesla's trajectory?
100%. I didn't say I've been the only person (in the world) who has been consistently optimistic. I also didn't say I've been the only person on TMC who has been consistently optimistic.
I know there are many people on TMC who have consistently believed in Tesla. However, many people on TMC, even those who have been consistently optimistic about Tesla's trajectory have questioned Tesla's trajectory for one or more reasons over the past 4-5 years. There have been many events and non-events that created a lot of noise.
I won't say more about this. I only mentioned that because I have regularly been criticized by specific people for allegedly being too optimistic or for challenging the conventional wisdom of the moment.
Thank you and others so much for the factual responses to the periodic always-so-negatively-skewed "@m..."s posts. I don't have the inclination to source the obvious rebuttals and do all the work to post for everyone's benefit (thank you again).
I have no problem with examining Tesla's warts etc. However when there's an obvious spin (either way!) to some fact or story, it does get a bit tiresome. To restate the over-used CIA-inspired phrase, I'd listen to the "@m..."s, but then I'd have to kill myself.
DurandalAI
Member
I agree. It's very well spelled out by this particular video:
racer26
Active Member
Correct.
I think there is a lot of surprise factors lining up for this ER.
SCTY is a giant question mark. We know about the 265M they sold. They could have sold more. Hard to know how much ordinary cashflow from the residuals there is.
ZEVs are a medium sized question mark - we know that they're worth ~$10k / car sold in a ZEV state (4 credits at $2500 market value). My estimation is that about half of sales are to USA, and about half of that to ZEV states. So 1/4 of vehicle sales, or something of the order of 6k cars in 4Q. We know that Tesla sold off basically every ZEV credit it had in 3Q. 6000 cars * $10000 per car is around $60M in possible ZEV sales.
TE is a decent size question mark - we know about Mira Loma and Ta'u, and a few others that were in 4Q, and there's probably a bunch more we don't know about. Most of the ones we know about we only know because the customer said something publically. Tesla has been deliberately quiet, I think. I expect about $50M (MiraLoma being about $30M of it), maybe as much as $100M revenue from TE.
TM margins are also a pretty decent size question mark.
In 3Q16, we sold 25,180 vehicles and recognized $2.3B of revenue doing so. That represents an ASP of $91,342.
In 4Q16, we sold 22,200 vehicles - a difference of 2,980 vehicles.
2,980 cars * $91,342 ASP * 27.7% Automotive GM in 3Q16 = about $75.4M lower profits than 3Q to make up for.
3Q16: 25,180 vehicles * $91,342 ASP * 27.7% GM = $637.1M Profit.
If you hold ASP the same, and increase GM, to achieve the same profit from 4Q16's 22,200 vehicles, you'd need 31.4% GM.
If you hold GM the same, and increase ASP, to achieve the same profit from 4Q16's 22,200 vehicles, you'd need $103,603 ASP.
I suspect reality is somewhere in the middle.
We know that we discontinued X60D - should have a positive impact on ASP, as it was the cheapest MX. 60->75 is a $6,500 upgrade. If the lowest trim represents about 30% of the build mix, that should increase MX ASP by about $2k. MX is about half of the overall build mix, so I would expect this effect to increase overall automotive ASP by $1k.
We know that we increased base price of S60 by $2k - positive to ASP by only about $250. 30% of mix, S is 50% overall.
A higher mix of P100D should also contribute positively to ASP. This one is tough to quantify. Maybe $500-1000?
AP1's pricetag went up by $500 before AP2 introduction. AP has a nearly 100% take rate. I estimate about 25% of the 4Q vehicles were AP1, so that should add $125 to ASP.
AP2's pricetag went up by $2500 relative to the pre-increased AP1 price. Lets assume a 90% take rate. 75% of 4Q vehicles being AP2, so that should add $2500 * 90% * 75% = ~$1675 to ASP.
Can't realize FSD revenue yet, so we'll ignore it.
Altogether, those factors should be additive to ASP in the amount of something like $3500. Additionally, they're additive to GM, on top of savings from improving supplier deals and so on. GM increase of 1.5%
My prediction then, is that:
4Q16: 22,200 vehicles * $95,000 ASP * 29.2% GM = $615.8M
Thus, I believe TE's non-zero contribution is larger than the shortfall in TM's reduced vehicle count. ZEVs are about half of what they were in 3Q, but TE's non-zero contribution eats about half of the difference, leaving about $30M for SCTY to cover. If SCTY makes $30M, then the quarter should be overall profitable.
Additionally RVG vehicles sold in 3Q13 had their RVG's expire in 4Q16, and so the revenue from those that was backed out of GAAP then will show up in 4Q16's GAAP numbers. 3Q13's report says there was $160M in deferred revenues due to the RVG program.
Last edited:
jhm
Well-Known Member
Musk did hint that he would attack the problem at a different scale. This opens up new possibilities. Suppose you bore a narrow pilot tunnel and spiral around this to survey the extent of the final tunnel. This discovers large objects in the way. Then bore this wide enough to set up tunneling infrastructure. So you're prepared for all the muck. Finally bore out to full width of desired tunnel and wall off the sides. So robotics allow for small scale piloting and infrastructure setup under unsafe conditions. These pilots need to go about 4 miles per week or faster to allow discovery time leeway. The infrastructure tunneler needs to go about 2 miles per week, while the finishing tunneler goes 1 mile per week.
Whether all this solves transportation scaling problems on earth, I'm unsure. But on Mars, Musk needs a whole fleet of robotic tunnelers that can create habitable spaces for humans and robotic miners to secure needed mineral. Musk is always going to be interested in any technology needed for colonizing Mars and find ways to monetize it here on Earth.
BTW, tunnels will make preventing low vacuum leaks for hyperloop so much easier...
A PPA would be used for repeating power usage, such as required daily charge/dump. However, aren't they using the system for frequency response and may not cycle it daily? It would be interesting to see the contracts behind an intermittent-use vehicle such as
Traffic snake are not the norm in traffic. They occur in most-heavy rush-hour time frames or rubber-necking circumstances. How does autonomous allow for proper rubbernecking gawking scenarios?
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
