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

Analyst Reports/Targets

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Yes, it come with an optional trailer hitch. Customers who want a tow vehicle will want a larger capacity battery. The will also want P and D. So I anticipate a P110D version will be popular for towing. Power outlets would be a nice touch. RVers, for example, will want to plug in their trailers.

I posted a comment over in the 'short term thread' as well. The towing capacity of the X will not be as good as a Tundra, F series or many GMC products. Not because it won't have lots of torque and not because it won't be fast....but because the frame and suspension would have to be very heavy duty (read very heavy) to be able to pull say a two horse trailer which could conceivably weigh up to 5500-7000lbs.
 
Last edited:
I posted a comment over in the 'short term thread' as well. The towing capacity of the X will not be as good as a Tundra, F series or many GMC products. Not because it won't have lots of torque and not because it won't be fast....but because the frame and suspension would have to be very heavy duty (read very heavy) to be able to pull say a two horse trailer which could conceivably weigh up to 5500-7000lbs.

I would expect that Tesla has already thought through this. Once they put a hitch on this thing, they open up a whole new set of performance criteria. If the frame cannot deliver to the hitch the power in the motors, then they set themselves up for disappointing consumers. Worse yet, that configuration could cause structural damage. So I'm willing to give Musk the benefit of the doubt for thinking through this kind of disappointing downside and finding an innovative way to exceed expectations.

We can also see this as a critical step down a developmental path toward a high performance truck. Towing with the X could pique interest while providing Tesla engineers with valuable experience and a test bed. So even if initially the Model X is not the truck pull champ, give them a couple of years. The S P85+ was only able to go 0-60 in 4.2 sec, but two years later, the P85D does 3.2. Moreover, this technology advance is also leading to the Model X. So I think the Model X could pave the way to a high performance truck.

Current truck esthetics exaggerate bulk, as if mass conveys power. But I think that Tesla will offer a lean esthetic. Power comes from efficiency and superior design, not from bulk. I believe that Tesla can subvert the bulk = power paradigm.
 
I would expect that Tesla has already thought through this. Once they put a hitch on this thing, they open up a whole new set of performance criteria. If the frame cannot deliver to the hitch the power in the motors, then they set themselves up for disappointing consumers. Worse yet, that configuration could cause structural damage. So I'm willing to give Musk the benefit of the doubt for thinking through this kind of disappointing downside and finding an innovative way to exceed expectations.

We can also see this as a critical step down a developmental path toward a high performance truck. Towing with the X could pique interest while providing Tesla engineers with valuable experience and a test bed. So even if initially the Model X is not the truck pull champ, give them a couple of years. The S P85+ was only able to go 0-60 in 4.2 sec, but two years later, the P85D does 3.2. Moreover, this technology advance is also leading to the Model X. So I think the Model X could pave the way to a high performance truck.

Current truck esthetics exaggerate bulk, as if mass conveys power. But I think that Tesla will offer a lean esthetic. Power comes from efficiency and superior design, not from bulk. I believe that Tesla can subvert the bulk = power paradigm.

I agree that a Tesla truck will be built for great 'bed' carrying and towing capacity. This is several years down the line and will certainly have a battery pack that will be able to supply the power needed to pull 7-11K pounds that many of the 1 and 2 ton trucks are capable of towing at this time. However, since the X is really built to compete with the Audi/BMW/MB SUVs that are not really made to tow but more to transport people I would be shocked (hope I am wrong) that the X will be rated to pull more than a 4-5K trailer. This is still not bad and will accommodate much of the towing that the average family would ever need but I just did not want to give people the impression that it would be capable of towing what even a Tundra or its SUV counterpart, the Sequoia, could.
 
I would expect that Tesla has already thought through this. Once they put a hitch on this thing, they open up a whole new set of performance criteria. If the frame cannot deliver to the hitch the power in the motors, then they set themselves up for disappointing consumers. Worse yet, that configuration could cause structural damage. So I'm willing to give Musk the benefit of the doubt for thinking through this kind of disappointing downside and finding an innovative way to exceed expectations.

We can also see this as a critical step down a developmental path toward a high performance truck. Towing with the X could pique interest while providing Tesla engineers with valuable experience and a test bed. So even if initially the Model X is not the truck pull champ, give them a couple of years. The S P85+ was only able to go 0-60 in 4.2 sec, but two years later, the P85D does 3.2. Moreover, this technology advance is also leading to the Model X. So I think the Model X could pave the way to a high performance truck.

Current truck esthetics exaggerate bulk, as if mass conveys power. But I think that Tesla will offer a lean esthetic. Power comes from efficiency and superior design, not from bulk. I believe that Tesla can subvert the bulk = power paradigm.

They will need to do some subversion for sure. I have always been confused about the proposition for a truck. It has market issues, due to the good-old-boy factor. It took decades before it was really acceptable to buy a Tundra/Tacoma (if it really can be said to be ok yet, in some quarters). Then it has physics issues, since as everyone is saying, with a largish (like model X) bulk, plus load in the bed, plus load on a trailer, this truck driver better be quick with a calculator to figure out what his/her range is going to be. If this truck was hypothetically built on a Model X skateboard, with 85kWh, it's range would drop in a big hurry. That is getting into range anxiety territory pretty quickly, and its worse since the variability would go up to. You can do your calculations right, then hit a headwind and it's all over.

The whole engineering breakthrough that allows a model S/X to go 265 rated miles is 1) they are slippery as seals in the air and 2) they put tens of thousands of dollars of batteries inside to get the capacity to a good functional point. When you talk a truck use case, the aerodynamic advantage goes out the window and the weight goes up dramatically.

I hope the Tesla Truck is built on a 150kWh platform to negate this, or the whole product is a different paradigm. Instead of competing with rangers or tacomas, it would be (sacrilege, I know) a special-built utilitarian city-range product with a modest 2-3 person bench seat and a full size bed and limited towing specs. It would be aimed at fleet buyers; businesses. They can charge overnight and have predictable routes during the day. I see power utility trucks and Time Warner Cable small trucks running all over town that don't do anything heavy duty. There is a huge addressable market there. Just don't try to be the cool aspirational truck that 20yr old cowboys want to buy.
 
I agree that a Tesla truck will be built for great 'bed' carrying and towing capacity. This is several years down the line and will certainly have a battery pack that will be able to supply the power needed to pull 7-11K pounds that many of the 1 and 2 ton trucks are capable of towing at this time. However, since the X is really built to compete with the Audi/BMW/MB SUVs that are not really made to tow but more to transport people I would be shocked (hope I am wrong) that the X will be rated to pull more than a 4-5K trailer. This is still not bad and will accommodate much of the towing that the average family would ever need but I just did not want to give people the impression that it would be capable of towing what even a Tundra or its SUV counterpart, the Sequoia, could.

Yeah, I don't want to work up expectation on this either, but I do suspect that Tesla has a few surprises for us in this area. Does anyone recall Musk talking about the Model X having any towing capacity? It's a surprise to me at least. So we'll have to wait and see what they have in store.
 
Yeah, I don't want to work up expectation on this either, but I do suspect that Tesla has a few surprises for us in this area. Does anyone recall Musk talking about the Model X having any towing capacity? It's a surprise to me at least. So we'll have to wait and see what they have in store.
Somewhere he was quoted to say that the Model X will have class-leading towing capabilities. Not truck level, but should be comparable to a SUV/CUV type vehicle. I fully expect class III towing (5000 Lbs towing, 500 Lbs tongue weight).
 
Somewhere he was quoted to say that the Model X will have class-leading towing capabilities. Not truck level, but should be comparable to a SUV/CUV type vehicle. I fully expect class III towing (5000 Lbs towing, 500 Lbs tongue weight).

Towing with the X has been on the menu for months if not years.

No one who tows (who might even know what Class I, II, III etc. actually are) would ever try to tow a horse trailer with a cross over SUV. I have seen horse trailers being towed behind honda civics in Europe, though.

As to towing, a hitch has been available for years for the Model S:

Trailer 002 sm.jpg
 
Towing with the X has been on the menu for months if not years.

No one who tows (who might even know what Class I, II, III etc. actually are) would ever try to tow a horse trailer with a cross over SUV
. I have seen horse trailers being towed behind honda civics in Europe, though.

As to towing, a hitch has been available for years for the Model S:

View attachment 64125

I know I have been partially responsible for getting us off topic on the thread.....But this is my point. The X is closer to a crossover/medium SUV. It will have a light weight chassis and suspension system that will be great for passengers and light towing. It will compare favorably to most of the German SUVs but it is not designed, nor will it be capable of pulling even a fully loaded two horse trailer. The reason I use this as an example is that is what I would like it to do so that I can get rid of my Tundra.
 
I know I have been partially responsible for getting us off topic on the thread.....But this is my point. The X is closer to a crossover/medium SUV. It will have a light weight chassis and suspension system that will be great for passengers and light towing. It will compare favorably to most of the German SUVs but it is not designed, nor will it be capable of pulling even a fully loaded two horse trailer. The reason I use this as an example is that is what I would like it to do so that I can get rid of my Tundra.

This article has clarification from Elon and mentions that the hitch can be used for bike racks and accessories. Also, puts to bed any speculation about a Model X sans falcon doors.

Elon Musk: Rumors about canceling Falcon wing doors are false | SiliconBeat

As the former owner of a Tundra that was flipped over by a trailer, please be mindful of what you tow! I don't think the Model X will come close to Tundra's towing capacity from what I am reading.
 
I guess I will post the whole thing here instead of the short term thread.. The Street (aka... Cramer) has downgraded TSLA from hold to sell:

Tesla Motors (TSLA) Downgraded From Hold to Sell - TheStreet

"We rate TESLA MOTORS INC (TSLA) a SELL. This is driven by multiple weaknesses, which we believe should have a greater impact than any strengths, and could make it more difficult for investors to achieve positive results compared to most of the stocks we cover. The company's weaknesses can be seen in multiple areas, such as its deteriorating net income, weak operating cash flow and generally high debt management risk."


  • The company, on the basis of change in net income from the same quarter one year ago, has significantly underperformed when compared to that of the S&P 500 and the Automobiles industry. The net income has significantly decreased by 94.1% when compared to the same quarter one year ago, falling from -$38.50 million to -$74.71 million.
  • Net operating cash flow has significantly decreased to -$28.00 million or 127.35% when compared to the same quarter last year. In addition, when comparing to the industry average, the firm's growth rate is much lower.
  • The debt-to-equity ratio is very high at 2.60 and currently higher than the industry average, implying increased risk associated with the management of debt levels within the company. Even though the debt-to-equity ratio is weak, TSLA's quick ratio is somewhat strong at 1.38, demonstrating the ability to handle short-term liquidity needs.
  • Current return on equity exceeded its ROE from the same quarter one year prior. This is a clear sign of strength within the company. Compared to other companies in the Automobiles industry and the overall market, TESLA MOTORS INC's return on equity significantly trails that of both the industry average and the S&P 500.
  • TESLA MOTORS INC has experienced a steep decline in earnings per share in the most recent quarter in comparison to its performance from the same quarter a year ago. This company has reported somewhat volatile earnings recently. But, we feel it is poised for EPS growth in the coming year. During the past fiscal year, TESLA MOTORS INC continued to lose money by earning -$0.71 versus -$3.70 in the prior year. This year, the market expects an improvement in earnings ($0.60 versus -$0.71).
 
I guess I will post the whole thing here instead of the short term thread.. The Street (aka... Cramer) has downgraded TSLA from hold to sell:

Tesla Motors (TSLA) Downgraded From Hold to Sell - TheStreet

FYI, Cramer didn't write this report -- in fact no one did. It's an automatically generated report with text filled in by software that looks at ratios and writes sentences based on preset text.

The only human involved in this was the one who decided to hit "publish" on their content management system.
 
FYI, Cramer didn't write this report -- in fact no one did. It's an automatically generated report with text filled in by software that looks at ratios and writes sentences based on preset text.

The only human involved in this was the one who decided to hit "publish" on their content management system.

I just meant Cramer as the association with the Street since this is basically his website. So I'm sure somewhere along the way he had his hand in this.
 
Certainly possible. One of his buddies certainly could have called him and asked him to fire off this report.

It's a given. A while back when I suggested something similar about Cramer I remember some here saying I was out of line "accusing" him of such unethical behavior... Well I'll let everyone make up their own mind. Just pointing out that the data underlying the report, which is basically written by a computer program based on publicly available numbers, could have been spit out any day since the Q3 report. But for some reason it hit the presses today. Coincidence?
 
I guess I will post the whole thing here instead of the short term thread.. The Street (aka... Cramer) has downgraded TSLA from hold to sell:

Tesla Motors (TSLA) Downgraded From Hold to Sell - TheStreet

Just want to point out how the use of %'s for financial data are so meaningless and make things look worse (or better) than they actually are:

"The net income has significantly decreased by 94.1% when compared to the same quarter one year ago, falling from -$38.50 million to -$74.71 million."
--> 94% WOW!!! But really it is only a drop of $34 million so the 94% number is meaningless in this context. For example, if last year had been -$2 million and this year -$10 million, the report would have said "...decreased by 400%...." So when the actual amount difference is minimal ($8 million), the % difference would look very dramatic. But if it was -$100 million last year and -$108 million this year (same $8 million drop), the % difference would be 8%. Anyways, you see my point. They do the same thing with the 127% drop in the next point, again making it look much worse than it really is (actual drop from -$8.5ish million to -$28 million). I'm sure bots are programmed to see % changes like that and react accordingly.