-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Bloomberg Model 3 Tracker
- Thread starter jhm
- Start date
With just over 5 weeks to go, might we see a 4,000-4,500 weekly number at the end again? To remain in line with 36-400K for the year, they'd kind of need to.
On the one side, Tesla is obsessed communicating production rates for isolated links in the production line, but this year so we're not getting any or I have missed it. Might they this time have really gone for surprise high performance? Even Electrek's snitches are being silent. Perhaps Tesla fired the right guy
Bloomberg have been pretty on it with their tracker and really precise, at least by quarter closing.
One week to go to end Q1, showing nearly 72,000.
If correct and another week add 6,000, that should mean a quarter well over 100,000 which would be a significant milestone.
A good quarter with S/X is well over 25,000 closer to 30,000 but the latter I wouldn't expect among all the Model 3 hype.
It would be interesting to know Q1 average Model 3 sales price. While Mid Range was well available in the home market and later even Standard Range, export markets basically only got Long Range which might balance the sales price average.
I wonder how many units will be in transit at the end of Q1. Has to be many more than last Q now that exports started and after the crazy low number last time.
What do you think, will we see 72,000 + Model 3 or is the Bloomberg tracker way off?
If correct and another week add 6,000, that should mean a quarter well over 100,000 which would be a significant milestone.
A good quarter with S/X is well over 25,000 closer to 30,000 but the latter I wouldn't expect among all the Model 3 hype.
It would be interesting to know Q1 average Model 3 sales price. While Mid Range was well available in the home market and later even Standard Range, export markets basically only got Long Range which might balance the sales price average.
I wonder how many units will be in transit at the end of Q1. Has to be many more than last Q now that exports started and after the crazy low number last time.
What do you think, will we see 72,000 + Model 3 or is the Bloomberg tracker way off?
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
I think they're accurate in terms of production. As deliveries, some of those might end up in Q2, but that could be why revenue/profit for Q1 was revised downward.
Not sure what you mean by 72,000. Their new end-of-quarter prediction feature is currently at 76,641 for Q1. Their trailing 13 week average is at 5841/week which translates to 75,933/week for the past 13 weeks — fairly similar.
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
I think 72k is low for current production of M3s. At end of quarter I think they'll be close to 80k. However S+X will be below 20k so we won't see 100k yet for a quarter. But they may be close.
How would you explain such a sharp drop in S/X production? Those cars are so profitable, it would seem to make sense to just make them and find customers/ issue price cuts later?
Doggydogworld
Active Member
Tesla said they reduced S/X production hours early this quarter. This was in response to questions about the 7% layoff. Musk said they'd make 70-100k S/X this year, which in Muskspeak means 70-80k. Tesla guided to 20k deliveries in Q1. They could support that with one shift (~15k) of production and inventory reduction.
Some say they're clearing out S/X inventory before launching a refresh with updated interior, battery pack and drivetrain to achieve 400 miles EPA in the new long range Model S. I've said it myself. Might be right.
Cheers.
Still odd to all but kill off S and X.
I've pushed the 400 mile S as well. Seems to be a no-brainer for a company that needs to remain relevant. Ideally make Porsche Taycan seem meh as it's unveiled later this year. And Tesla does seem perfectly positioned to do so. Give me a pick of a dozen Tesla engineers and I'll get you a new S/X skateboard that used off the shelf (Tesla's) bits to vastly outperform S100(P)D.
A few things happened related to S&X in the first quarter.
(1) Massive demand pullforward for S&X due to tax credit expiration causing very low S&X sales in the US for Jan and Feb.
(2) Paint shop is shared between S, X, and 3. With lower demand (for Jan and Feb anyway) for S&X, and the paint shop being a known production rate bottleneck, more capacity for the 3 in the paint shop was helpful. (If the paint shop has continued to speed up, this may stop being an issue.)
(3) There probably is some permanent drop in demand for the S from customers who are getting the 3 instead.
(4) High-end 3s are probably more profitable than low-end Ses (low end Ses have been discontinued now, of course)
Doggydogworld
Active Member
(1) US S/X sales in Jan/Feb this year were roughly the same as last year.
(2) Paint shop is rated for 10k/week, was installed 2+ years ago. Barring unprecedented incompetence it shouldn't be a bottleneck today.
(3) First time I saw a 3 I wondered "why would anyone buy an S?" That's why they need a 400 mile version ASAP. S/X are too important financially and brand-wise to be given the poor step-sister treatment much longer.
I saw one for the first time this week. Definitely not the stance of an S although on barely barely shorter and wider in percentage terms. If you just drive by yourself and don't haul stuff, for sure the 3 suffices. I tend to almost live out of a car and really would enjoy the larger frunk and rear cargo. Y will make S redundant for me I suppose, especially with better consumption and lower price. apart from the missing instrument cluster.
An uptick in range for S/X is needed until we can finally leave the range anxiety era behind.
Apartment dwellers may be dependant on V3 charging. And it sure opens that demographic for "nice" BEVs. Say, you just commute and make the odd road trip. Fast top-offs will be very much worth it. A larger batter for S/X with longer range that charges even quicker in mph would really be in ideal situation. Silly if the $45K or so car adds miles quicker than the flagships.
Evidence? That would be a *massively positive* sign. There is ALWAYS a post-tax-credit-expiration hangover, in every state and every country. If the sales were the same as last year (with no post-tax-credit hangover and low availability of Model 3), then that indicates a large INCREASE in sustainable demand.
All our S/X sales numbers are guesswork -- which guesswork are you using to make your claim? I doubt the claim.
Was a bottleneck for a looooong time; also the entire Fremont factory was supposed to be rated for 10k/week and it... failed.
Doggydogworld
Active Member
InsideEVs estimates. They do actual digging, so it's better than pure guesswork. The tax credit stepdown was less than 4% of ASP, IMHO the December-to-January slump shouldn't be much worse than normal. Especially since Tesla offset more than half of in with January 1 price cuts.
Funny. But Paint shop was also a bottleneck for months, though part of that was apparently software sabotage.
I would not trust that the paint shop can steadily do 9000 cars / week, which would be necessary to pump out Model 3 at the current target of 7000/week plus Model S&X at 100000/year. Cutting S&X down to 80000/year allows the paint shop to slow down to 8600/week.
I would not trust that the paint shop can steadily do 9000 cars / week, which would be necessary to pump out Model 3 at the current target of 7000/week plus Model S&X at 100000/year. Cutting S&X down to 80000/year allows the paint shop to slow down to 8600/week.
Last edited:
Fair 'nuff. So that is an EXTREMELY positive sign for demand.
The January price cuts wouldn't have affected the pullforward given that nobody knew about them until after the deadline.
I'm using a "demand pullforward" model where people who were already planning to buy a car decide to buy it *earlier*. In my model, the size of the anticipated price increase determines how many months early they're willing to buy, basically. My pullforward model does not consider permanent changes in demand from price changes, since its purpose is to exclude temporary effects.
If the sales were the same despite the pullforward, it means that without the pullforward, the sales were effectively UP, which is obviously good news for demand. Of course, that rise in sales arguably could have been due to the Jan 1 price cuts.
As you will understand, my model predicts that the pullforward "hangover" will have worn off by March, so if underlying demand is up, that means we should see increased US S/X sales in March. We'll see!
Doggydogworld
Active Member
I'm certain we'll see increased S/X sales in March. We always do. And this year they slashed prices to move inventory.
I agree about pull-forward, but it happens every year. In fact, December 2017 US S/X sales were ~1k more than last year. On the other hand, November 2017 was ~2.5k less than last year. With other stuff going on besides the tax credit stepdown, e.g. Tesla's need to boost US/EU sales in 2H18 to compensate for lower shipments to China, I try not to draw too many hard conclusions from these numbers.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
