-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
just so i understand -
the rear motors are all the same production, but then they are tested and split up into categories for standard rear drive, awd, and P?
but in P vehicles, it’s not just about the P rated motor, they also use other materials to handle the power draw/output more efficiently as well? like that battery conductor spacex metal Inconel or whatever it is.. or in that only on the ludicrous S X?
thank you
He wasn’t able to rebut Montana’s point about no model Y for 3+ years. Also didn’t explain the correct Thai cave situation where Elon was asked to help and one of the other divers asked him to contribute with the sub (and how he was treated by the diver).
I concede it will be interesting to see what happens after Q4 and what happens to Tesla’s bottom line as the model 3 starts to begin its run of normalcy. I however think it will still be quite profitable even with a mix of lower end models.
The lack of model Y for years will be a real bummer, though.
I believe that is correct, same HW (internals), no Inconel contactors. AWD and RWD rear motors are the same batching, lower limit is max power power.
dc_h
Active Member
Anything over 5000 is huge profits, and 10,000 a week should be at least 100-150 million profit per week. Regarding Y, if they can share the line, with 3, they could start production sooner than 3 years.
Anyhow, with Roadster and semi m, they’ll have 3 cars and 2 new revenue sources before Y comes online, plus growing TE.
Maybe all a year later than I hoped, but it’s all coming together.
What's the rebuttal? Does it make sense to start manufacture of the Model Y before substantial manufacturing capacity is added?
Tesla needs to be ready to manufacture the Model Y in case they find that the Model 3 doesn't have a sustained demand of 500K in 2020 and 2021. The tricky part may be to estimate how Model 3 demand is reduced by announcing the Model Y next year for 2020.
Tesla appears capped by manufacturing capacity. Starting a greenfield factory build in Shanghai doesn't change that situation. But perhaps they plan to build Model Y in Sparks. If they have been planning and investing in Sparks for the model Y then they could start building in 2020.
Most bulls would tell you Tesla needs all those lines dedicated to the model 3 to be able to keep up with its demand. If so, sharing lines would cut into earnings that would otherwise be received by model 3.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Which would then go to the Model Y, potentially at a higher profit margin being an SUV.
The problem is this: myself, and to the best of my knowledge nobody else, is getting any younger. My ICE vehicle sucks and I want an EV. Myself, and increasingly more people, don't want a sedan--I want a sport utility vehicle. We can play the song and dance of when exactly they should and shouldn't start manufacturing the Y, but I'm not going to wait forever, and I suspect many others won't as well. The more years that go by before the model Y is released, the more market share & earnings they will give up to other automakers.
Specifically, I really don't want to wait much longer than 2020 (my car is a 2011 GMC Terrain). Will there be decent alternatives to the model Y available then? That's yet to be seen, but I wouldn't write that possibility off completely.
That's nice, but they would still be cutting into what would have otherwise been additional earnings by not fulfilling model 3 demand.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Well I keep hearing how people want SUV's not sedans.
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
Galileo is terrible in this debate. But he is so bad that no one who significantly influences capital markets will bother to listen.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Rather bizarre if you think MS's tired old arguments were better.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Tesloop S 90 hits 400K miles with 2 pack replacements, one apparently unnecessary, and possibly the second as well if the original pack had been left unchanged.
Tesloop’s Tesla Model S Surpasses 400,000 miles (643,737 kM)
Tesloop’s Tesla Model S Surpasses 400,000 miles (643,737 kM)
I disagree, he made some very good points, especially about software and the Chevy bolt failure. He is also willing to critic Musk and acknowledge there are a capital needs for the Model Y.
I agree. I'm just listening to his soporific voice right now. The last thing he said, as I was typing this: "the more they sell, the more they lose". So he's spouting the same kind of rhetoric he has been for years. But still, not only are Tesla still not Bankwupt, this guy seems to be blind to what's about to smack him and his kind in the head. I don't think Galileo projected himself in the most convincing way with all of his points, but the actual points he was making were valid and forward-looking. A lot more insightful than the at times self-contradicting points made by his fossilistic opponent. Yes, I made up a word just for him.
As an investor, the Munro breakdown actually quite surprising. It showed Elon and crew are really doing something special in every aspect compared to the rest of the auto industry. That level of integration of systems as well as cost efficiency only can happen with a well developed organization.
As such, this is clearly a company that will obtain cheap capital with no shortage of providers in the future. This is just reality.
I think the bear argument on a capital raise is farcical given what Tesla is doing here and it’s hard to keep people from wanting to see more and being apart of it.
As such, this is clearly a company that will obtain cheap capital with no shortage of providers in the future. This is just reality.
I think the bear argument on a capital raise is farcical given what Tesla is doing here and it’s hard to keep people from wanting to see more and being apart of it.
Really? Samsung has a comparable 2170 cell? What specifically do you know about this cell besides it's packaged as a 2170 cylinder to conclude it is comparable? Do you know if it is NCA? Does it have the same energy density as Tesla's 2170? Does it use as little costly cobalt as Tesla's? Do you know Samsung says it won't produce these in BEV quantities until 2021? Even if Samsung's were just as high performing, they won't be available for real use for three more years. A three year lead at minimum? Almost sounds like a part of Tesla's moat!
From Tesla Q1 2018 Shareholder Letter:
"Cells used in Model 3 are the highest energy density cells used in any electric vehicle. We have achieved this by significantly reducing cobalt content per battery pack while increasing nickel content and still maintaining superior thermal stability. The cobalt content of our Nickel-Cobalt-Aluminum cathode chemistry is already lower than next-generation cathodes that will be made by other cell producers with a Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt ratio of 8:1:1. As a result, even with its battery, the gross weight of Model 3 is on par with its gasoline-powered counterparts. "
Battery cell energy density improvements aren't driving costs down? The 2170 cell chemistry improvements allow them to store about 30% greater energy per Kg. No one outside Tesla/Panasonic knows just how much cost reduction over previous generation accrues from lower manufacturing costs at GF and how much from M3 needing fewer cells for the same pack KWh.
Your original assertion was battery chemistry and performance isn't a significant component of Tesla's total moat. Neither Elon or J.B. would agree.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Article
