-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Standing by my theory that the stock like stay around $215 until the 25th and will pick a direction by the end of this week. Now that the offering is complete, the stock can pick a direction. I disagree with all of you about the significance of the shareholders meeting. I think Elon will finally provide clarify about how Tesla plans to increase production to 500,000 vehicles in 2018. I also wouldn't be surprised if Panasonic announces it is further accelorating its investment in Tesla.
Because that's how it is written in the article? It mentions incremental R&D spending for Apple (presumably if I read the chart correct that's the chunk they estimate goes towards Apple Car) but not for Tesla? If the goal is to compare efficient capital spending on getting towards an electric car it even makes sense in a way because nearly all of Tesla's R&D goes towards electric cars and related services while it clearly doesn't for Apple.
Maybe someone with access to the full report can explain where the $444M between 2013 and 2015 comes from, because even if you'd do the incremental dance for Tesla (which is nonsensical in my eyes) there is no way to get to 444M.
sub
Active Member
Did the i3 come with clown shoes and the nose, or just the motorcycle "extender" (apparently to match the motorcycle wheels)?
Unfortunately no, at least the nose would have hidden my identity a little while driving to save some embarrassment. No extender either, full EV.
This belong in the Long term price movement, but as is tradition - I'll post it here.
Fred Lambert at Electrek did an (as always) excellent job of reporting the main data points from Sterling Andersons (Director of Autopilot Programs, Tesla) recent talk.
I recommend watching it though to get an idea of how Tesla is approaching building the technology for level 4 autonomous driving.
If nothing else - watch it from the 20:00 mark where the interviewer asks Sterling directly whether the Model 3 will be the first commercially available autonomous vehicle.
Fred Lambert at Electrek did an (as always) excellent job of reporting the main data points from Sterling Andersons (Director of Autopilot Programs, Tesla) recent talk.
I recommend watching it though to get an idea of how Tesla is approaching building the technology for level 4 autonomous driving.
If nothing else - watch it from the 20:00 mark where the interviewer asks Sterling directly whether the Model 3 will be the first commercially available autonomous vehicle.
I've spent another five hours today cleaning up the mess I permitted to fester over the past several days. I now know how to get the uber moderators' attention and one acted immediately, even before my response with the appropriate evidence. Thanks to him/her, an up day (I haven't checked since the close), and your intelligence, civility, and forbearance today's discussion was clearly worthwhile. Surely we miss Audie and, unfortunately, for whatever reason, I seem to be the sole moderator on a very busy site as well as green as our spring here in sunny Sacramento. If you will forgive a bit of a lecture from a clearly old petard (my wife caught me breaking wind in front of the Buddha alter), I will be death on personal attacks by members and for the miscreants or potential miscreants, I now have an ear of someone with real power. This is your first and last warning. Now I can collapse, check the market, and long for a beer which my wife and doctor prohibit. I suffer such elder abuse.
Bet TSLA
Active Member
It's speculation. Katy Huberty, who never ever gets anything about Apple right is involved. She's right at the top of the list of most clueless Apple analysts. When she asks questions at conference calls you usually wonder whether you heard right. I have no idea whether Adam Jonas knows anything about Apple. Probably not.
When Apple spends money on R&D, much of it gets spent on basics: materials, manufacturing processes, lifecycle issues. Who is to say what bucket should be assigned for battery research? The fact is that Apple is spending vast quantities across the board on R&D. Believe that. What products, if any, will come out of that are highly unpredictable. And you can be sure that Katy Huberty knows nothing useful.
The focus on capital is exceptionally misguided.
This is what bears used to do and still do with arguments like - GM with its vast amount of capital will crush Tesla.
It's buzzare to see bulls talking about capital as if this is the first and last thing that dictates the product.
To put things in perspective, Model X didn't get delayed or have a terrible ramp or have all the QC issues because of lack of capital!
The accelerated plan for Model 3 is honestly scary. Things done in a hurry have a higher likelihood of mistakes. Mistakes at such a scale/pace can seriously cause the company to collapse on its own.
As investors it would be a fools errand to go into Model 3 launch with any kind of leverage. Hope everyone is investing only the amounts they can afford to lose and/or plan to trim well ahead of the launch.
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
This article from our friends at Electrek suggests Tesla raised MORE than expected. $1.7B rather than ~$1.4B
I did see any SEC filing today but didn't read it
Looks as if they WERE actually oversubscribed and that the overwriters sold the additional optional shares.
Tesla (TSLA) closed its stock offering with $1.7 billion in net proceeds to finance the Model 3 program
I did see any SEC filing today but didn't read it
Looks as if they WERE actually oversubscribed and that the overwriters sold the additional optional shares.
Tesla (TSLA) closed its stock offering with $1.7 billion in net proceeds to finance the Model 3 program
Just as an interesting point of calibration. There appears to be the notion amongst traditional auto industry analysts and executives that a car with a higher sticker price is automatically a car in a higher price class - independent of the class of the actual vehicle in terms of size, performance and sophistication.
This almost to imply that from the inside looking out that auto industry execs picture consumers in a "keeping up with the Jones's" battle with one another without the discrimination to identify value for money. In fact the ELR commercial targeted exactly this presumed mentality regardless of the fact the ELR was little more than a pimped Volt with some Tesla styling cues - for $70,000 +.
Here's the ad:
TSLA bear mentality is often very much informed by traditional auto industry expert opinion. This is a prime example: How to compete with Tesla? Easy. Raise the price of a bog standard hybrid and make an aspirational ad for it. This is not a lack of education, this is what passes for elite auto industry expertise.
The sad thing is that amongst ICE vehicles it sort of works too. People really do pay a premium for a VW badged vehicle advertised in a different way to an identical Skoda or SEAT branded vehicle that is otherwise identical. It does not seem to matter that the Skoda ad comes with the tag line: Simply Smarter (or could be Simply Smart) as though to literally mock the consumer only helps reinforce the error.
This does not work across technologies. A new technology such as a highway capable fully electric vehicle hits the reset button on the efficacy of nuanced marketing and advertising and what matters prior to saturation of a new technology is performance on key metrics and price.
Nobody is going to care for a fancy badged EV from any manufacturer if it has poor range, poor acceleration, poor driving characteristics, poor safety, inadequate size, poor cabin technology and poor access to highway charging when price-matched with the Tesla Model S and X and the Tesla Model 3.
Raising the price and ploughing cash into fancy advertising won't help address relative deficiencies in these areas. As for the $37,500 GM Bolt and numerous other compliance EVs at a similar and sometimes higher prices with even less range. Part of the reason why GM seems to imagine it will be a worthy competitor to the Tesla Model 3 will be based on expert opinion of the same caliber that drove the ELR into the wall.
One cannot apply traditional auto industry expertise to the electrification of transport (and hence the TSLA stock). Wrong frame of reference altogether.
Finally, a decent article on SA. I hope the bears here and on SA follow this example:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3977783-look-teslas-model-3-product-program
I don't know how current is Funk with auto manufacturing processes. Any production/manufacturing engineering experts here?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3977783-look-teslas-model-3-product-program
I don't know how current is Funk with auto manufacturing processes. Any production/manufacturing engineering experts here?
Yes, and at about the 25 minute mark he explains why Tesla is not particularly well positioned relative to Google and similar to get to full autonomy first.
His bit on Summons working the "ultra urban end"? That was weird.
Based on Musk's long stated aspirations and from what we can glean about his personality, are you surprised by the accelerated plan?
As soon as the reservation numbers started piling up, it was obvious this was going to happen. He tweeted as much a day or so after the model 3 reveal.
The author keeps misrepresenting the revised production goal. He says goal of producing 500,000 cars has been "moved forward to 2017" and he "perceives company production goal" is 500,000 car / year run rate by the end of 2017. Neither is accurate.
According to Tesla, there is a "500,000 unit build plan" for 2018. I take this to mean the company intends to produce 500,000 cars in 2018, which implies a run rate of 500,000 averaged over that year.
No, he doesn't actually say that. At best, that is your interpretation of what he said.
$1.7 bn raised on a rising stock. Sounds about right.
It is easy for stock market participants of all stripes to think cash is all that matters just as carpenters see wood disproportionately important.
Either way, what this means for the share price is that the bear case for liquidity is untenable and they know that the bulls know it too. It will also trouble bears that raising capital in future cannot realistically be viewed as a liquidity barrier.
As regards to the Model 3 program execution risk. With money as a bottleneck taken off the table for now (and by implication probably off the table in future too) . One thing that is worth keeping in mind is that the Model 3 program has been a Tesla program for well over a decade at this juncture while essentially waiting and working for affordable and competent battery technology to come up to meet it at scale. This program is not new and nothing like the rushed job that it appears to be. For example the Model 3 prototypes shown on the 31st March were confirmed (first hand by a Tesla Engineering VP on video) to be running the production drive train.
Model 3 is more than likely the longest contemplated, best thought out and planned vehicle launch for many a decade if not of all time.
Another thing to contemplate about this. While shipping the first cars to the employees that make them is de-risking as an art form, putting this in a historical perspective is also quite remarkable. It was Henry Ford's vision, one that he finally accomplished: That his cars would eventually become cheap enough for his workers to buy them.
Krugerrand
Meow
It was scary that the Bolt (and everything else) was beating the Model 3 to market. It was scary that Tesla was going to be (probably) late with the Model 3 launch and thus might not get to their original target goal by 2020. Etc., etc., etc...
Now Tesla moves up their production target, declares an additional goal of becoming the best manufacturer on the planet, and raised some capital to kick start them and ooooohhh that's scary too.
It's got to be exhausting to be scared of everything Tesla does or does not do, especially when *you* aren't the one under pressure or responsible for the doing.
This is a good general background piece on the state of the art before Tesla got there from an author that is generally considerably more unfair and unbalanced concerning Tesla than this piece, which was essentially excellent and balanced - at least in the way it posed the question without overly presuming the answers.
The key takeaways of merit that I got from it was the estimation of a 12 month cycle for bodywork panel dies, typically produced in Korea and the reminder that Tesla owns a too and die firm in Michigan. Musk's stretch target of 9 months does not seem overly unreasonable and I find the author's estimate of the number of stamped panels required to be excessive - probably ICE specific.
The author's suggestion that a vehicles engine, exhaust, brakes and brake lines is installed in three minutes raised some eyebrows with me. I am not directly familiar with tac times on this but the author's statement does not meet the test of reasonable expectations - or it essentially invites the reader to overlook a number of steps that take considerably longer to complete. For example exhaust heat shields, vibration dampers, engine bay firewall materials and sound-proofing, pipe-work and electrical connections brake fluid installation, brake line fastenings hose fastenings, wire harness fastenings, straps, covers and so on. If it takes much less than an hour to install an entire ICE drivetrain and brake system so that no more installation work is required to complete this "3 minute step" according to this author, then that would be stunning process efficiency in my opinion. In other words I expect the author is out by a factor of 20. 10 to be generous, whereas installing a battery (the author's choice of comparison) in 2013 for the Model S really did take three minutes or thereabouts, even manually with a manually controlled lift and a couple of guys with torque drivers as seen on Nat Geo on Youtube. There was also an unnecessary reference to battery swap station technology. There is no reason to imagine that production line equipment would not be dedicated assembly line equipment: A pick and place lift robot and a bolt driver and not a machine dedicated to replacing a vehicle battery while it stands on its road tires on a ramp. I suspect this reference to battery swap betrays a lack of objectivity.
Perhaps the most key error of assumption (or at least conflict of information) that I got from it was the notion that the Model 3 shown on the 31st March was an Alpha or a "Mule". For starters the drive train was production spec as a known datapoint. Secondly on Q1 ER design finalization was stated to be six weeks away. Naturally the vehicles looked great and besides some minor feedback for example the presentation of a Tesla logo on the front in falcon-beak chrome strip - achieved an extremely positive customer response (not exactly a rash of cancellations from those that had received it sight unseen - more like an extra 250,000 reservations in short order).
A secondary conflict of information concerned a long section of the article concerning the paint shop. While the author discusses possible ways and means he appears to be leading the conclusion that the paint shop is not big enough. Tesla says that it has capacity for 500K vehicles annually.
A tertiary conflict of information is to insinuate that 200K steady state unit capacity is about it for Fremont. Tesla's is on record that they expect to be able to push Fremont to over 600,000 unit production (Closer to 650K annual unit capacity from memory). It does not really matter what the author has got wrong in this regard. However the most likely explanation is advancements in robotics and processes and enormous amounts of additional Tesla-leased factory and warehousing space in proximity to Fremont for stores and subassemblies.
What is effectively a known error on the author's part is to state that Tesla's MX and MS is using the former NUMMI "truck line". This is simply incorrect. Those lines may be occupying a similar location on the factory floor, maybe not but that is irrelevant. The Tesla assembly line (as distinct from the common stamping line) has essentially nothing and no equipment or process in common with a former GM truck line.
Thanks very much for the share. As someone who has been extremely skeptical about Tesla's ability to bring full autonomy to market by the time of the Model 3 launch, I found the segment you point to (starting at 20:00) very interesting.
Last edited:
With all due respect it was obvious it was going to happen over a year ago, even said so here in January. I suspect in all honesty it was obvious to Musk many years ago. All that has actually happened is that the projections JB Straubel was putting out in 2013 remain on target.
The only really weird exception to rational expectations was talking about only 500K units in 2020.
I strongly expect (as I always have, frequently and publicly) that this 500K figure was fielded when seeking $2.3 billion in bond funding ostensibly for the Gigafactory - at which time picking a figure higher than the accepted upper limit of the capacity of NUMMI would have set off alarm bells about the need for another vehicle factory and strained general credulity that would have harmed that fundraiser.
There was always going to be the kind of production ramp that is now happening. For once (at least since 2013) Tesla is actually ahead of the expectations it has set.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
