Agreed. But I must have missed something, as what has been stated AFAK is, "supercharging capable", "less than 60kwh", and "min 215 miles of range" for the base model. So, if they confirmed 60kwh & 250 miles range for the base M3, that is awesome news!
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
That's weird, before I moved from Oz to the US, I had an ETrade account. Mind you the foreign money rules have become a lot more stringent since then, but I'm surprised that they would make you close the account. People in Oz, Sydney, in what is the office I used to run for a US corporation, still have ETrade accounts.I sold all of my TSLA stock and I am now ready to join the shorts.
OT: Just kidding. I sold because I am moving back to Australia and etrade told me I can't maintain my account. So I sold a few days ago and made enough for 2 Model 3 deposits .. Win/win
Will join back once I am down under. Shorts, Please keep fighting to lower the re-entry point for me.
Regarding the battery pack size:
Tesla confirms base Model 3 will have less than 60 kWh battery pack option, cost is below $190/kWh and falling
Regarding range:
Tesla Model 3
I thought I read somewhere that the base model would have ~250 miles but I can't find the comment. It's possible I was thinking about this quote about the base Model 3 having at least (a minimum of) 215 miles of range.
Last edited:
Mitch,
Good job!
Yes. 'Annualized rate' is the operative phrase here. When something is annualized, you have one data point for each year. If there is steady growth, the run rate at each data point is the average for that year, which is effectively the midpoint run rate, which is at end of June.
This was more or less my take on it as well.
Production problems seem to have been a feature for the first half of the year which are being sorted out (if not already sorted out). So why would we expect there to be a slow painful increase to 80-100k during Q3-Q4? Presumably production rate in December won't be that different from July.
We all hunger for the M3 2.0 reveal. For any newcomers since Elon's shout out about TMC the meeting was reveal 1.5, as someone may already have said. Comments (even the bleets) are a shortened guide to the value of this venue for matters about Tesla, the meat of the meeting. Think of it as a summary of its meaning based on physics first principles.
Very important and serious question!
What the heck happened to the Amendment proposed by Doug Lamborn, that was an explicit threat aimed at Elon Musk?
Elon Musk Supports His Business Empire With Unusual Financial Moves
The strange part is it looks like Doug Lamborn is allied with Jim Inhofe. It's hard to tell if this amendment was proposed with the support of Inhofe. There is almost no mention of this amendment on the internet, besides the WSJ article stating Lamborn proposed the amendment, that doesn't say what bill the amendment was attached to, or who Lamborn was working with. I was only able to find the below comment on the following website. I tried to find some mention of this amendment on Lamborn's website, but couldn't find anything.
Congressman Backs Space Renaissance Act, Death Ray Weapons at Parabolic Arc
I can't find any website that provides a link to the proposed amendment, or an explanation of what specifically what logic was used to argue for the amendment. The WSJ doesn't even say what Bill Lamborn tried to attach the amendment to. I think Lamborn tried to get it attached to H.R. 4909 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
NDAA - National Defense Authorization Act
Conveniently Lamborn doesn't highlight this on his website, and it's not clear if it is even mentioned. Also, Lamborn conveniently does not mention his relationship with Inhofe, the most outrageous Climate Change Denier, and lunatic, who has somehow not been deemed unfit to hold office.
What the heck happened to the Amendment proposed by Doug Lamborn, that was an explicit threat aimed at Elon Musk?
Elon Musk Supports His Business Empire With Unusual Financial Moves
The strange part is it looks like Doug Lamborn is allied with Jim Inhofe. It's hard to tell if this amendment was proposed with the support of Inhofe. There is almost no mention of this amendment on the internet, besides the WSJ article stating Lamborn proposed the amendment, that doesn't say what bill the amendment was attached to, or who Lamborn was working with. I was only able to find the below comment on the following website. I tried to find some mention of this amendment on Lamborn's website, but couldn't find anything.
Congressman Backs Space Renaissance Act, Death Ray Weapons at Parabolic Arc
I can't find any website that provides a link to the proposed amendment, or an explanation of what specifically what logic was used to argue for the amendment. The WSJ doesn't even say what Bill Lamborn tried to attach the amendment to. I think Lamborn tried to get it attached to H.R. 4909 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
NDAA - National Defense Authorization Act
Conveniently Lamborn doesn't highlight this on his website, and it's not clear if it is even mentioned. Also, Lamborn conveniently does not mention his relationship with Inhofe, the most outrageous Climate Change Denier, and lunatic, who has somehow not been deemed unfit to hold office.
Last edited:
dc_h
Active Member
Elon did seem specific that Tesla would exit 2016 at an 80-100k range. If they were leaving Q2 or Q3 at 80-100k, why wouldn't he say they were there, or would be there in September. He's usually pretty optimistic, so going to the right without cause, seems unreasonable. I want to be wrong very much.
Maybe he was just talking out his ass, and if he is in fact associated with Imhofe, that would be where this guys brains are. His Facebook is full of rants against government regulation but no mention of his threat to regulate how a privately held company can invest its funds. Must be that dirty word "Solar" that sets off his tiny brain.
It is the 2016 annual share holder meeting, maybe he just wanted to give a general sense of things for 2016 as a whole, not breaking it down into quarters and such, which seems more appropriate for the quarterly conference calls. But just my take, i am not an expert on how to read these corporate presentations.
dc_h
Active Member
Current rate, exit rate for Q2 and can you re-affirm 80-100k guidance would have been a great question. Perhaps they are having a chuckle watching us fret over the context of the 80-100k, but this is a significant value issue for the stock, at least in the short term.
Edit: Maybe a poll to vote if we think Elon was hedging on 2016 guidance.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
His office basically admitted they were grandstanding, the amendment would not pass judicial oversight, and they just wanted Musk and Co to know "they are watching."
Haha. Remember when people were worried when they thought Musk was only going to show pictures at the model 3 reveal. And even yesterday some people thought Musk was going to step down at the shareholders meeting.
Haha. A lot of folks here are a paranoid bunch and thin skinned. They worry about everything.
Maybe all-in on TSLA. Which can be scary at times. I would know. Ha
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
That is the guidance from EC a few weeks ago. That's still the guidance
It was make zero sense for Elon to change this guidance during yesterday's meeting. I wouldn't read much into yesterday's statement
Krugerrand
Meow
You're being disingenuous. Actually, you're being a lot of things but the forum rules don't allow me to say what those are - which is lucky for you.
How about highlighting the whole part that's relevant, instead of cherry picking what suits your story and changes the context? Like the part that proceeds it and says 'Provided that we execute well...' (That's called a caveat. And no, that's not edible.)
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
