-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
HODLer from TMC waiting for the market to understand the value of TSLA:
Wait... we were allowed to smoke on planes at one time? Seems ludicrous now.
And 5 yrs from now...
Wait... we were allowed to drive our cars at one time? Seems ludicrous now.
Then 10 yrs from now...
Wait... we were allowed to burn oil in automobile engines at one time? Seems ludicrous now.
I did earlier. Down to my last chunk of cash, which I'm saving for emergencies.
MTL_HABS1909
Active Member
Not to derail this thread, but if it was so important, you’d think Tesla’s director of AI would stop following them way before us….
Last edited:
I am fine with those geniuses not recognizing what the true priority from a business AND mission perspective is this year:
Build Model Y's. As many as you can, as fast as you can, as cheap as you can, as close to their customers as you can.
That is where 90% of the resources need to be going this year. That is largely where Elon & Co. implied last night they were going this year.
Given the insane demand, incredible profit margin (i.e. money printing ability) of this car, it might well be financial malpractice NOT to do this.
Bullish, bullish, bullish for 2022.
For you USA football fans, the coach just said "this half we're concentrating on the running game and solid defense". A lot of folks wanted the passing game which is more exciting, but doing things this way Team Tesla will add 3 more touchdowns to its solid lead and shorten the game so the competition has no time to catch up. This is what you do when you are already ahead, the running game is working, and the weather conditions are bad and uncertain going forward. Doing otherwise is coaching malpractice
I'm laughing because @tivoboy liked your post. Classic.
This was my prediction from August 2020, I still think the 2022 and 2023 production numbers are going to come close to that.
I was wrong about Shanghai, production in 2023 will be well over 1000k, Austin and Berlin are probably a bit high.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Add a 2nd Model 3 line at Shanghai, with production starting on May 1st, for a start.
Cheers!
ZachF
Active Member
I have a feeling that guy is going to wish he took the $5k soon.
I would argue that in peak hours there will be a lot fewer cars.
It think RTs will naturally lead to more ride-sharing.
It's a cost problem. Every simultaneous lone commuter or empty car needs a car.
The more of them you have, the higher the cost.
So, if you want to commute alone at peak you'd pay a lot more than if you're sharing.
While A to B direct is nice, a key benefit of RT compared to current public transportation is simply being able to travel A to B without dealing with hubs, changes and timetables.
Another reason I expect RTs to lead to fewer cars is that I'd expect the RT networks to agree deals with some larger employers who would offer free/cheap RT pooling as a benefit to their employees.
If you ultimately had AVs cheap enough for a lot of private AV ownership, that would shift the dynamics somewhat as people might start accepting longer commutes to cheaper houses.
LiveLong&Profit
Member
Yeah.
So, given that legacy auto are not very good at vertical integration and/or chip hardware and software, enabling a future Tesla OEM FSD package might not work from a practical standpoint.
AFAIK, FSD is designed specifically for Tesla, where the 'bedrock' is a lot of instrumentation and various chips wich is either built in-house by Tesla or reverse-engineered with APIs custom built for the 'car-OS' (for lack of a better word.)
On that solid foundation, building a FSD is not easy but doable (we assume).
How to jury-rig a future Tesla FSD unto a legacy car platform?
Tesla might well be willing to sell FSD - Elon has stated that on occasion, and it is more likely than not. Even if the legacy buyer is willing to buy FSD, integrating it into a legacy car might be - hard.
It might also be a legal nigthmare. What if the Tesla FSD works well, but the brake or steering control software is buggy or slow? Of course, Tesla would do rigourous testing in order to verify a car platform before the FSD is booted and made ready for that platform.
But, there are some theoretical computing limits on what you can test statically (before compilation) and what you have to handle (runtime). Also, this highligt the need for at well documented and pre-existing lecacy 'car-OS' which Tesla can run tests against, in order to verify that FSD will work correctly.
It is going to be both interesting to see not only how many legacy companies will swallow their pride and say yes to a future tesla OEM FSD package.
Another problem is how many of them have car platforms which will be technically able to actually support FSD.
ZachF
Active Member
Macro good news:
-GDP came in a much higher than expected 6.9% for Q4.
Macro bad news:
-Almost all of that growth was from buildup of inventories (one of the largest ever). Without that growth was a paltry 1.9%. Since inventories always net out to zero long term, this heavily increases the chance of recession this year.
-GDP came in a much higher than expected 6.9% for Q4.
Macro bad news:
-Almost all of that growth was from buildup of inventories (one of the largest ever). Without that growth was a paltry 1.9%. Since inventories always net out to zero long term, this heavily increases the chance of recession this year.
Thoughts on production estimates and production constraints:
First, the obvious and above-mentioned references to what we heard in the EC - even with just Fremont and Shanghai factories in operation, Tesla's vehicular output in 2022 will be more than 50% greater than last year's.
Second, the logically obvious statement - sometimes stated but always implied - we have to solve the ___________ bottleneck. As some posters notably have mentioned, there always is a bottleneck. Once Bottleneck A is solved, Bottleneck B appears. It must be that way. In 2022 - at least in 1Q but possibly throughout the calendar year - it is a component that is the bottleneck. Might be seat-adjusters, might be batteries, but that Tesla can obtain only "X" of these in whatever unit time we're discussing means that only "X" vehicles can be produced (please don't quibble over 'we need 4 of those per car' - thank you).
Put those two together and what do we get?
A: One must never underestimate Tesla's factories qua factories. It might, on the contrary, be almost impossible to overestimate them. How so?
Iteration A: Tesla plans to produce 400,000 vehicles at Fremont; 750,000 at Shanghai; 150,000 each at Grünheide and Austin. Places orders for the appropriate number of components from its suppliers (to ease the statements below, we'll use that sum: 1.45MM.
Iteration B: For the time period under consideration, Grünheide & Austin are a no-go AND suppliers say "Sorry - we get you 1.4MM parts but no more."
So what is Tesla's response? Iteration C: "Very well. We'll increase production at Fremont and Shanghai to 1.4MM and call it good."
Conclusion: The long-disused term "Dreadnought Factory" looks, in fact, to be real. That the entire production line - casting, stamping, assembly, painting and so forth - can be so adaptable that in just these two older factories Tesla is not constrained by labor, not constrained by parts, but can increase output given true bottlenecks at the other two factories (Production = 0) - that is for me the really important takeaway from the Earnings Call.
First, the obvious and above-mentioned references to what we heard in the EC - even with just Fremont and Shanghai factories in operation, Tesla's vehicular output in 2022 will be more than 50% greater than last year's.
Second, the logically obvious statement - sometimes stated but always implied - we have to solve the ___________ bottleneck. As some posters notably have mentioned, there always is a bottleneck. Once Bottleneck A is solved, Bottleneck B appears. It must be that way. In 2022 - at least in 1Q but possibly throughout the calendar year - it is a component that is the bottleneck. Might be seat-adjusters, might be batteries, but that Tesla can obtain only "X" of these in whatever unit time we're discussing means that only "X" vehicles can be produced (please don't quibble over 'we need 4 of those per car' - thank you).
Put those two together and what do we get?
A: One must never underestimate Tesla's factories qua factories. It might, on the contrary, be almost impossible to overestimate them. How so?
Iteration A: Tesla plans to produce 400,000 vehicles at Fremont; 750,000 at Shanghai; 150,000 each at Grünheide and Austin. Places orders for the appropriate number of components from its suppliers (to ease the statements below, we'll use that sum: 1.45MM.
Iteration B: For the time period under consideration, Grünheide & Austin are a no-go AND suppliers say "Sorry - we get you 1.4MM parts but no more."
So what is Tesla's response? Iteration C: "Very well. We'll increase production at Fremont and Shanghai to 1.4MM and call it good."
Conclusion: The long-disused term "Dreadnought Factory" looks, in fact, to be real. That the entire production line - casting, stamping, assembly, painting and so forth - can be so adaptable that in just these two older factories Tesla is not constrained by labor, not constrained by parts, but can increase output given true bottlenecks at the other two factories (Production = 0) - that is for me the really important takeaway from the Earnings Call.
lafrisbee
Active Member
This belongs somewhere else, but it was a part of the Earnings call so...
I looked it up.
A human driver averages an accident every 18 years, 6570 days.
With over 60,000 FSD Beta testers (I am going to use some liberal adjustment of ">60,000" to mean 657,00) there should be 10 accidents per day from Beta test drivers.
ONE A DAY!
Where are they?
Edit: so I have a mouse that sticks when I use the online calculator.... one a day not ten.
I looked it up.
A human driver averages an accident every 18 years, 6570 days.
With over 60,000 FSD Beta testers (I am going to use some liberal adjustment of ">60,000" to mean 657,00) there should be 10 accidents per day from Beta test drivers.
ONE A DAY!
Where are they?
Edit: so I have a mouse that sticks when I use the online calculator.... one a day not ten.
Were "that guy" to stop, what would stop another from taking his place?
ZachF
Active Member
Elon said they are not working on a $25k car....they could be working on a $30k car and his statement would still be accurate
Well, thanks to inflation $30k is the new $25k anyway…
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Xepa777
Banned
Is it possible that not working on a “$25k car” 
is a way to eliminate any Osborn effect?
When in reality they’re working on a smaller compact car that will sell for like $5k cheaper than the model 3 in 2024, but not force Tesla to commit to a price point.
I think so. The Shanghai and Berlin design center exist for a reason.
Keep calm and accumulate
on
is a way to eliminate any Osborn effect?When in reality they’re working on a smaller compact car that will sell for like $5k cheaper than the model 3 in 2024, but not force Tesla to commit to a price point.
I think so. The Shanghai and Berlin design center exist for a reason.
Keep calm and accumulate
onSimilar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
