Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
It is one of the failures of management. The energy side of things has not kept pace and market share has been slipping. This is dwarfed by success in auto.
It is so blindingly obvious that the ramp is fubar. They did not keep eye on the battery ball and that was the biggie. EM has had attention every which way when batteries are at the core of the mission and they had not solved batteries. Having a battery line made in China and importing it to retrofit into your brand new state of the art factory is clearly a sign that the ramp is much much slower than needed and...that it wont' get better soon. Period. That's what it means. The fact that Tesla can do the retrofit is testament to the fact that they are very agile.
It's not that it is made in China, who cares where it's made. It's that something that is mission critical to that factory is going to be shoehorned in and the lack of that equipment is hampering the ramp of the factory has to be ordered from across the ocean and was ordered 2 years too late. You don't just call your battery line equipment maker and order up a new 2170 and fedex ships it next day. That was ordered months and months ago, if not last year.

There is no positive way to spin nor to dismiss away this fact. Berlin was planned to also run on 2170s...Austin was not. Austin's 2170 line should have been ordered 2 years ago What was happening last summer that had management's eye off the ball? Now you are seeing the limits of the Tesla management team. They should have been living in the facility on Kato road. Oh well, it just shows that Tesla is as subject to management failures as any other organization ever created. But fail they did. Not getting these $ back, they'll shoe horn this in ($) and then have to remove them ($) in two years assuming 4680 scales. In the meantime Panosonic has been telling us 2024 for production for the 4680 and guess what...yeah that seems about right. It's ok to say Tesla failed at something, they fail at plenty of things. I appreciate your upbeat perspective on things, it's a pleasure actually. You do so in a way that is life affirming.

Tesla will go through this entire crap fest and move faster than any other OEM to get Austin running. But to be off on the planning by 2 or more years and to have wasted billions because of this...that's not anything other than a mistake. Rather than trying to defend or explain away what was obviously a failure I think you'll find it more instructive to look back in time and figure out why it happened and use that knowledge to understand the risks associated with Tesla. It's why Gary Black sold when he heard about bitcoin (and in retrospect that was well timed). Tesla is not a risk free company and they don't always execute well (solar roof, bitcoin, 4680 ramp).

Take the CT- announced 3 1//2 years ago. Was supposed to start production in 2021. Then 2022. Now saying 2023. Ford launched the f150 lightening last month, they had announced it in january 2019. About 8 months ahead of Tesla's CT. So, Ford can go from announcement to launch faster than Tesla? I mean for the mission we need every EV possible as fast as possible. Since I can't get a CT I'd buy a Ford Lightening if I could get one. At some point I'll be able to get one or the other but there won't be a first mover advantage any longer. Was the CT announcement just a ploy to take wind away from Ford? Maybe.
No.

This is totally incorrect save for the Bitcoin and Solar Roof part, and it directly contradicts what Tesla leaders have stated on both of the last two earnings calls. Does it not get tiresome being so grumpy and pessimistic all the time?

Q4 ‘21
Elon Musk:

“The fundamental focus of Tesla this year is scaling output. So both last year and this year, if we were to introduce new vehicles [such as Cybertruck], our total vehicle output would decrease. This is a very important point that I think people do not -- a lot of people do not understand. So last year [2021], we spent a lot of engineering and management resources solving supply chain issues, rewriting code, changing our chips, reducing the number of chips we need, with chip drama central.

And there were not -- that was not the only supply chain issue, so -- just hundreds of things. And as a result, we were able to grow almost 90% while at least almost every other manufacturer contracted last year. So that's a good result. But if we had introduced, say, a new car last year, we would -- our total vehicle output would have been the same because of the constraints -- the chips constraints, particularly.

So if we'd actually introduced an additional product, that would then require a bunch of attention and resources on that increased complexity of the additional product, resulting in fewer vehicles actually being delivered. And the same is true of this year. So we will not be introducing new vehicle models this year. It would not make any sense because we'll still be parts constrained.

We will, however, do a lot of engineering and tooling, whatnot to create those vehicles: Cybertruck, Semi, Roadster, Optimus, and be ready to bring those to production hopefully next year. That is most likely. But like I said, it is dependent on are we able to produce more cars or fewer cars?”



Drew Baglino:
“So throughout 2021, we focused on growing cell supply alongside our in-house 4680 effort to provide us flexibility and insurance as we attempt to grow as fast as possible. As we sit today, sales from suppliers is actually -- it sort of exceeds our other factory-limiting constraints that you mentioned, Elon, in 2022, or to say differently, 4680 cells are not a constraint to our 2022 volume plans based on the information we have.

But we are making meaningful progress of the ramp curve in Kato. We're building 4680 structural packs every day, which are being assembled into vehicles in Texas. I was driving one yesterday and the day before. And we believe our first 4680 vehicles will be delivered this quarter.

Our focus on the cell, the pack, and the vehicles here is driving yield quality and cost to ensure we're ready for larger volumes this year as we ramp and next year. And the 4680 and pack tool installations here at Giga Austin are progressing well with some areas producing first parts. And the internet has also noticed that.”

Elon Musk:
”Yeah.”

Drew Baglino:
“Yeah, I was touring the factory -- the cell factory here. I'm super pumped. It's like a really exciting accomplishment for us to bring everything into one Austin factory here in Texas.”

Elon Musk:
“Absolutely. And just to repeat Drew's point, we are still -- we still expect to be part or primarily chip-limited this year [2022]. So that's the thing -- that's actually the driver.”

Drew Baglino:
“Yeah.”

Elon Musk:
“And that chip limitation should alleviate next year [2023]. And then probably, we transition into a cell limitation battery, you know, total gigawatt-hours of cell limitation, which is when the 4680 will become very important.”

Drew Baglino:
“Agreed.”



Elon Musk:
“… and I should say, like, we did short-change the energy business last year, and that vehicle took priority over the energy side. So --“

Drew Baglino:
“Not on cells, but on chip side.”

Elon Musk:
“Yeah, on chip side, exactly.”

Drew Baglino:
“Yeah.”



Jed Dorsheimer:
“That's helpful. Thank you. So you what -- do you see that '22 is kind of the opening of that -- the energy business reaccelerating?”

Elon Musk:
“It's hard to predict 2022 because we still have lingering supply chain -- there are still lingering supply chain issues globally. But I think the chip stuff -- at least the chip side of things appears to -- looks like it will alleviate end of this year or '23. I mean, there are a crazy number of chip fabs being built, which is great. The sheer number of chip fabs being built right now is exciting to see, yeah.

So there could be other issues. We're trying to anticipate those as much as possible but, you know, predicting the future is difficult.”

Drew Baglino:
“And the goal is definitely to grow it this year.”

Elon Musk:
“Yeah. We'll grow it this year, for sure. It's just, you know, we -- if we're simply -- we're able to respond to demand, it might grow by like 200% or 300% or something, you know, as opposed to sort of 50% or something.”

Zach Kirkhorn:
“Yeah. I mean, I think it's exactly that. I mean, it's a question of does it double, triple, quadruple? I mean, either way, I think, you know, our plans are pretty ambitious for Megapack this year and storage in general.”

Elon Musk
“Yeah.”

Zach Kirkhorn:
“The exact amount of growth is hard to know. But ultimately -- I mean, to Elon's point about the growth of this business, I mean, we need to be growing it faster than the vehicle business.”

Elon Musk:
“And it will naturally grow faster than the vehicle business once we can less shipthe --“

Zach Kirkhorn:
“Yeah.”

Elon Musk:
“The damn chip constraint, frankly. So it will grow like kelp on steroids, basically, on their own.”

Q1 ‘22
Drew Baglino:

“…[For 4680s] It’s really about rate and yield, which will come in time, as Elon said, over the course of this year and next.”



Martin Viecha:
“All right. And maybe the last question from investors is what is the current run rate of 4680 cell production at Fremont and at Giga Texas? What do you expect run rates of 4680 to be in Fremont and Giga Texas or Berlin at the end of the year?”

Elon Musk:
“Well, Berlin is using the 2170 nonstructural pack, so they’re not concerned about 4680. They will transition to 4680 hopefully later this year, but current Berlin production doesn’t require that. We also have, just as a risk mitigation, 2170 nonstructural pack capability here at Giga Texas as well, but if things go according to plan, we will be in volume production with 4680 sometime perhaps towards the end of the third quarter and certainly in the fourth quarter. That’s accurate, Drew?”

Drew Baglino:
“Yeah, and the other thing I would add is with the China COVID shutdown and the semiconductor bottlenecks we had through Q4 and a little bit in Q1, we have sizable cell inventory at the moment and excess cells to support the 2022 volume targets you described. So that gives us the ability to be pretty deliberate in the 4680 ramp where we can maximize learning step by step, take engineering downtime to upgrade key pieces of equipment and modify the structural pack designs to improve reliability all while achieving what you just said.”

Elon Musk:
“Yeah, 4680 output is not a risk to achieving one and a half million vehicles produced this year, but it would become a risk next year if we do not solve volume production by early 2023, but we’re highly confident of doing so.”
 
The point you silly cat is that the next 3 product launches require the 4680. That panosonic says 2024. That tesla, despite a 2 year head start, can not get the 4680 lines to really scale much faster than panosonic. That like bitcoin sometimes Tesla screws up. That any wise investor would be looking at the risks associated with their investment and be monitoring the performance of the company.

Because Tesla is operating in a period of high demand this won't impact things too much other than some blown capital. In 2 years it appears we'll be awash in alternative vehicles. In 4 years some of them may be quite decent and not early kludges. Ford may have some 250,000 trucks on the road before Tesla and at that point may be really scaling- they will have battery capacity to do a million a year at that point.
Okay so base your investment on Tesla failing to scale 4680s like how Tesla had trouble scaling model 3s in 2018. Pretty sure care bears are all on a beach somewhere retired from their short or lack of investment into Tesla from 4 years ago
 
$6k? Wow. I would bite at 2k, maybe 3k. But there are not enough features in EAP compared to AP for me to plop down 6k.

Bring on the flames . . .

EDIT - shows up in my Tesla app, so it is live for purchase.


FWIW back in 2016 when EAP first went on sale it was 5k, and lots of folks bought it.

6k is cheap with inflation :)

(in fairness, new EAP also has less features, as 2 of the major ones are now standard on all models)


The one bit of weirdness here is where this leaves EAP owners regarding the eventual single-stack code.

There's some # of owners who are still on HW2.x, with "just" EAP.

And still running the old 2.x code.


Most folks expected the EAP code base would just be frozen in time once single stack replaces it for HW3 owners on the highway-- much like the AP1 code was basically frozen in time when it no longer made sense to do any work on it with AP2 out there and working.


But if they're now about to add a ton more new EAP cars... some of which will have HW2.x and some HW3...that gets much weirder.

Do they still do as above for the HW2.x cars, but the HW3 folks just get a reduced-feature version of the single-stack highway code when it's ready?

That'd mean there's really two different versions out there...one that would perform better than the other...being sold as the same thing.


The other alternative would be they go back and re-write all the HW2.x code to work like single stack code... which has a lot of issues, including it's unclear if the HW is even capable of that (very likely not)-- and even if it were it means ongoing dual-code development for years which is pretty awful from a resource perspective.


The "easiest" and cleanest solution is you just go ahead and give free HW3 upgrades to all the remaining folks who both are on HW2.x and on EAP, so they can all run the "new" code. There's costs there of course- but they'd be far more than outweighed by the income on the EAP sale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nolimits and kbM3
FWIW back in 2016 when EAP first went on sale it was 5k, and lots of folks bought it.

6k is cheap with inflation :)

(in fairness, new EAP also has less features, as 2 of the major ones are now standard on all models)


The one bit of weirdness here is where this leaves EAP owners regarding the eventual single-stack code.

There's some # of owners who are still on HW2.x, with "just" EAP.

And still running the old 2.x code.


Most folks expected the EAP code base would just be frozen in time once single stack replaces it for HW3 owners on the highway-- much like the AP1 code was basically frozen in time when it no longer made sense to do any work on it with AP2 out there and working.


But if they're now about to add a ton more new EAP cars... some of which will have HW2.x and some HW3...that gets much weirder.

Do they still do as above for the HW2.x cars, but the HW3 folks just get a reduced-feature version of the single-stack highway code when it's ready?

That'd mean there's really two different versions out there...one that would perform better than the other...being sold as the same thing.


The other alternative would be they go back and re-write all the HW2.x code to work like single stack code... which has a lot of issues, including it's unclear if the HW is even capable of that (very likely not)-- and even if it were it means ongoing dual-code development for years which is pretty awful from a resource perspective.


The "easiest" and cleanest solution is you just go ahead and give free HW3 upgrades to all the remaining folks who both are on HW2.x and on EAP, so they can all run the "new" code. There's costs there of course- but they'd be far more than outweighed by the income on the EAP sale.
It was 5k going from cruise control without speed adjustment to EAP. 6k is perhaps top much to ask to go from AP to EAP.
 
The point you silly cat [revered feline] is that the next 3 product launches require the 4680. That panosonic says 2024. That tesla, despite a 2 year head start, can not get the 4680 lines to really scale much faster than panosonic.
Da Heck?
Tesla had made 1 million cells by January 2022 and Austin's cell line started in May . How is that even comparable to 2024? (Ignoring differences in CapEx, factory utilization)

That any wise investor would be looking at the risks associated with their investment and be monitoring the performance of the company.
Huh, but since you aren't an investor ???
You complain equipment was ordered two years too late... yet Austin hadn't even broken ground two years ago...


Ford may have some 250,000 trucks on the road before Tesla and at that point may be really scaling- they will have battery capacity to do a million a year at that point.

Ohhhh... they "may" have 250k trucks. Remember the narrative of the Bolt launching before the 3?
And Ford battery capacity projection is less than Tesla currently?
What is there to fear again?

I get you are sad because you aren't getting a Cybertruck soon, but you are starting to sound only like the poster that cried, Wolf.
 
The point you silly cat is that the next 3 product launches require the 4680. That panosonic says 2024. That tesla, despite a 2 year head start, can not get the 4680 lines to really scale much faster than panosonic. That like bitcoin sometimes Tesla screws up. That any wise investor would be looking at the risks associated with their investment and be monitoring the performance of the company.

Because Tesla is operating in a period of high demand this won't impact things too much other than some blown capital. In 2 years it appears we'll be awash in alternative vehicles. In 4 years some of them may be quite decent and not early kludges. Ford may have some 250,000 trucks on the road before Tesla and at that point may be really scaling- they will have battery capacity to do a million a year at that point.

Okay so base your investment on Tesla failing to scale 4680s like how Tesla had trouble scaling model 3s in 2018. Pretty sure care bears are all on a beach somewhere retired from their short or lack of investment into Tesla from 4 years ago
So glad everyone agrees TSLA is still a high risk potentially high gain stock.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Carl Raymond
The plot thickens :) Maybe Elon was sandbagging after all.

...or the battery line caught up with the vehicles who were ahead a week or two, lol. Body line waiting for batteries, or did they get ahead of the batteries?
Warning: Just one of my crazy theories - it happens every end of quarter when I think Tesla is sandbagging everything and about blow some shorts out of the water.
 
FWIW back in 2016 when EAP first went on sale it was 5k, and lots of folks bought it.

6k is cheap with inflation :)

(in fairness, new EAP also has less features, as 2 of the major ones are now standard on all models)

Yes, and no.

It was 3k at one point if you had paid for AP previously and just wanted the upgrade to EAP (it was $5k if you had NO AUTOPILOT, $2k to add just basic AP to your car):

Again, bring the flames, some people will pay 6k to go from AP to EAP. But previously the price was 5k to go from nothing to EAP, and 3K to go from AP to EAP. Back in 2020 I almost pulled the trigger at that time, but didn't.
 
Austin is not a Shanghai "Cut and Paste". Lots of new tech coming on board (and not only with batteries).
Bumps are to be expected by reasonable investors.

A slower ramp at Austin would be a big problem if the technology was the same as Shanghai's; it's not.
A slower ramp at Austin would be a big problem if Tesla's competition was nipping at its heels; they're not.
A slower ramp at Austin would be a big problem if Tesla had negative cash flow with high debt; they don't
A slower ramp at Austin would be a big problem if Tesla would need the volume to achieve 50% growth; they won't.

Patience my fellow investors . . . patience.
 
$6k? Wow. I would bite at 2k, maybe 3k. But there are not enough features in EAP compared to AP for me to plop down 6k.

Bring on the flames . . .

EDIT - shows up in my Tesla app, so it is live for purchase.
EAP was originally 5K + 3K for FSD = 8K total package. Our Model 3 had this it was born and I'd gladly pay it again.... and will, (but hoping for a new paint color, white is over-rated).
 
Austin is not a Shanghai "Cut and Paste". Lots of new tech coming on board (and not only with batteries).
Bumps are to be expected by reasonable investors.

A slower ramp at Austin would be a big problem if the technology was the same as Shanghai's; it's not.
A slower ramp at Austin would be a big problem if Tesla's competition was nipping at its heels; they're not.
A slower ramp at Austin would be a big problem if Tesla had negative cash flow with high debt; they don't
A slower ramp at Austin would be a big problem if Tesla would need the volume to achieve 50% growth; they won't.

Patience my fellow investors . . . patience.
I will not post anything until @The Accountant posted.
I will not post anything until @The Accountant posted.
I will not post anything until @The Accountant posted.
I will not post anything until @The Accountant posted.
I will not post anything until @The Accountant posted.

will do better next time
 
SP Pops and Drops

Lots of risk reward in TSLA. The market has a lot of expectations some of which are built into the price and others maybe not. I think its helpful to keep these in mind when we're all wondering where the SP will go next and why it may not be moving in the way we want.

Things that will make the SP Pop:
  • Austin ramps up deliveries in Q2 (probably would be a minor effect)
  • Tesla announces new giga factories and announces new growth targets
  • FSD comes out of Beta
  • AI Day Bot demo is astounding in some way
  • vehicle deliveries go as most of us expect for Q3/Q4 (which corresponds to EPS as we expect) - I personally think the wider audience has not factored that in due to the negative press and skepticism

Things that will make the SP Drop (or at least keep it from going up):
  • Q2 is worse than we have been expecting (say significantly less than 240K deliveries)
  • If the 4680 doesn't ramp towards the end of this year
  • CT delays beyond mid next year
  • new covid shutdowns
  • continued parts shortage into 2023 (Tesla has said this should be done this year)
  • NHTSA rules against FSD/AP in their current investigation
  • Global economy goes into a serious recession (worse that what is currently forecasted/expected).
  • New twitter madness and/or Elon dropping more tweet bombs

Not in the list is new vehicle announcements or robotaxi. Elon has said they haven't been working on anything on these fronts as they have been consumed with dealing with shutdowns and parts shortages and ramping.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldTAVguy
EAP was originally 5K + 3K for FSD = 8K total package. Our Model 3 had this it was born and I'd gladly pay it again.... and will, (but hoping for a new paint color, white is over-rated).

Right, but that was EAP from no AP at all. There was a point in time that upgrading from AP to EAP was 3k. I would bite right now at that price for the few extra features that EAP gives you over AP. It would be nice on road trips. 6k, however, I'll just dump that into more TSLA shares, not the product.
 
No.

This is totally incorrect save for the Bitcoin and Solar Roof part, and it directly contradicts what Tesla leaders have stated on both of the last two earnings calls. Does it not get tiresome being so grumpy and pessimistic all the time?

Q4 ‘21
Elon Musk:

“The fundamental focus of Tesla this year is scaling output. So both last year and this year, if we were to introduce new vehicles [such as Cybertruck], our total vehicle output would decrease. This is a very important point that I think people do not -- a lot of people do not understand. So last year [2021], we spent a lot of engineering and management resources solving supply chain issues, rewriting code, changing our chips, reducing the number of chips we need, with chip drama central.

And there were not -- that was not the only supply chain issue, so -- just hundreds of things. And as a result, we were able to grow almost 90% while at least almost every other manufacturer contracted last year. So that's a good result. But if we had introduced, say, a new car last year, we would -- our total vehicle output would have been the same because of the constraints -- the chips constraints, particularly.

So if we'd actually introduced an additional product, that would then require a bunch of attention and resources on that increased complexity of the additional product, resulting in fewer vehicles actually being delivered. And the same is true of this year. So we will not be introducing new vehicle models this year. It would not make any sense because we'll still be parts constrained.

We will, however, do a lot of engineering and tooling, whatnot to create those vehicles: Cybertruck, Semi, Roadster, Optimus, and be ready to bring those to production hopefully next year. That is most likely. But like I said, it is dependent on are we able to produce more cars or fewer cars?”



Drew Baglino:
“So throughout 2021, we focused on growing cell supply alongside our in-house 4680 effort to provide us flexibility and insurance as we attempt to grow as fast as possible. As we sit today, sales from suppliers is actually -- it sort of exceeds our other factory-limiting constraints that you mentioned, Elon, in 2022, or to say differently, 4680 cells are not a constraint to our 2022 volume plans based on the information we have.

But we are making meaningful progress of the ramp curve in Kato. We're building 4680 structural packs every day, which are being assembled into vehicles in Texas. I was driving one yesterday and the day before. And we believe our first 4680 vehicles will be delivered this quarter.

Our focus on the cell, the pack, and the vehicles here is driving yield quality and cost to ensure we're ready for larger volumes this year as we ramp and next year. And the 4680 and pack tool installations here at Giga Austin are progressing well with some areas producing first parts. And the internet has also noticed that.”

Elon Musk:
”Yeah.”

Drew Baglino:
“Yeah, I was touring the factory -- the cell factory here. I'm super pumped. It's like a really exciting accomplishment for us to bring everything into one Austin factory here in Texas.”

Elon Musk:
“Absolutely. And just to repeat Drew's point, we are still -- we still expect to be part or primarily chip-limited this year [2022]. So that's the thing -- that's actually the driver.”

Drew Baglino:
“Yeah.”

Elon Musk:
“And that chip limitation should alleviate next year [2023]. And then probably, we transition into a cell limitation battery, you know, total gigawatt-hours of cell limitation, which is when the 4680 will become very important.”

Drew Baglino:
“Agreed.”



Elon Musk:
“… and I should say, like, we did short-change the energy business last year, and that vehicle took priority over the energy side. So --“

Drew Baglino:
“Not on cells, but on chip side.”

Elon Musk:
“Yeah, on chip side, exactly.”

Drew Baglino:
“Yeah.”



Jed Dorsheimer:
“That's helpful. Thank you. So you what -- do you see that '22 is kind of the opening of that -- the energy business reaccelerating?”

Elon Musk:
“It's hard to predict 2022 because we still have lingering supply chain -- there are still lingering supply chain issues globally. But I think the chip stuff -- at least the chip side of things appears to -- looks like it will alleviate end of this year or '23. I mean, there are a crazy number of chip fabs being built, which is great. The sheer number of chip fabs being built right now is exciting to see, yeah.

So there could be other issues. We're trying to anticipate those as much as possible but, you know, predicting the future is difficult.”

Drew Baglino:
“And the goal is definitely to grow it this year.”

Elon Musk:
“Yeah. We'll grow it this year, for sure. It's just, you know, we -- if we're simply -- we're able to respond to demand, it might grow by like 200% or 300% or something, you know, as opposed to sort of 50% or something.”

Zach Kirkhorn:
“Yeah. I mean, I think it's exactly that. I mean, it's a question of does it double, triple, quadruple? I mean, either way, I think, you know, our plans are pretty ambitious for Megapack this year and storage in general.”

Elon Musk
“Yeah.”

Zach Kirkhorn:
“The exact amount of growth is hard to know. But ultimately -- I mean, to Elon's point about the growth of this business, I mean, we need to be growing it faster than the vehicle business.”

Elon Musk:
“And it will naturally grow faster than the vehicle business once we can less shipthe --“

Zach Kirkhorn:
“Yeah.”

Elon Musk:
“The damn chip constraint, frankly. So it will grow like kelp on steroids, basically, on their own.”

Q1 ‘22
Drew Baglino:

“…[For 4680s] It’s really about rate and yield, which will come in time, as Elon said, over the course of this year and next.”



Martin Viecha:
“All right. And maybe the last question from investors is what is the current run rate of 4680 cell production at Fremont and at Giga Texas? What do you expect run rates of 4680 to be in Fremont and Giga Texas or Berlin at the end of the year?”

Elon Musk:
“Well, Berlin is using the 2170 nonstructural pack, so they’re not concerned about 4680. They will transition to 4680 hopefully later this year, but current Berlin production doesn’t require that. We also have, just as a risk mitigation, 2170 nonstructural pack capability here at Giga Texas as well, but if things go according to plan, we will be in volume production with 4680 sometime perhaps towards the end of the third quarter and certainly in the fourth quarter. That’s accurate, Drew?”

Drew Baglino:
“Yeah, and the other thing I would add is with the China COVID shutdown and the semiconductor bottlenecks we had through Q4 and a little bit in Q1, we have sizable cell inventory at the moment and excess cells to support the 2022 volume targets you described. So that gives us the ability to be pretty deliberate in the 4680 ramp where we can maximize learning step by step, take engineering downtime to upgrade key pieces of equipment and modify the structural pack designs to improve reliability all while achieving what you just said.”

Elon Musk:
“Yeah, 4680 output is not a risk to achieving one and a half million vehicles produced this year, but it would become a risk next year if we do not solve volume production by early 2023, but we’re highly confident of doing so.”
Stop wasting your time - @nativewolf is not a TSLA investor or Tesla owner - he has said so on many occasions - He/They are only interested in investing in sustainable forestry.
Therefore, I would take any comments as a side bar and not actual parlance for TSLA or Tesla.
Cheers to the Longs!
 
The point you silly cat is that the next 3 product launches require the 4680. That panosonic says 2024. That tesla, despite a 2 year head start, can not get the 4680 lines to really scale much faster than panosonic. That like bitcoin sometimes Tesla screws up. That any wise investor would be looking at the risks associated with their investment and be monitoring the performance of the company.

Because Tesla is operating in a period of high demand this won't impact things too much other than some blown capital. In 2 years it appears we'll be awash in alternative vehicles. In 4 years some of them may be quite decent and not early kludges. Ford may have some 250,000 trucks on the road before Tesla and at that point may be really scaling- they will have battery capacity to do a million a year at that point.
Sell, Sell , Sell :p