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.
Tesla S and X are what made Tesla, along with the original Roadster. Now, the Roadster was not too optimized and got replaced with something built from scratch which S and X have been.

S and X have been made the top tier cars which now are completely re-designed and renewed. Just ask any owner of initial S/X that can compare them to the new crop for S/X and their Plaid versions.

In any case, I hope that S/X will stay for a long time. Those had paved the road we are on today.
 
Ford introduced the electric F-150 at SEMA 2008. I would think 14 years would be enough time to design an electric F-150 from the ground up.

Makes the delayed CT sound downright speedy doesn't it!
 
Gary has added point # 5 to his Tesla catalysts: Buyback in October.

I find Gary to be very conservative; so this prediction of a buyback in October is a bit out of character.
My thinking is that Tesla would not entertain a buyback for a few years. Perhaps in early 2025 when cash on hand exceeds $80b.

View attachment 831544
10/ Diess out at VW

With Diess out, it's more likely VW transitions slower or even goes under, leaving a larger piece of the pie for Tesla. Bad for the transition effort but good for our brokerage accounts.
 
I can't wait for Tesla Solar to come to my town. I just got my electric bill and they are touting the new Community Solar project in the city.


Will this lower my electric bill? No
  • Customers will pay $5 monthly
  • Customers will receive an average of $3.61 in monthly credits
Will I save money on my utility bill by participating in KUB Community Solar?

KUB Community Solar will not save customers money on their utility bills. It is simply an option to purchase locally generated solar power in order to reduce your carbon footprint. Due to the economics of the site, it will cost more to participate than participants will get back in credits.

so woohoo I can pay an extra $1.39 a month to say I bought a tiny share of a "community solar project" and the profits go to the guys at the electric company that get a 7 figure salary.

TVA and KUB have been like this forever. Any "solar" option I get from them is in name only as a way to increase my bill.

Which is why I go to Solar Panels | Tesla on a regular basis to see when they are going to be available.
 
Doing so the way you describe would be putting the cart before the horse. I agree this would not make sense as a plan.

The way I envision it would be to keep Freemont S/X production running until a more efficient line for S and X is running in Texas. Then, once that line is up to scale, retire the line in Freemont and repurpose the space and equipment for expansion of other lines there.

The Texas versions of the flagship S/X might simplify production by utilizing the same front and rear castings used by the Y, with their own bodywork attached. (or, could have unique castings with dedicated IDRA machines assigned, if volume justifies it)

Their packs could be designed to go in from the bottom with seats, regardless of which batteries are used in the pack. The rate of production would go up significantly with these two changes (castings, packs), and, the ASP of those models could then come down because of improved production efficiency.

The key thing would be that nothing changes at Freemont until the lines at Texas are able to match/exceed Freemont's S/X production rate. The flagship models continue on, production rate increases, and prices are reduced.
One e in Fremont
 
Then how do you explain his remarks that S/X production is largely due to exactly the things you insist he doesn't care about?
Let's think about the context. In 2019 S/X declined about 29% to 63k units. Meanwhile, Model 3 climbed about 42% to 215k unit, and Model Y and Shanghai were just ramping up. Model S/X was still a significant at about 23% of total units produced.

The question at this point was how Tesla could keep growing if S/X sales were in serious decline. Naturally, Musk would want to downplay the importance Model S/X production to the future of the company. Saying that's a halo car produced for sentimental reasons are nice talking points for trying to pivot away from a 29% y/y decline. Indeed the much bigger opportunity for Tesla at that time was to ramp up Model 3 in Shanghai and Model Y in Fremont.

The present context is different. In Q2 2022, Model S/X are only 6% to total auto production. The annual run rate this quarter is about 64k units per year, well below 100k capacity. It is clear that growing unit sales of S/X is not critical for Tesla to grow total 50% per year and could even be a distraction in climate of widespread supply chain problems. Moreover, Tesla seems to be throwing almost all of its growth ambition on ramping Model Y. Right now the Model Y is more efficient to manufacture than the Model 3, and the S/X are even less efficient to manufacture than the Model 3. So it is a very different situation now.

If Model S/X production were to fall 30% to just 45k in 2023, would anyone care? Would Musk need to downplay it? At a mere 3% of unit production, analysts my rather ask, why Tesla even bothers to continue the lines. We'll have to wait and see how Musk spins these issues in the future. All I'm saying is that the issues were different when S/X where 23% of production than they will be in a few years when its just 3% of production. In my experience, Musk is quite capable of changing his words as contexts change.
 
Which is why I go to Solar Panels | Tesla on a regular basis to see when they are going to be available.

Can confirm. I bought the largest system from Tesla that would fit on my roof. I used to pay upwards of $200 per month on electricity, now I'm a net exporter. I've still got a minimum $8.50 bill per month to stay connected to the grid, but at the end of the fiscal year each April they pay out my bill credits, and those offset the mandatory charges. ROI in about 4 years after incentives!

I hope Tesla starts installation service in your area soon!
 
Thank you. This seems to be the kind of forward thinking I'd expect from Tesla.

I think the deeper question is what really is the best use of the Fremont plant. Austin and Berlin will totally dominate on efficiency and volume. Shanghai is damn awesome too. So naturally, new investment goes into the Gigafactories. But if Tesla could clear out some space in Fremont, what could they do with it?

Optimus, maybe?
Fremont will likely be where the Roadster is built and once space is freed up it will be more useful as a development facility than a factory for mass production. I would expect at some point they will no longer need to build 3/Y in Fremont at all, and it will be for just S/X/Roadster and also Semi.
 
Can confirm. I bought the largest system from Tesla that would fit on my roof. I used to pay upwards of $200 per month on electricity, now I'm a net exporter. I've still got a minimum $8.50 bill per month to stay connected to the grid, but at the end of the fiscal year each April they pay out my bill credits, and those offset the mandatory charges. ROI in about 4 years after incentives!

I hope Tesla starts installation service in your area soon!
Yea, it's nice when you get bills like this.


Statement Date​
07/21/2022​
Amount Due​
$-185.65​
 
Let's think about the context. In 2019 S/X declined about 29% to 63k units. Meanwhile, Model 3 climbed about 42% to 215k unit, and Model Y and Shanghai were just ramping up. Model S/X was still a significant at about 23% of total units produced.

The question at this point was how Tesla could keep growing if S/X sales were in serious decline. Naturally, Musk would want to downplay the importance Model S/X production to the future of the company. Saying that's a halo car produced for sentimental reasons are nice talking points for trying to pivot away from a 29% y/y decline. Indeed the much bigger opportunity for Tesla at that time was to ramp up Model 3 in Shanghai and Model Y in Fremont.

The present context is different. In Q2 2022, Model S/X are only 6% to total auto production.


....that appears to be exactly the same context, carried to its logical, mathematically inevitable, conclusion.

S/X sales were in decline, and especially relative to other models. Tesla focused on ramping other models elsewhere.

That decline has continued, and will continue even further as that other ramping keeps going, in even more places- despite the S/X being refreshed.


All I'm saying is that the issues were different when S/X where 23% of production than they will be in a few years when its just 3% of production. In my experience, Musk is quite capable of changing his words as contexts change.


And all I'm saying is the issues were exactly the same and Elon was telling you exactly how this would go- and it's exactly how it went.

The only difference between then and now is Tesla executing exactly in the way they said they would, and the inevitable math that comes from that.

Hence Elon in 2019 explicitly saying not to expect S/X to play a big part in the future, and that's exactly what all the "now" numbers you cited show has happened.
 
Well sports fans, time for a mid season update for Team Tesla. They are currently red hot and have an 8 game winning streak, tied for longest of the season, with the other one being in mid March. Thanks to this rally, this week they climbed over 0.500 for the first time since early May. Despite all this, they are still in the hole for the season and down 20%. But with they way they have been playing lately, and the draft picks from Austin and Berlin hitting their stride, it looks like they will be playing their best ever over the remainder of the season.

Today
Close:816.73
Margin of W/L:1.61
Volume:34,445,682
High - Low:30.22
Season
Record:71-680.511
Total margin of wins:1,950.61
Total margin of losses:-2,174.90
YTD gain/loss:-224.29-21.2%
Price/52 week high65.7%
Best Win:143.00Jan 3
Worst Loss:-121.60Apr 26
Last 10:8-2
Streak:W8
Avg margin of victory:27.47
Avg margin of defeat:-31.98
Avg Volume:31,279,848
Avg Volume of Last 10:30,726,618
Avg High - Low:49.86
Avg H - L of Last 10:36.20
 
If I were the board, I would give a complete blank check for him to use Tesla resources and money anyway he likes including for his personal pursuits. And I will put that in the contract. If he wants to buy a yacht using Tesla's money, that should be fine. Stock holders who don't agree with that can sell TSLA and buy Ford. If you can't trust Musk to use the company resources responsibly and wisely, then there is no future for Tesla.
This is ADVICE: If you ever are on any corporate board, check very closely what your Directors' Insurance does and does not cover. The reason this will be important for you is that, were what you just wrote to occur in whatever that company is, it is not that you should expect, but most positively would be sued for malfeasance and dereliction of duty to shareholders. And the suers would, justfiably, win and you would lose. Everything.
And one more thing: I can state with 99.44% confidence that every Directors' Insurance policy would have specifically excluded such as covered. As rightly should be the case.
 
The over-the-side thing is one of the few things that bugs me, I did it a lot when I owned a truck.

But sail pillars might make up for it and FFS... we haven't even seen the truck. This kind of stupid nonsense has been dribbling out for a year now. Can we at least wait until someone has actually bought it and tried to see how it works as a work truck?
I get your point: It’s harder to reach over the sides with sail pillars.

But then I don’t: Isn‘t the Cybertruck going to be able to ‘squat’ down by lowering itself on its air suspension?

Wouldn’t that alleviate the problem in most cases?

I have a Cybertruck on order though I’ve never owned a truck.

Also I had reservations about the lack of a display in front of the driver on the Model 3 before I got mine and it turned out to be fine when I got it.
 
This is ADVICE: If you ever are on any corporate board, check very closely what your Directors' Insurance does and does not cover. The reason this will be important for you is that, were what you just wrote to occur in whatever that company is, it is not that you should expect, but most positively would be sued for malfeasance and dereliction of duty to shareholders. And the suers would, justfiably, win and you would lose. Everything.
And one more thing: I can state with 99.44% confidence that every Directors' Insurance policy would have specifically excluded such as covered. As rightly should be the case.


FWIW- this is 100% accurate, but the funny factor is didn't Elon personally insure the board because he didn't like how much the insurance company wanted for D&O premiums?
 
People, do we have any data to link Musk to the glass?
Or, is it only a hypothetical Bloomberg put in their report?

If this were an internal investigation, they could just call Elon and ask.

There is usually a kernel of truth in the center of a story like this, even one released with ignoble intentions. The most probable reality, given what little we know, is that there really was someone checking to ensure a glass purchase followed Tesla's corporate guidelines but the "investigation" did not rise anywhere near the level of import to actually call Elon. In all likelihood, the "investigation" did not rise to the level of what we think of when we hear the word.

Whoever leaked this likely drivel to a reporter should be uncovered and immediately fired. There is the possibility that the "investigation" was not even genuine but designed solely to ferret out leakers. In which case, busted!
 
Tesla needs to continue to invest in the model S/X. They are flagship models. Flagship models are a huge part of brand perception even if they are only a single digit percentage of unit sales.
Many of the legion of young 3/Y owners will one day look to move up to something bigger and more expensive as they make more money. Why lose them to other brands.
Besides, according to Elon, they have never been cheaper to make and ASP has never been higher. Remember Tesla stopped making the standard range S/X. All S/X sold today are Long range or plaid. The plaid take rate on model S has to be over 10%. Model S gross margins have to be close to 40%.
S/X don’t hurt financially and contribute a huge amount of brand value.
 
Sure that was in 2019 IIRC. But now we see that 3X as many vehicles could be build with the equipment and floor space that the S/X lines occupy. At some point, sentimentality may no longer cut it. All of the sudden we could get an announcement from Musk that Tesla will abandon S/X to make room for something new and substantially more capital efficient.

Do we really believe that when Tesla is straining to crank out 10M units per year that it will keep making 100k bespoke Model S/X for sentimental reasons? It seems to me that Model S/X needs to provide 5% to10% of total units sold just to be relevant. So the relevance is growing thin.

Moreover, these are the oldest models in production. If one assumes that Tesla needs a halo car for advertisement purposes, then why not replace Model S/X with Roadster 2? When the Model S came out, it superseded the Roadster as the halo car. Musk was never so sentimental as to continue the original Roadster as Model S became available. So why should the Model S/X still be produced when Roadster 2 becomes available?

What I'm pressing for with all these questions is a real business case for the Model S/X? Legacy, heritage, sentiment, halo, these notions do not amount to a business case for a growing automaker of the caliber of Tesla. Product lines that do not scale over time, how does that fit with the ethos of a company that seeks 50% or higher annual growth? My sense of Elon Musk is that he cares much more about scalability and innovation than sentiment and the brand power of a halo car. These things may matter to a legacy automaker, but Tesla is not an ordinary OEM.
I've never disagreed with @jhm, and all my thoughts have already been ninja'd by others...
We already know that they significantly reduced the robot count with the giga castings:


View attachment 831596

And it is a similar story with the 4680 battery line with DBE. Austin and Berlin should ultimately be able to build a LOT of cars per unit of factory space.
I still think the next two factory sites will be merely expansions on Austin and Berlin.
 
Let's think about the context. In 2019 S/X declined about 29% to 63k units. Meanwhile, Model 3 climbed about 42% to 215k unit, and Model Y and Shanghai were just ramping up. Model S/X was still a significant at about 23% of total units produced.

The question at this point was how Tesla could keep growing if S/X sales were in serious decline. Naturally, Musk would want to downplay the importance Model S/X production to the future of the company. Saying that's a halo car produced for sentimental reasons are nice talking points for trying to pivot away from a 29% y/y decline. Indeed the much bigger opportunity for Tesla at that time was to ramp up Model 3 in Shanghai and Model Y in Fremont.

The present context is different. In Q2 2022, Model S/X are only 6% to total auto production. The annual run rate this quarter is about 64k units per year, well below 100k capacity. It is clear that growing unit sales of S/X is not critical for Tesla to grow total 50% per year and could even be a distraction in climate of widespread supply chain problems. Moreover, Tesla seems to be throwing almost all of its growth ambition on ramping Model Y. Right now the Model Y is more efficient to manufacture than the Model 3, and the S/X are even less efficient to manufacture than the Model 3. So it is a very different situation now.

If Model S/X production were to fall 30% to just 45k in 2023, would anyone care? Would Musk need to downplay it? At a mere 3% of unit production, analysts my rather ask, why Tesla even bothers to continue the lines. We'll have to wait and see how Musk spins these issues in the future. All I'm saying is that the issues were different when S/X where 23% of production than they will be in a few years when its just 3% of production. In my experience, Musk is quite capable of changing his words as contexts change.

We also need to consider the mission, allowing affordable clean transport for all. Even lowering the price of S/X to around $60,000 wouldn't move the needle for affordability.

There are 3 viable paths:-

1) Robotaxis - Model 3/Y are adequate.

2) Lower priced compact models.

3) Minivans/Buses.

People who have visited Turkey may be familiar with this system:-
The International Istanbul Intercity Bus Terminal (Uluslararası Istanbul Otogarı) is 10 km (6 miles) northwest of Sultanahmet Square near the district of Esenler.

I haven't been there for sometime, but MiniVans take people to the Bus Station (Otogar) for loading on long distance buses for intercity and long distance trips.

Essentially the Bus Station takes the place of the Train Station, where you buy a ticket and board the long distance bus to your destination. This is a good option for developing countries without a rail network.

If autonomous or semi-autonomous MiniVans can platoon, we can perhaps skip the need for the Bus Station. Just book a MiniVan going to your intended destination via an app, when it gets on the highway, it will seek opportunities to platoon.

Things that advance the mission are profitable, partially because they unlock latent demand, by providing an option for a new group of customers.