I have no expertise whatsoever in civil engineering for industrial facilities, but I was wondering about these roof sections... They seem to use a lot of metal, possibly more than necessary for just a roof (low structural load sections). I get that it's the use of geometry and leverage with all those struts, but it seems excessive. I'm probably wrong about this, but I was hoping someone could explain why these sections are so intricate and take up so much volume.
-
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
I have no expertise whatsoever in civil engineering for industrial facilities, but I was wondering about these roof sections... They seem to use a lot of metal, possibly more than necessary for just a roof (low structural load sections). I get that it's the use of geometry and leverage with all those struts, but it seems excessive. I'm probably wrong about this, but I was hoping someone could explain why these sections are so intricate and take up so much volume.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Question: Long run, what do you think the ratio of Model 3/Y to Model S/X unit sales to be?
I'm inclined to this this will be about 10 to 1 at the high end or 5 to 1 at the low. In Q1, Tesla delivered 50.9k Model 3 to 12.1k Model S/X, a ratio of 4.2 to 1. This makes sense in the short run, but as logistics smooth out and production of Model 3 catches up with demand, this can converge to a much higher ratio. Long run the ratio will simply reflect the ratio at which orders arrive.
I think one implication of this view is that we should tolerate a decline in Model S/X while Model 3/Y is ramping up volume. For example, suppose we get to a Model 3/Y run rate of 500k/y. Should we be worried if this in equilibrium with a 50k/y run rate for Model S/X? Perhaps not, because continuing on to a 1.5M/y run rate with Model 3/Y could remain in equilibrium with a 150k/y run rate for Model S/X.
I do think it is premature to imagine that the Model S/X are obsolete. They do need to be continuously refreshed to stay current with the state of technology, but that would be true of Model 3/Y as well. I view true obsolescence as being so far behind that staying current with the technology is not feasible or simply too costly. That may be true of a good number ICE vehicles, but I don't see that for Model S/X within the foreseeable future. Rather I believe there is persistent demand for the larger, more premium vehicles that the Model S/X are relative to Model 3/Y. So the two classes of vehicle have their respective segments to satisfy, and so long run there is some finite ratio of demand for both.
So right now, we are at transitional moment, where the newness and limited supply of Model 3 may be creating some turbulence for Model S/X, but in due time consumers will tell us in what ratio they wish to order these products. The key issue is to keep pushing the total scale of vehicle production and delivery upward. Then we will be rather indifferent to product mix ratios making solid number on each line.
I'm inclined to this this will be about 10 to 1 at the high end or 5 to 1 at the low. In Q1, Tesla delivered 50.9k Model 3 to 12.1k Model S/X, a ratio of 4.2 to 1. This makes sense in the short run, but as logistics smooth out and production of Model 3 catches up with demand, this can converge to a much higher ratio. Long run the ratio will simply reflect the ratio at which orders arrive.
I think one implication of this view is that we should tolerate a decline in Model S/X while Model 3/Y is ramping up volume. For example, suppose we get to a Model 3/Y run rate of 500k/y. Should we be worried if this in equilibrium with a 50k/y run rate for Model S/X? Perhaps not, because continuing on to a 1.5M/y run rate with Model 3/Y could remain in equilibrium with a 150k/y run rate for Model S/X.
I do think it is premature to imagine that the Model S/X are obsolete. They do need to be continuously refreshed to stay current with the state of technology, but that would be true of Model 3/Y as well. I view true obsolescence as being so far behind that staying current with the technology is not feasible or simply too costly. That may be true of a good number ICE vehicles, but I don't see that for Model S/X within the foreseeable future. Rather I believe there is persistent demand for the larger, more premium vehicles that the Model S/X are relative to Model 3/Y. So the two classes of vehicle have their respective segments to satisfy, and so long run there is some finite ratio of demand for both.
So right now, we are at transitional moment, where the newness and limited supply of Model 3 may be creating some turbulence for Model S/X, but in due time consumers will tell us in what ratio they wish to order these products. The key issue is to keep pushing the total scale of vehicle production and delivery upward. Then we will be rather indifferent to product mix ratios making solid number on each line.
OT
Great post.
Flaring is for bitcoin miners?
OnT
I see three big volume bars today? Any thoughts?
@Dutchie . I spend a lot of time researching the FUD, and while there are definite issues to be settled, I am just adding a few here and there because the FUD makes me angry(true “FUD”). Truth will prevail. HW3, V3. If HW3, grid storage and solar Tesla is not at a better point by August Then I will be more nervous. Until then for me at least, this is all noise. Tesla is changing the world. Already some of the narrative is changing(Fox bussiness-MSM). The FUD will not stop.
Last edited:
Getting into Tesla’s stock(or any stock, really) with a 1-year horizon is most likely a bad idea. It’s highly volatile(both up and down). Since you bought last year at 290, that means you’ve already seen both high and low of that range(you could have sold at ~$370/share in December for a nice 28% gain).
For the rest, you ask a lot of questions; I’ll answer some of them as I see them:
“Dust covered cars” are meaningless. They’re producing thousands of cars a week. There’s going to be some waiting until they can be transported at various locations.
The YouTube bit is anecdotes. I haven’t seen them, myself, but it’s not too surprising there were some left over 3’s(we know they made ~12k more than they delivered and no more than 10,600 were already spoken for). They also make them in blocks instead of built-to-order, so there could be some specific specs that didn’t have buyers already.
The software bit isn’t suddenly at all. They’ve been focused on software; AP/FSD in particular since 2014. I’m baffled why you’d think this is new.
But those payments can only be recognised in the P&L according to accounting standards which generally have to reflect the performance of the underlying contract.
I think you should sell covered calls to consistently lower your cost basis.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
BS. There is ZERO reason to allow shorting. Monkeys throwing darts have as much chance of being right as shorts in identifying flawed products.
You can't substitute vigorous regulations with shorting.
Pras
Member
If you are doubtful, just book your losses for peace of mind. Otherwise most of your points can be explained.
Tesla has crossed a major hurdle with Model 3 production reaching stability. Paying back 900m in cash has also proved the resiliency. One thing is that Elon musk never takes the solvency aspect lightly (as much as people joked on bankwuptcy) and paying cash for debt wouldn’t have happened if solvency was an issue.
But unless you are in for a long term, short term issues may shake your confidence. I am in for long term so these things annoy me but don’t shake me.
Last edited:
Words of HABIT
Active Member
Dutchie,
If you are asking for advice on what you should do with your TSLA shares for your specific situation, you have come to the wrong place. I suggest you contact a professional financial advisor that is recommended by your friends and/or family, not an anonymous on-line forum such as TMC.
Why did you invest in Tesla? If it was to get rich quick, then perhaps TSLA with its well known volatility is not your best choice, nor would you be considered an investor. Owning shares does not make one an investor. If you put your capital long term for future growth investing in Tesla, under the belief that you supported Tesla's mission statement, that of providing sustainable transportation to the masses, and helping our planet by reducing production of greenhouse gases, then TSLA is the place for you. It will take time, and suggest you have timeframe of a few years.
If you honestly believe Tesla has a demand problem with their cars (even after owning one as you state you do), then I suggest you sell your TSLA today. One should not be losing sleep over their investment decisions. Not an advice.
Last edited:
jhm
Well-Known Member
No worries. I think the Musk saga is an epic story. I should hope that 1000 years from now people are still telling this story, the story about how humanity confronted its own existential potential to ruin the planet. I can't imagine that the hoards of trolls who stood in the way of securing a good future would be remembered kindly by those who must live with those consequences 1000 years from now. It is a heroic moment for the human race or it will have been our most cowardly. We absolutely need that view of how distant generations will remember us.
There haven't been any good explanations why Tesla didn't produce more in Q1. Were there production issues or was it purposeful because of seasonal demand issues? or both? We probably won't find out the answer for a few more weeks in the shareholder letter and conference call.
I saw the same thing on reddit. It did seem like there were a lot of late 2018 Model 3s still sitting around in lots that they were trying to clear out at the end of Q1. Not sure if it's still a problem today.
Now that Model 3 ramp is relatively stable, Tesla has said that 2019 will see a push on the solar front.
A couple things:
- The span on the support members to create a large open floor plan requires a large structural member to support that span. Hence the truss style frames
- The span is much larger than it looks due to drone footage and not actually being there in person
- The roof will have to carry some load: solar panels and heavy rain and wind
- The open sections of the truss will be used for infrastructure. Wires, ducting, even possibly equipment
jhm
Well-Known Member
This is very much on topic at the Shorting Oil thread. Hope you join us there.
Once again, would you rather they have delivered 63k and made 77k, or delivered 66k and made 90-100k and added a billlion dollars FCF loss?
I'm using the SNAP MID order in IB which pins the order to the mid plus/minus a definable offset
Tesla is a public company. They live by the quarterly cycle. It sucks, and it's one of the reasons why they wanted to go private.
"In the initial phase of Gigafactory Shanghai, we expect to have stamping, paint shop, body joining, and general assembly shops in operation by the end of 2019. " - not pack assembly. Packs for this year need to come from GF1. So, yes, the hypothesis that Tesla has incentive to stock up on packs now (within the constraints of a couple hundred million in costs, and storage needs) so as to avoid needing to increase pack production capacity later in the year, is plausible. That doesn't mean that it's right, but it is a plausible hypothesis.
Last edited:
I would have guessed at least some incremental production increase in Model 3s for Q1 compared to Q4. I wasn't ever expecting 90k to 100k Model 3s for Q1. Probably many here were expecting in 80k+ territory for Model 3 production in Q1.
**** them. Tesla would need to build cars for another 4 or 5 years just to offset their waste.
So you wanted the 80-90k range? You would have preferred half a billion in extra FCF losses?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
