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

[InTheMiddle]

Certainly if you’re a tripper/Willie type person than SC is a thing for you. And it’s pretty easy to rack up travel miles vs local miles if you trip across the country once a year and only drive 10 miles to and from work and a few more miles running errands/dropping off kids.

I’ve actually found that I’ve been destination charging a lot more now that that’s becoming more widely available.

Hopefully destination charging at hotels will be ubiquitous, but for now I default to staying at hotels that have Superchargers in their parking lot, even when it means staying at property where I do not have "Lifetime <x> status". The confidence in readily-available, functional chargers is a greater draw than the suite upgrade or the concierge lounge. If I'm in the Model X which has free supercharging for life, I can *attempt* to justify this behavior based on minor electricity cost savings...but far more is spent on the no-longer-free meals than the electricity savings. Really it's just the great big warm security blanket of knowing that the chargers will be there, will be functional, and will be available sometime between when I check in and when I leave.

Indeed. I'm reminded of small airplane extra tanks, bought quite often, used much less, but people tend to want to be able to do something they rarely do. One of my two BEVs has never been outside the city in which I live, a very large one, one one that could easily be serviced with a less capable car. BEV is one of the rare circumstances in which extra range costs more to buy and more to operate. Still, people who can probably buy more range than they need.

It's exactly that that makes 'Free Supercharging' very appealing even if it will rarely be used.
The only problem with that is those few who will drive 100,000km in a year and/or charge locally to get 'Free'. I personally habituate a shopping center to get 'Free' charging, even though the purchases I make a more expensive there making my choice irrational economically.

Similarly, my Model 3 has only been on one road trip (shortly after purchase), and currently shows 99% home, 1% other in the 1-year Charge Stats screen...yet I am still extremely happy it was bought as the long range version, not the shorter range. Default road-trippers are the Model X (67% home, 28% SC, 5% other) and Model Y (62% home, 36% SC, 2% other) (both long range versions), and yet in both cases an even longer range would be even better for those times when it is needed. Imperfect analogy: Range is to EV owners what towing ability is to truck owners...something we'll happily pay extra for, to get more than we really need, because all the times when we *might* need it and that one time when we *do* need it make it all worth it.

 

[thx1139]

At the very least I'd have kept including ultrasonic sensors until there was unanimous agreement that they were entirely redundant. That was a cost saving measure too far, doing way more damage to the brand perception than it saved in costs. Also handed free ammunition to rivals.
They could even add some free 'new owner' supercharger miles?

Agree. Dont remove sensors and other hardware until the replacement capability is in place and fleshed out. Dont make people lose functionality or have coming soon that people that bought a car a year earlier still have.

 

[bkp_duke]

Aren't you really debating whether 2170 or 18650 have better longevity?

Well, he mentioned BMS. I wanted to address that all Tesla's BMS's from the 2012 Model S onward have been fully programmable, and have seen mulitple FW revisions.


The 2170 vs. 18650 longevity . . . that's complicated. There have been at least 3 (4?) distinct chemistries on the 18650. At least 2 on the 2170s.

 

[Gigapress]

Just a note - don't agree with this part.

The BMS on all Tesla vehicles is fully programmable, and has been upgraded and changed multiple times with new algos for even the oldest (2012 / 2013) S cars.

If anything, there are "issues" with the 3/Y having worse (but still good by industry standards) degradation curves than the S/X.

The BMS hardware has changed a lot though. I would imagine some stuff can’t just be handled with OTA updates, but no way to know for sure. The thermal management has changed even more, although one could argue that bigger 2170 cells are inherently harder to control than 1865s on the S&X.

Is there data on 3/Y degradation?

 

[bkp_duke]

The BMS hardware has changed a lot though. I would imagine some stuff can’t just be handled with OTA updates, but no way to know for sure. The thermal management has changed even more, although one could argue that bigger 2170 cells are inherently harder to control than 1865s on the S&X.

Is there data on 3/Y degradation?

Hardware doesn't matter, that's been completely for cost savings. The BMS's themselves and the ability to control things down to the individual cell have been in place since Day 1, as far back as the Model S.

There is a massive thread on 3/Y degradation. It's pretty common to see 8-10% drop in the first 18 months on those cars, and then it levels out to 0.5-1% per year after that.

 

[jerry33]

Pretty much. I'm in my 70's, and my wife and I joke about driving in "Geriatric" or even "SUPER-Geriatric" mode most of the time.

Welcome to the club.

 

[khill]

Yes, YOU would. Because it wouldn’t be the ‘right’ kind of advertising. It wouldn’t say what YOU wanted it to say. There’d be a cat in the ad instead of dog; an orange instead of an apple, a black Tesla instead of a blue one -

YOU can’t help yourself. YOU’d nitpick it to death and analyze how it’s wrong in every way until @Unpilot gouged his eyes out. Oh, wait -

Instead of criticizing me, how about you explain why people are still buying Camrys, Accords, etc. and CR-Vs, RAV4s, Highlanders, etc. when Tesla has achieved price parity and is objectively better in terms of safety, Autopilot, technology, and so many other things? My point is that most people who are looking to buy a new car don’t know how affordable and how much superior a Tesla is. This problem needs to be solved. Cutting prices even after achieving price parity and objectively being better than other vehicles doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The message needs to get out to the masses that Teslas are both affordable and objectively superior in almost every way.

 

[Gigapress]

No, not at all. Also, 'improvement' might not be a good description after reaching certain level of development per usage scenario. What I mean is that the desired outcome might be the decrease of total cost of production per unit. This will yield what they've been after, changing chemistry included, but might not mean improvement in terms of storage capacity increase per volume. …

Yeah but production cost per car is the wrong metric to optimize. What matters is the total *lifetime* amortized cost per mile, which is strongly a function of battery longevity. And Tesla has been set on strategizing around robotaxi fleets since 2016 and probably sooner than that considering that it was probably planned in private long before Master Plan Part 2 was published. In that light, the mission plan directly demands making each car and its battery as durable as possible to maximize the number of years and miles it can remain in service. Even without robotaxis it still matters how long the cars last because every mile each car drives is another mile not being powered by petroleum. I would be very surprised to learn that Tesla had optimized for minor improvements in upfront cost at the expense the long term value to the mission.

 

[AndrewZ]

Won't make political predictions here to stay within the rules.

However, to be clear, the Republican majority in the House has proposed to reverse or eliminate all the EV, solar and battery credits. If passed, this would adversely impact Tesla's U.S. margins (as noted in the 10-Q) and presumably have some impact on U.S. demand.

Here's the bill for all you masochists: https://www.speaker.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/LSGA_xml.pdf. In short, if this bill were to become law:

- standalone residential batteries would no longer be eligible for the 30% credit;
- solar tax credits would continue to phase out and be eliminated by 2026; and
- 3750/7500 tax credits would be eliminated after cumulative 200,000 sales (so Tesla would be out).

I didn't bother to personally confirm the others, but they appear to also be there, including Semi tax credit, Megapack enhanced utility credits, battery production credits, etc...

(If someone wants to check me on that, feel free -- it's a dense piece of legislation and you have to read it side-by-side with existing law to track it all).

I think something like this might have been underlying the way the IRA has been implemented so generously and in a way that absolutely destroys the Congressional Budget Office's original estimated impact from the credits.

 

[Chunky Jr.]

What matters is the total *lifetime* amortized cost per mile, which is strongly a function of battery longevity.

One of the biggest misconceptions about EVs is that the battery costs a ridiculous amount and has to be replaced every few years just like all other battery operated devices. It's hard for people to do the math when they don't even know what the variables are.

 

[Krugerrand]

Hopefully destination charging at hotels will be ubiquitous, but for now I default to staying at hotels that have Superchargers in their parking lot, even when it means staying at property where I do not have "Lifetime <x> status". The confidence in readily-available, functional chargers is a greater draw than the suite upgrade or the concierge lounge. If I'm in the Model X which has free supercharging for life, I can *attempt* to justify this behavior based on minor electricity cost savings...but far more is spent on the no-longer-free meals than the electricity savings. Really it's just the great big warm security blanket of knowing that the chargers will be there, will be functional, and will be available sometime between when I check in and when I leave.

Why needing SuperChargers? We stay at hotels with L2 Tesla and other chargers and our car is always full when we wake up in the morning even if we arrive late, with low mileage left, and leave way before checkout time.

Maybe we just have a horseshoe up our butts, but we’ve never had an issue of not working or not being able to charge. Of course, we always have a plan B just in case.

 

[bkp_duke]

Instead of criticizing me, how about you explain why people are still buying Camrys, Accords, etc. and CR-Vs, RAV4s, Highlanders, etc. when Tesla has achieved price parity and is objectively better in terms of safety, Autopilot, technology, and so many other things? My point is that most people who are looking to buy a new car don’t know how affordable and how much superior a Tesla is. This problem needs to be solved. Cutting prices even after achieving price parity and objectively being better than other vehicles doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The message needs to get out to the masses that Teslas are both affordable and objectively superior in almost every way.

Simple - Tesla effectively only has models in TWO market segments to compete at the mid and low-end. The two segments they are in, they DOMINATE, no contest there.

CR-V, RAV4 have been hit hard by the Model Y, but technically are in a market segment below the Y on pricing. Not everyone will do the "Tesla Stretch" and push their budget, especially in hard economic times.

Per the last Quarterly Report, Tesla sits on 15 days average of inventory. That's less than 25% of the industry norm (60-90 days is norm).

You don't piss away money on advertising when you effectively have little inventory, and sell every car you produce. As production grows, it is normal and EXPECTED to have a little bit of inventory.



Plus, cutting prices increases your TAM, advertising does not. Elon has made it clear which direction Tesla is going to go. If you don't like it, I suggest cashing out your shares and finding a company that suits you better (good luck with that last part).

 

[khill]

Simple - Tesla effectively only has models in TWO market segments to compete at the mid and low-end. The two segments they are in, the DOMINATE, no contest there.

CR-V, RAV4 have been hit hard by the Model Y, but technically are in a market segment below the Y on pricing. Not everyone will do the "Tesla Stretch" and push their budget, especially in hard economic times.

Per the last Quarterly Report, Tesla sits on 15 days average of inventory. That's less than 25% of the industry norm (60-90 days is norm).

You don't piss away money on advertising when you effectively have little inventory, and sell every car you produce. As production grows, it is normal and EXPECTED to have a little bit of inventory.



Plus, cutting prices increases your TAM, advertising does not. Elon has made it clear which direction Tesla is going to go. If you don't like it, I suggest cashing out your shares and finding a company that suits you better (good luck with that last part).

This is not about stock price. My point is about awareness.

 

[Krugerrand]

Instead of criticizing me, how about you explain why people are still buying Camrys, Accords, etc. and CR-Vs, RAV4s, Highlanders, etc. when Tesla has achieved price parity and is objectively better in terms of safety, Autopilot, technology, and so many other things? My point is that most people who are looking to buy a new car don’t know how affordable and how much superior a Tesla is. This problem needs to be solved. Cutting prices even after achieving price parity and objectively being better than other vehicles doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The message needs to get out to the masses that Teslas are both affordable and objectively superior in almost every way.

Wasn’t criticizing was stating a fact.

Answer: People are a) not the brightest lights on the Christmas tree and b) are all about themselves.

FYI, that’s usually not fixable.

Please don’t be all about yourself and move over to the advertising thread on this forum and post to your heart’s content on this overdone, already talked to death topic. It was fresh five years ago.

 

[unk45]

I would be interested in seeing Tesla's margins and detailed costs for Superchargers and Supercharging. Unlike most here, I'm skeptical about anything other than razor thin margins as long as Tesla must purchase power from the local grid and pay power rate-based "demand" fees in some locales, which can be quite ridiculous.

The question is valid. The newest reports seem to show that Tesla has negotiated clean energy globally for Superchargers, cost is another question and we really have no data, that I can find anyway. Maybe somebody has insight?

 

[bkp_duke]

This is not about stock price. My point is about awareness.

I wasn't talking about stock price.

 

[Ogre]

Getting ejected from a car is not a safety design feature (no matter what the anti-seatbelt crowd says about being "thrown clear" of an accident).

It's the new AI safety feature. I'm sure you've seen the video where they increase seatbelt tension when the car is about to impact something. This is a new system where when the car detects it will be completely mangled, it releases the seatbelts, unlatches the doors and starts playing "All I need is a Miracle"...

/s (obviously I hope)

 

[Ogre]

This graphic says it all when people complain about AP or FSD:

Not listed here is the fact that all of those 0.31 accidents per million miles were people getting rear ended at stop signs because the NHTSA makes them wait for 2 days before rolling.

 

[unk45]

Instead of criticizing me, how about you explain why people are still buying Camrys, Accords, etc. and CR-Vs, RAV4s, Highlanders, etc. when Tesla has achieved price parity and is objectively better in terms of safety, Autopilot, technology, and so many other things? My point is that most people who are looking to buy a new car don’t know how affordable and how much superior a Tesla is. This problem needs to be solved. Cutting prices even after achieving price parity and objectively being better than other vehicles doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The message needs to get out to the masses that Teslas are both affordable and objectively superior in almost every way.

Nearly endless market research confirms that consumer durable purchases are not necessarily rational. Skipping endless details to prove the point just observe demonstrated behavior. Quoting, more or less, from a longitudinal consumer decision survey which which I was once involved: 'consumers financial decisions tend to reflect what they think people in their situations would do rather than what they actually think'. All that goes back to Charles Horton Cooley and the 'looking glass self'.

What all that really means is that the transition to mass adoption of any given thing can be slow or rapid but is ultimately a product of social expectations. Tesla is advancing with incredible speed on these metrics. Growing acceptance by police, municipal and rental fleets is driving far more than most of us imagine.

 

[StarFoxisDown!]

View attachment 931697


Inventory (S3XY) seems to be creeping up again. Model Y RWD now costs $759 less than the average amount paid for a car or truck in the US. (Before any EV incentives) Just a few month ago I would have never believed this could happen.

It pretty baffling to me how some can think there isn’t an educational/information issue around EV’s and Tesla’s in particular with the general mass population when you see inventory still rising as the base 3/Y starting prices are below the ASP of their ICE counterparts now. Yes I know production is still scaling rapidly. Still shouldn’t see inventory climbing like this given the price levels the entry 3/Y’s are currently at

There’s an issue. It’s easily fixable if Tesla would get it’s head out of the sand. There’s middle ground to be had where advertising can be informative and educational and not be wasteful and reach the % of the population that isn’t on Twitter, involved in tech, or renewable energy. Oh well

(I embrace all the forthcoming disagrees lol)