I thought it was a well thought out post. It is a common practice among car makers to slap a present body on a next gen platform underneath and take it out in the real world for real world data instead of a test track.
-
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 wonder if all of this somehow frees up some 2170 cells to build more Semis.
Perhaps 2170s cells form China are now sent to Berlin and Berlin imports fewer cells from Nevada?
I think the dominance of NACS is now a given and built into the stock price. Unfortunately, I also think Wall Street is too short-sighted to place much value on it. They can't or won't model anything out beyond a year or two. With anecdotal evidence suggesting Tesla is not charging extra to non-Tesla users or the OEMs, the additional revenue/margin that will be generated is probably just a rounding error for the next couple of years.
But ya, maybe VW joining might cause a blip.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Meh closing this week
Was hoping for $290
Meh, Bernstein was hoping for $150.
MMs told us 4 separate times during the day what they wanted for the Close, but you have to listen-listen: $274.50
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Sure they've priced it in: Hedgies' analyst Toni Sacconaghi | Bernstein already when on CNBC and said it's nothing, no benefit to Tesla. Yup, just like owning all those gas stations is no benefit to Exxon...
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
That might be testing for the Model 2 / Compact Car but there's no way Tesla will be making all those engineering changes to the Model 3. Structural pack and front gigacasting is enough! This sucker needs to get back on the road (not like another Model S refresh). I'm certain Tesla learned from the last time they tried this.
GhostSkater
Member
More interesting stuff
Joe says that the Model Y line has been split into 4680 and 2170, if this means the whole line and now they have 10k/week installed capacity or just part is anyone guess, but we know GA2 and 3 have been under construction for months, and it was always assumed one was Cybertruck and another for Model Y
Also means that the 4680 ramp likely got to a point that it can't be done in a single one as cell output outpaces the line capability when combined with 2170 or even that they had more 2170 packs than the line could do it when combined with 2170, and it made more sense to limit output a bit than have a 4680 line barely making cars
Now, they still have a giant pile of equipment stored in a filed away from the factory, which probably has a considerable part of another production line, so there might be something else going on there and they will have 4 production lines
Joe says that the Model Y line has been split into 4680 and 2170, if this means the whole line and now they have 10k/week installed capacity or just part is anyone guess, but we know GA2 and 3 have been under construction for months, and it was always assumed one was Cybertruck and another for Model Y
Also means that the 4680 ramp likely got to a point that it can't be done in a single one as cell output outpaces the line capability when combined with 2170 or even that they had more 2170 packs than the line could do it when combined with 2170, and it made more sense to limit output a bit than have a 4680 line barely making cars
Now, they still have a giant pile of equipment stored in a filed away from the factory, which probably has a considerable part of another production line, so there might be something else going on there and they will have 4 production lines
Stretch2727
Engineer and Car Nut
Agreed much early component testing occurs this way but please not a front wheel drive car!
If you are going to drive only 1 axel in an EV, the rear is just the better place to do it. With the even weight distribution there is not a benefit in the snow as some have suggested.
GhostSkater
Member
It makes total sense for the unboxed process
No cooling and HV line running to the back of the vehicle, everything other than the battery pack are contained on the front module, motor, gear reduction, radiator, heat pump, octavalve or whatever else they use LV battery if that is there still, infotainment, steering motor, display
Almost everything that matter will be on the front module
And it allows it for a even bigger under trunk space since there won't be a motor there, and that counts when designing something more compact, add storage space while you shrink it
Only connection to other modules is low voltage, even the brakes with the brake by wire on the rear that also is a must for the unboxed process
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/LMSXKF7YO5K6VL5MZWSKKF4PSA.jpg)
Tesla offers new China rebate as price cuts rock EV market
Tesla on Friday said it would offer new buyers of its top-selling electric vehicles in China a cash bonus equivalent to almost $500 if they have a referral from an existing owner, deepening a price war in the world's largest market for EVs.
www.reuters.com
Layoffs?
OK I just listened to Jordan of the Limiting Factor's 1h50m(!) video about global lithium supply.
Basically, after a LOT of outlined due diligence, he doesn't think Elon is right when Elon says lithium refining is where the bottleneck is. Like Benchmark Minerals, Jordan sees a lithium mining supply crunch between now and 2030, starting to get bad in 2026. To the point where Tesla will not be able to grow 50% per year. His battery mineral supply model was quite bullish and included sodium ion batteries into the mix. Tesla simply won't be able to buy enough lithium for a 50% per year growth rate. The most likely way out of this is for Tesla to start getting aggressive by partnering with mines to finance them and thus secure long term supply.
For instance, a mining junior up in Canada, E3 Lithium, will be going to the market next year to raise $500M to build their production/extraction plant. Tesla could be the financier for that project. This is already what GM and Ford have been doing, financing various mines that are close to production.
The only bright spot in that video for Tesla is that Jordan estimates both refining and mining are each currently enjoying huge margins - like 70%. So Tesla's refining plant in Texas will help them reduce their own battery costs, which will allow them to pay more for lithium and thus secure more supply. BUT there is a real limit to how much Tesla can secure since they will bump up against real governmental pressures and also commercial pressures to limit how much of the global supply they can access. Tesla is currently buying about 14% of total global battery cells, and that would have to rise to about 48% by 2030 even given a bullish expected lithium supply increase.
So, if Tesla can secure 48% of total battery supply in 2030, they'll be fine. If Tesla manages to put more than a few vehicle manufacturers out of business, they might even be able to do it.
You can watch Jordan's video on Patreon, or Twitter if you subscribe to his channel in either spot (look for The Limiting Factor).
If you want to talk about investing in mining companies, do it here: The Resource Angle
Basically, after a LOT of outlined due diligence, he doesn't think Elon is right when Elon says lithium refining is where the bottleneck is. Like Benchmark Minerals, Jordan sees a lithium mining supply crunch between now and 2030, starting to get bad in 2026. To the point where Tesla will not be able to grow 50% per year. His battery mineral supply model was quite bullish and included sodium ion batteries into the mix. Tesla simply won't be able to buy enough lithium for a 50% per year growth rate. The most likely way out of this is for Tesla to start getting aggressive by partnering with mines to finance them and thus secure long term supply.
For instance, a mining junior up in Canada, E3 Lithium, will be going to the market next year to raise $500M to build their production/extraction plant. Tesla could be the financier for that project. This is already what GM and Ford have been doing, financing various mines that are close to production.
The only bright spot in that video for Tesla is that Jordan estimates both refining and mining are each currently enjoying huge margins - like 70%. So Tesla's refining plant in Texas will help them reduce their own battery costs, which will allow them to pay more for lithium and thus secure more supply. BUT there is a real limit to how much Tesla can secure since they will bump up against real governmental pressures and also commercial pressures to limit how much of the global supply they can access. Tesla is currently buying about 14% of total global battery cells, and that would have to rise to about 48% by 2030 even given a bullish expected lithium supply increase.
So, if Tesla can secure 48% of total battery supply in 2030, they'll be fine. If Tesla manages to put more than a few vehicle manufacturers out of business, they might even be able to do it.
You can watch Jordan's video on Patreon, or Twitter if you subscribe to his channel in either spot (look for The Limiting Factor).
If you want to talk about investing in mining companies, do it here: The Resource Angle
@TrendTrader007
dude, you mean the accumulation/distribution indicator?
the OHLCV ?
(((C-L)-(H-C))/(H-L))*V = CLV then sum daily for Accum/Dist line
up about 3.2 Billion shares, _in aggregate_ but a bit of a flaky indicator, sometimes lags, sometimes silent, but the linear regressions lines of the SP and the Accum/dist are positive slopes, but looking like flattening just a tad bit
(time to go swimming in heated pool, then trimaran sailing kayak in morning, life has things to do)
Not sure if too many people watched this because I skipped it thinking it was just an AI day 2 recap, however the 2nd part of this presentation is actually about V12 FSD. They are moving away from occupancy network as it was only used as a stepping stone to what the entire AI community was trying to reach for, which is generalized world model prediction. Tesla is moving away from auto labeling and is having their NN figuring out and predicting future scenarios on the fly while creating the world. Currently this is not in customer's hands and will be available by his prediction sometime later this year.... around when Musk thinks FSD is solved.
Dr. Know it all has a break down on this video if you want more information.
Dr. Know it all has a break down on this video if you want more information.
Bet TSLA
Active Member
It's cute the way you explain how obvious things are, but only after they happen.Meh, Bernstein was hoping for $150.
MMs told us 4 separate times during the day what they wanted for the Close, but you have to listen-listen: $274.50
View attachment 954176
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I just looked and the calendar doesn't say Apr 1. So why is rueters posting junk like this?
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/2BMLNNXUW5MHTAFRCGBNI6JFYM.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Robots say they won't steal jobs, rebel against humans
Robots presented at an AI forum said on Friday they expected to increase in number and help solve global problems, and would not steal humans' jobs or rebel against us.
www.reuters.com
This is weird:
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/7S5GD3CQJRIU5KRHWRXKBIGHPA.jpg)
www.reuters.com
China's auto group retracts pledge to avoid 'abnormal pricing'
The China Association of Auto Manufacturers (CAAM), citing antitrust law, on Saturday retracted a pledge to avoid "abnormal pricing" made two days earlier by 16 automakers, including Tesla. .
www.reuters.com
It always sounded half baked. Price fixing a consumer product riding a tech cost curve is stupid as it would lead to an overall reduction in competition/innovation in the industry. The OEMs that had the ear of the Chinese government to force the agreement probably woke up the day after signing and realised they had hamstrung themselves after they couldn't change their own prices while Tesla just changed non-price related demand drivers.This is weird:
China's auto group retracts pledge to avoid 'abnormal pricing'
The China Association of Auto Manufacturers (CAAM), citing antitrust law, on Saturday retracted a pledge to avoid "abnormal pricing" made two days earlier by 16 automakers, including Tesla. .
insaneoctane
Well-Known Member
I often look to AAPL for megacap comparisons to TSLA....I was comparing historical EPS (and PE) of the two companies and found it interesting that what TSLA has done in the last 1 year and 3 quarters (specifically to grow their EPS from $0.30 to over $3.50) took AAPL 11 years to do (2009-2020). Impressive.
www.macrotrends.net
Apple PE Ratio 2010-2023 | AAPL
<p>Current and historical p/e ratio for Apple (AAPL) from 2010 to 2023. The price to earnings ratio is calculated by taking the latest closing price and dividing it by the most recent earnings per share (EPS) number. The PE ratio is a simple way to assess whether a stock is over or under...
www.macrotrends.net
Berlin never used cells from Nevada. It always were complete packs from China with LG cells, not sure about BYD cells or complete packs
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
