Group 3: People who want a Tesla to try but doesn't need a Tesla. I feel like this group is pretty much everyone besides die hard fanatics. People who needs a car ASAP due to them missing work or etc would op for the safer option which is an ICE car. People want certainty and ICE provides them with such comfort. Because EVs has many new caveats with them, people who ends up looking for one are the curious ones and require months of preparation (mentally, as in talking themselves into one and becoming excited for one). The curious ones who has this as a WANT most likely wants to wait for the next best thing. The Model 2 could potentially be better than the Model 3(because it's more forward thinking, who knows) and will be 30% cheaper.
-
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
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Which is why having already delayed getting started on any new factories for >13 months since announcing a location is less than ideal and suggests unexpected problems have gotten in the way.
For 3/Y it looks like we were already there last year at this point.
CT is ramping, but shouldn't be a factor at all in a next-gen vehicle you expect to sell 10-20 TIMES as many of.
(and Semi/Roadster even more of a non-factor in this)
Edit- I see you also talk 4680 ramp below rather than specific vehicles- so I'll address that below as well
Subject to is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
Remember, RTs were supposed to be on the road "for sure" in 2020.
Model Y with structural pack was the right vehicle to ramp 4680 with.
It already existed without needing a bunch of new expensive MFG methods.... and would have freed 2170s for Model 3 to keep the tax credit
In fact we've already discussed the lack of M3 credit in 2024, the unexpectedly slow ramp and killing off (so far) of the 4680 Model Y seems to be significant evidence that was the original plan and it was forced to change due to how slow 4680 was ramping.
CT is what we've got now instead for it with Y back to all 2170s... and hopes that they'll start to have spare capacity beyond CT by late in this year if no further issues come up.
The next-gen car was supposed to be LFP.
Which isn't 4680.
Doesn't anyone remember the battery day chart on this?
The next-gen car is in the upper left there... under iron based. Which 4680 is not.
I agree with you that this is a meaningless report blamed on CR's part then. EVs simply have lower maintenance. It's a well known fact and a given. I don't find it (the chart posted) of much value for any EV shopper personally as every EV has nearly no maintenance.
Last edited:
Oh I do, I remember and I raised cautions and ....was shouted down. Oh well.
Because its action is programmed especially in times like this. Nothing's new from WS corruption, all the same sugar.
Yet, some folks here, have been trying to rationalize this like WS were a normal and fair stock exchange.
Things with Tesla are hard to discern, earning call may or may not help. It was clear that the Y was supposed to have a structural battery pack and scale to huge volumes in EU and Austin. Didn't happen. IRA was unexpected and Tesla was left in the lurch with a very uncompetitive M3 product and all the 4680 going into the CT. I truly think the 4680 capacity was supposed to also go into the Semi to boot over time. It is a flop though constant engineering may one day yield some of those promised advantages.
The CT is a neat vehicle but is more likely to be embraced by a certain political leaning that EM has alienated. Traditional pickup truck drivers are, for the most part, not buying CTs and it remains to be seen if they ever will but early days, fingers crossed. Nobody will be battery constrained in 2 years. You may be confusing me with @petit_bateau who did a very detailed sheet a year or two ago. He added specificity to my concerns and looked more broadly at the amazing breadth of battery capacity being developed here in the USA. My concerns were around the drastically slow ramp. That 4 months after "production" it was clear that "production" meant sampling. A year later and it was hardly better.
The key issue for Tesla is getting IRA certified battery capacity for every car made in the USA and enough so that the Semi line can ramp.
The compute question seems easier to solve but I caution everyone that the massive compute resources dedicated to FSD is terrible for the environment. Just so we all know it.
Last edited:
Well the facts are that they are building the Robotaxi first, and there is a reasonable chance it uses high nickel 4680 cells.
The Gen3 drivetrain is supposed to be chemistry agnostic.
We may or may not get information on the earnings call, or at the Robotaxi reveal.
All of the posters here who clearly know more than Elon and Tesla are wasting time posting here, when they should all be banding together and starting their own car company
Stock goes up = that's the free market, baby!
Stock goes down = WS corruption!
Did I do that right?
anthonyj
Stonks
Let's be honest. Tesla is no longer a nimble company. The product lineup has become stale. They treat their customers more like a nuisance than human. Deadlines have come and gone (Roadster, Semi, 4680) with no real solid roadmap. No Tesla insurance after 5 years. Solar Roof is a business failure (I have one and like it, but it is cost prohibitive in most cases). Model 3 isn't eligible for the $7500 rebate. Tesla's biggest competition is the used Tesla market.
Service is terrible and the layoffs made things ten times worse. My local store laid off their only Sales Manager (wtf?) and I cant get any idea on when my Cybertruck will be ready for delivery, even though it is sitting in the lot since the 15th. First they said it needs a rivet and that they have the jig, then they come back and say that they aren't doing the rivet anymore and are waiting for new pedals... I have a buyer for my Model X flying in from out of state and don't know what to tell him. I'm about to be without a car. Tesla doesn't care though.
Stock is going under 100 after tomorrow's disastrous ER and conference call, in my opinion. The only thing Tesla has going for them is software and product. Miles ahead of everyone. That wont be enough to grow market share.
Service is terrible and the layoffs made things ten times worse. My local store laid off their only Sales Manager (wtf?) and I cant get any idea on when my Cybertruck will be ready for delivery, even though it is sitting in the lot since the 15th. First they said it needs a rivet and that they have the jig, then they come back and say that they aren't doing the rivet anymore and are waiting for new pedals... I have a buyer for my Model X flying in from out of state and don't know what to tell him. I'm about to be without a car. Tesla doesn't care though.
Stock is going under 100 after tomorrow's disastrous ER and conference call, in my opinion. The only thing Tesla has going for them is software and product. Miles ahead of everyone. That wont be enough to grow market share.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
A non-investor and a comedian too!
Playing on the irony of interpreting a report written for general auto shoppers as if it is only aimed at EV shoppers. Comedy genius!
We are so lucky to have such a funny troll on the forum. Most of them are so dull.
Sunworrier, you take the cake!
Last edited:
Interesting comment you've got there.
As regards Consumers' Reports: Yeah, I've been a subscriber, for decades. And, for the purposes of this reply, I'm going to separate CU's reportage into two pieces:
- Reports and such that depend upon individual persons' evaluations.
- Reports and such that are based upon actual measurements.
So, if some CU evaluator of speaker systems, listening to the operation of said speakers, and says that, "The audio appears to wander around" gets sued by the speaker manufacturer for Not Saying Nice Things about their product, CU goes to the mat in court and gets, invariably, gets said lawsuit tossed. Many have tried to sue or intimidate CU for what they've said in this regard; invariably, they have all lost.
Now, this doesn't mean that CU doesn't get things wrong, at least in my opinion. There was this one time, early on with FSD-Beta, where a CU evaluator was strongly recommending against anybody using the software; the guy was literally shaking when he made these pronouncements. Given that the Beta was a Beta and had that serious warning about Doing the Wrong Thing at the Worst Time in the release notes, I fully understand where the CU evaluator was coming from.
And there was that infamous time back in the 1960's when CU declared that putting automotive light switches on a stalk, rather than on the dash (with the floor mounted dimmer switch, natch) was a Horrible. They eventually did change their minds on that one.
Speaking to the second: If There's One Thing That CU Gets Absolutely, Positively Right, It's Statistics and Data. Yeah, there's Disraeli and his comment about, "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics". Which makes for a good chuckle. And, no question, liars will often bury their claims in statistics that, when opened up, don't withstand the light of day. But, as a working engineer I can tell you that statistics with its ANOVAs, correlation functions, and all that jazz is how one takes sometimes hard-to-work-out noisy data and uses that data to figure out How The World Works. CU never lies about this stuff or tries to spin it: They tell it as they see it.
And there's obvious reasons why. On straight results, if CU gets sued, having hard, solid, replicable data defuses lawsuits. An example: The Suzuki Roll-Over debacle. For those who don't remember, CU had reports from the field that the relatively new for the time small SUVs were getting involved in accidents where they'd react badly to swerves on the highway. So, they started testing. And the Suzuki of the day, a narrow, high vehicle, had an alarming tendency to raise wheels off the ground during the tests; so much so, CU bolted outriggers onto the rear of the SUV to keep it from going over, and continued testing. The car got a Don't Use Under Any Circumstances; Suzuki sued. It took a couple of years of Suzuki trying to bankrupt an American Publisher, but Suzuki lost that one.
Basically: If CU says they have data from questionnaires in statistically significant numbers reporting on how much it costs to keep vehicles running, you can bet your bottom dollar that their numbers are straight. And aren't one of the Disraeli class.
Finally: There have been complaints around here that CU's reliability numbers for Teslas haven't been as shiny as posters here think they should be. That's mainly because of the old, but consistent adage: Never buy a vehicle during its first model year. I had a 2018 M3 until last year: I can report that lots of interesting things went wrong with that car, mostly covered by warranty, some of which weren't. When the first couple of CU annual auto issues showed up with Teslas in them, people complained loudly around here that CU must have been doing something wrong. I don't think so: It was Just The Data, All The Time.
Clearly, CU's latest report indicates that, reliability issues or not, the Total Cost of maintenance for Tesla's cars are lower than everybody else's is, and broken out by years 1-5 and 6-10, even. I expect that every year this chart comes out Tesla's numbers will get even better, as the older, less-well-designed cars fall off the chart.
Fun.
Last edited:
Sounds like your stock portfolio is down. I get it. Rent a Tesla from Hertz until your CT is ready.
LoL, this is master level troll post. I guess products are not enough to grow marketshare, you need pixie dust and wishes? Thoughts and prayers? I'm having a hard time figuring out what other than products can take marketshare.
FSD is not just a "good L2 system". There are no other systems like it. Suggesting that it's a L2 system of comparison tells me there are better or worst FSD like products out there which doesn't exist.Yes, it's a very good L2 system.
You'll need more than that to justify even the current market cap, let alone the ATH one.
They're certainly aiming to achieve more, but have not yet, and are many years behind their targets on doing so.
So someone being dubious of them getting there in the timeframes most folks value stocks is not an unreasonable stance on the topic.
This is a surprising misunderstanding of how most people fuel an EV.
Which is at home- not a DC fast charging station.
Certainly they own by far the best DCFC network in the US (their dominance OUTSIDE the US is not nearly as large)-- and that will be a profit center long term... but again not one that justifies a massively larger market cap than they've already had.
That'd be a very important point in considering the future value of Tesla versus, say, Ford.
But at HALF their current market cap Tesla would still have a much higher real P/E than Ford does so not sure how this disproves his valuation?
They do move real volume in China. So do some Chinese companies (and increasingly so overall).
No, they actually do not. Not even close to #1.
Tesla improves in Universum's 'Most Attractive Employers' list
Tesla has made its first appearance in Universum's "Most Attractive Employers" list, which asks students across the globe which companies they want to work for.www.teslarati.com
#16 among engineering students worldwide in 2023, up from #26 in 2022.
Possibly you are thinking of the much narrower US-students-only data the same company provides?
Tesla wasn't #1 there either-- they were #2.
But then Boeing is #5 so I'm not sure how much of the stocks price should be built into scoring well there
BTW I saw you also doing the "DO YOU EVEN FSD DUDE?" thing earlier. Your sig says you're in the UK, where AFAIK FSD isn't available.... so that's a...weird tact to take?
Are you just basing your investment timelines and ideas on watching youtube videos from Omar or something?
I think Anthony is experiencing genuine frustration with his Cybertruck delivery..
It is venting, not trolling.
I'm very pessimistic about TSLA in the short term, but I'm super optimistic about TSLA in the long term.
I wonder where I fit in here....
I don't think CT helps mission right now, these are trophy cars for almost all users. They have other cars and usually an EV. We need 10 million more EVs a year. Each CT is going to eat cell production for I guess 4 25k cars. The 25k cars should take ICE off the road.
Even if you are right, it is too late to change the plan now.
The fact that the 25K car is delayed for so long doesn't surprise me, for it to be profitable, all of the ducks need to line up,
Without the Gen3 unboxed process and batteries at the right price, it is a very hard slog.
If they made the 25K car and lost money on every vehicle sold, investors would rightly be complaining.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
