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.
This is only true for folks who drive often to make it worth their while. Home many miles do you drive annually if you don't mind sharing?

It's still another $1200/year, maybe $6000 more for the longer term life of the car. This also doesn't include people who already paid for FSD (obviously) or folks who upgraded from autopilot to FSD (I think it was $2k?) or folks who were allowed or transfer FSD.

I'd agree with the other poster that if someone stretched just to get into a Tesla and money was tighter, $100/month could be all their subscription plans combined already.

I think if/when the numbers of FSD are good, Tesla would release them. Until then, it's probably not much to write home about.

That’s a fair point. We have it on a model X from 2020 with 95k miles. So that’s an average of almost 25k/ year. It’s a lot. Admittedly we haven’t added the subscription for our 2020 model 3 in part because it only gets driven half as much.

We’re certainly not rich; but we do have disposable income which I understand is not typical, and I agree that if the numbers are good we’re gonna hear about it. I guess that’s what I’m excited about.

I have now ~20% of my (Bay Area) fire department converted over to EV‘s (from 2% in 2020). Many are commuters from 2 to 3 hours away, which is not uncommon since we work 48 hour shifts. Of the ~20% (30 people), at least 8 people that I know of have subscribed. Again, I admit we are not typical people… But we are also cheap (generalizing).

Sorry to ramble about personal experience during market hours; but I do feel like it’s pertinent for people who are not in a ‘Tesla Mecca’ to hear first hand accounts of the sea change that’s occurring.

Edit to add; I just want to add that currently our city does not provide any financial benefit or otherwise for employees purchasing an EV. There is no infrastructure at the fire stations to charge EV’s and there are policies prohibiting personal EV’s being charged At Work(🤷‍♂️).
Owning a Model S, X, or Cybertruck changes the equation here just because those vehicles are so much more expensive. People buying sports cars, sports trucks, or fancier SUVs are more likely to have the finances to support something like FSD and the cost makes more sense when the original cost of the vehicle is so much higher.

But most of Teslas sales are 3s/Ys aimed at frugal buyers who are likely at least partially motivated by the low maintenance and fuel costs, and I think that’s where you’ll probably see less uptake. The cost of FSD is much higher as a proportion of the original vehicle cost, and those buyers are more likely to be budget-conscious.
 
Here is Ford's May 2024 sales report. They release a new one every month. It shows May '24 vs. May '23 plus YTD for both years. It breaks down sales by model, including a couple sub-models like the all-electric F150 Lightning. They also show totals for car/SUV/truck and BEV/hybrid/ICE. Contrary to popular belief, these are sales to end customers, not wholesales to dealers.

Other pages show inventory and production at each plant. Tesla discloses a tiny fraction of this data. They are much less transparent.

Transparency isn't always your friend...and Tesla knew that early on. Lessons learned early might motivate them to maintain some secrecy today, whether or not its still really needed.

Early on, Telsa's lack of transparency was needed to avoid certain (false) criticisms due to their "Delivery Wave" pattern.

When it was just Fremont, "the wave" of deliveries was enormous. If I remember correctly, the first month of the quarter was dedicated to production for Europe and other countries...and those cars would be shipped and delivered sometime in the 3rd month of the quarter. Likewise, the next phase of production was for deliveries in North America, but far from Fremont...again, with deliveries happening in the 3rd month of the quarter. And, as the last month of the quarter hit, production was targeted for deliveries closer and closer to the factory.

So, there were miniscule deliveries in the first month...and huge deliveries in the third month. And, sometimes the pattern would shift a bit when, for example, one region got huge incentives starting so Tesla would shift deliveries there to capitalize on it.

At the time the other manufacturers released monthly data...and Tesla got criticized for not being "transparent." Tesla only released data quarterly, knowing the "low" deliveries in the first month would look bad to uninformed or nefarious analysts. Elon even said several times that their deliveries were lumpy, so people would "read too much" into monthly data. It made sense to anybody who was paying attention and being honest.

HOWEVER, even in those days, assorted sleuths would try to figure out the monthly delivery numbers...and the first month of the quarter would look low, and there would be articles written about the "demand cliff." Of course deliveries would continue to grow and come back up by the 3rd month, just like it had done in the previous quarter...and of course there would NOT be articles on the "demand surge" from those same analysts.

MAYBE Tesla could have released monthly data back then, with a bunch of boilerplate explaining their delivery wave. Personally, I don't think that would have stopped the critics -- headlines would be about the numbers, not the explanation. And the headlines could have even used technically-honest but misleading and emotion-driving statements like "Tesla ADMITS deliveries are down in January!"

Personally, I'm okay with Tesla not breaking out every scrap of data for nefarious parties to dissect and report selectively so they can generate clicks and/or push whatever narrative they want to push.
 
8 grand installed for the superior power wall 3 compared to EPCUBE at nearly 10 grand for the 13kw battery with much lower output power. Not sure you are up to date. Cheaper batteries are available but lower power generally. Tesla is good value, but does not offer rock bottom specs.
Need to go with this to some sort of solar sub-forum.

You are in Scotland and the other poster who replied is from Italy. This is perhaps much different from the US of A.

Estimate 30-40 kWh full solar system installed with battery backup such as this one: 31kWh This is 20K for the system 5K for install. 30% rebate.
Estimate 31 kWh from Tesla with PW3 and install. It will likely be ~60K+ to get the same outputs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunwarriors
Indeed. I wont clutter the thread with a photo, but I'm here in the garden in the UK looking right at my stone tile roof that was built in 1750. Its not exactly pristine, but its still there!

1750 is a new-build house. New-fangled tiles! Not a real house unless thatched. /s
Check out your local church to see old, but distinctly NOT thatched.
I suspect this might even be considered off-topic even though both the one by you and the older original are in Tesla served cities and have nothing to do with Norway or California.
 
Owning a Model S, X, or Cybertruck changes the equation here just because those vehicles are so much more expensive. People buying sports cars, sports trucks, or fancier SUVs are more likely to have the finances to support something like FSD and the cost makes more sense when the original cost of the vehicle is so much higher.

But most of Teslas sales are 3s/Ys aimed at frugal buyers who are likely at least partially motivated by the low maintenance and fuel costs, and I think that’s where you’ll probably see less uptake. The cost of FSD is much higher as a proportion of the original vehicle cost, and those buyers are more likely to be budget-conscious.
For the US anyway, the premise is not hard to test. What proportion of each model have been purchased by people eligible for the IRA benefits. I only have anecdotal evidence. When I took delivery of my Model Y in February there were seven others taking delvery at the same time as I did. Only one, according to a Tesla employee i asked, had accepted the IRA.

My guess is that the majority of IRA eligible people are not inclined towards BEV. Oddly, I also think Elon's fixation with lowered price is a wise move and will dramatically increase markets.
Optimizing that will also require major alterations in sales and delivery locations which are now skewed very much towards higher income populations, at least in the countries and regions with which I have knowledge.
 
But most of Teslas sales are 3s/Ys aimed at frugal buyers who are likely at least partially motivated by the low maintenance and fuel costs, and I think that’s where you’ll probably see less uptake. The cost of FSD is much higher as a proportion of the original vehicle cost, and those buyers are more likely to be budget-conscious.
I don’t necessarily disagree. But the contrarian argument would be that many Tesla owners of model three and Y have already made the “Tesla Stretch“. Maybe that means they have less room to stretch… Maybe it means that, like me, they’re more stretchy. Nobody knows.

Many of these people also prioritize, tech and safety and, like myself there are also many who have no payments left on their vehicle, these are prime candidates for software as a service add-ons.

I guess what I’m saying is that it may not be as simple as the argument you’re making. You’ve never seen anything like this before and I think it’s impossible to predict the outcome.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: ShareLofty
I don’t necessarily disagree. But the contrarian argument would be that many Tesla owners of model three and Y have already made the “Tesla Stretch“. Maybe that means they have less room to stretch… Maybe it means that, like me, they’re more stretchy. Nobody knows.

Many of these people also prioritize, tech and safety and, like myself there are also many who have no payments left on their vehicle, these are prime candidates for software as a service add-ons.

I guess what I’m saying is that it may not be as simple as the argument you’re making. You’ve never seen anything like this before and I think it’s impossible to predict the outcome.

I think the proof in the pudding is when Elon comes out or Tesla breaks out detailed FSD adoption rates after the free trial. If the uptake from all free trial people was a very high percentage (30%+), I think bulls here (and anyone, me included) would agree it's a massive stock mover and would be greatly celebrated. All we've seen was that 2% report (Elon said lies on that one).

Until then, my belief is that it's still low since there is little/no reason not to publish this number and you'll see it reflected in the earnings release as well as stock up movement.


If you look at the typical Tesla MY driver in southern CA (I assume northern too, maybe I am generalizing, but look for yourself), it's usually an immigrant female who I'd guess, doesn't care about FSD and like most of that demographic, generally well off people (these aren't even stretch buyers), and they are very tight with their $$, hence, well off due to good savings.

People in general, hate monthly subscription/fees which feels to nickle and dime you. You can see other forums with Blue Cruise, Supercruise and a lot of people aren't buying the sugar (monthly charges). Even that well off buyer here had to debate himself whether a $10/monthly fee on Premium connectivity was worth it for his use case (maybe he can confirm if he is paying now as a data point).


Remember, you've tried to get your co-workers to switch to EVs and maybe you are also invested in TSLA so there might be some bias. If you aren't using FSD extensively, it's just $$ down the drain for many folks and it's not a very miniscule amount. Just my contrarian argument (especially here, I think yours is actually the belief here).
 
I got some smiley faces a few weeks back when I said that maybe Nvidia should be worried about us instead of us worrying about Nvidia. Given huge margins at Nvidia, isn't it possible that we can undercut them when it comes to training ... especially if we have better software? (I freely admit my ignorance in this area and ask the question again in the hopes it will stir some debate.)


Edit:
Then HW5, which has been renamed to AI5, in the second half of next year. The Tesla AI5 computer has ~10X the capability of HW4 computer and Tesla makes the whole software stack. Elon
 
Last edited:
I got some smiley faces a few weeks back when I said that maybe Nvidia should be worried about us instead of us worrying about Nvidia. Given huge margins at Nvidia, isn't it possible that we can undercut them when it comes to training ... especially if we have better software? (I freely admit my ignorance in this area and ask the question again in the hopes it will stir some debate.)


Edit:
Then HW5, which has been renamed to AI5, in the second half of next year. The Tesla AI5 computer has ~10X the capability of HW4 computer and Tesla makes the whole software stack. Elon

tEsLA is JuSt a CaR COmpAnY!
 
I got some smiley faces a few weeks back when I said that maybe Nvidia should be worried about us instead of us worrying about Nvidia. Given huge margins at Nvidia, isn't it possible that we can undercut them when it comes to training ... especially if we have better software? (I freely admit my ignorance in this area and ask the question again in the hopes it will stir some debate.)


Edit:
Then HW5, which has been renamed to AI5, in the second half of next year. The Tesla AI5 computer has ~10X the capability of HW4 computer and Tesla makes the whole software stack. Elon
Can someone explain to me why Elon talks compute in terms of Energy?
 
I got some smiley faces a few weeks back when I said that maybe Nvidia should be worried about us instead of us worrying about Nvidia. Given huge margins at Nvidia, isn't it possible that we can undercut them when it comes to training ... especially if we have better software? (I freely admit my ignorance in this area and ask the question again in the hopes it will stir some debate.)

Nvidia makes most of their money selling hardware / chips. They seem to not only hold a significant lead in terms of the processing power for their chips but also when it comes to their efficiency. They already have competition in the form of AMD and Google, but there's a lot of inertia in the field, as Nvidia solutions are favored by the existing software solutions. In any case, the chances of tesla competing with Nvidia on chips are minuscule. Less money, less expertise and virtually no vertical integration or ability to push their solution like Google has.

What tesla could do is sell compute as a service. Essentially competing with Azure, AWS and GCP. But Tesla has nothing of the infrastructure or customers for this. There's no reason to believe they'll outcompete companies with loads of expertise and virtually unlimited financial resources in a game they've been playing for a long time.

This isn't like BEVs where you had actual technical developments that made electric vehicles feasible and a clear departure from existing architectures.
 
Can someone explain to me why Elon talks compute in terms of Energy?

You're right, he does make a lot of references to the power consumption of the hardware, and not as often in terms of the FLOPS or whatever computing metric people use nowadays.

In this case, however, he's talking about the cooling tower itself...so it makes sense to describe it in terms of the power it can dissipate, and therefore the power of the hardware it can cool. And from a "factory/building owner" perspective, running all the electrical power, and the cooling lines, etc. is the specification that is more at the forefront in the building design and construction. And similarly, for the compute power integrated into the car or an optimus bot...it is again the cooling and power requirements that need to be worked in the design. So maybe, from the persepective of Elon/Tesla, power just ends up being the metric that they focus on the most.

*Edited to add more thoughts.
 
Can someone explain to me why Elon talks compute in terms of Energy?
Because it is one number that describes it all? It is, also, your limiting factor. You have x available power for running chips and cooling, regardless of what kind of chips they are or how efficient they are. They used "H100 equivalents" to describe compute once, and people misinterpreted that, and complained about it as well.

Otherwise, you end up saying something like 100k TOPS of compute plus 150k BTUs of cooling. Which really isn't any more meaning full. Especially since they are installing NVidia H100s, Tesla HW4 chips, Dojo 1.x chips, Tesla AI5 chips, probably AMD xxxx chips, etc.

And you don't only need power for the chips and cooling, you need it for the networking, storage, and all the other necessary ancillary services/devices.
 
Last edited: