omg. This is how ignorance is created right here. It's amazing. You have an accurate income model on the other thread but you still doubt this number???!!?
What do you think the SR+ costs and what is your justification?
-
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
omg. This is how ignorance is created right here. It's amazing. You have an accurate income model on the other thread but you still doubt this number???!!?
What do you think the SR+ costs and what is your justification?
EVNow
Well-Known Member
I think SR+ costs around what SR sells for. That’s why Tesla emphasizes SR+.
BTW, DaveT had a question to Tesla directly on this and got an answer, which he posted here. And he mentioned you in that as well !
BTW, since you called what I wrote ignorance, let’s see your unimpeachable proof and evidence.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Tesla didn't have pre-existing contract with Chinese manufacture.
75% control allows you to control the JV. Not kinda sorta. Control.
BMW makes the decisions and controls the IP.
Like I said if another OEM that has never had a JV in China enters China they can get the same deal as Tesla. OEM needs to be pure BEV. China wants to discourage ICE and even PHEV. They want to encourage BEV. They don't want to add ICE capacity in China.
Because the Chinese government believes it is the future and will allow Chinese industry as a whole to dominate the automotive market of the future. Because it gives China energy independence from OPEC/Russia. Because it allows cleaner skies over Chinese cities. And it gives China a good image overseas regarding Climate Change, cleaning up the environment.
Tesla is squirrelly. If you look at how they frame autopilot related safety numbers it is particularly obvious how they are happy to distort statistics. I don't think the actual financial reported numbers allow for an extrapolation that the SR+ costs 35k$ to build but I'd be happy to see the math/logic that proves me wrong. Btw, I'm not saying any particular thing is ignorance I'm just saying there's a process of denial here, of wishful thinking, that leads to a convenient ignorance. I mean this forum has basically avoided this subject with an incredible force field for 9 months now, and it keeps getting excited about easy detours that take the pressure off the uncomfortable facts. And now we're down 50% because the market figured it out.
edit: If that didn't make sense it's because it's late. I'm prolly headed off now.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Are you following carsonight on DISQUS? Let's view a GF1/SR+ extract (full comment at 2nd link below):
So, this is quite a 'information-dense' snippet. Let's unpack the consequences:
That supports approx 3K SR+ at GF3, 4K SR+ 3K LR from Fremont during 2020H1 on 31.5 GWh/yr 2170s from Panasonic/GF1. That's 10K Model 3s/wk by Tesla 2020H1.
Once GF3 has it's own Grohmann SR+ battery building line, excess capacity at GF1 will be just in time to be used for Model Y production at Fremont.
Well played, Tesla. Let's get'er dun!
Cheers!
P.S. I continue to believe the Tesla Semi will be the first application for the new 'Maxcell' DBE technology bty cells. Telsa needs a estimated fleet of ~500 Semi's for it's internal Western U.S. logistics needs. A Semi test program provides the high duty miles needed but remains within the technical control of the battery program director. Simple to start adding external customers once its meeting its goals. And it leaves existing profit centers to continue working off CapEx (no 'Ozzie' effect).
carsonight | 9 hours ago
"I can tell you that GF1 is now pumping out roughly 1k SR battery packs per day, but that likely would be dismissed as well. At this point Tesla seems to have adopted a strategy of simply posting the numbers every three months and letting everybody make their own decisions."
"I can tell you that GF1 is now pumping out roughly 1k SR battery packs per day, but that likely would be dismissed as well. At this point Tesla seems to have adopted a strategy of simply posting the numbers every three months and letting everybody make their own decisions."
So, this is quite a 'information-dense' snippet. Let's unpack the consequences:
- GF1 is running the new Grohmann SR+ battery line about 22 hrs 15 min per day
- 1K SR+ packs / day production requires about 19 GWh/yr of 2170 cells
- if Panasonic continues 2170 output at 24 GWh/yr, that's 80% SR+ / 20% LR
- At 1K SR+ packs/day, that's enough for 200K Model 3 SR+ by the end of 2019
That supports approx 3K SR+ at GF3, 4K SR+ 3K LR from Fremont during 2020H1 on 31.5 GWh/yr 2170s from Panasonic/GF1. That's 10K Model 3s/wk by Tesla 2020H1.
Once GF3 has it's own Grohmann SR+ battery building line, excess capacity at GF1 will be just in time to be used for Model Y production at Fremont.
Well played, Tesla. Let's get'er dun!
Cheers!
P.S. I continue to believe the Tesla Semi will be the first application for the new 'Maxcell' DBE technology bty cells. Telsa needs a estimated fleet of ~500 Semi's for it's internal Western U.S. logistics needs. A Semi test program provides the high duty miles needed but remains within the technical control of the battery program director. Simple to start adding external customers once its meeting its goals. And it leaves existing profit centers to continue working off CapEx (no 'Ozzie' effect
).
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
This is a lot of conjecture, hand-waving and name calling, not the unimpeachable proof and evidence that @EVNow asked you for.
Do you have any links, citations and hard evidence, or at least a quote to a TMC comment that makes a substantial argument that can be replied to?
And that's straight out false, repeating a TSLAQ smear attack. Proof or you are basically just trolling at this point ...
Last edited:
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Note that in other comments Carsonight gave more details:
"I am told the Grohmann SR battery machine is producing them at the rate of one every 45 seconds, and that most of what is going to Fremont are SR. I was told for that reason Panasonic is producing cells as fast as Tesla can use them, and that the Tesla side of GF1 is producing batteries sometimes faster than Fremont can use them. I am told if there is any bottleneck now it is Fremont, that GF1 has had to pause for Fremont to catch up."
"The majority of production is currently the SR Model 3. Panasonic is sending batteries cells as fast as Tesla can use them, and Tesla is sending batteries to Fremont as fast as they can use them. I'm told production is currently something around 800 to 1100 batteries perweek day, depending on the machinery, with the average probably around 1000 per week day. I have no way to know what goes on at Fremont, so I do not know if all of those batteries are going into cars."
"The majority of production is currently the SR Model 3. Panasonic is sending batteries cells as fast as Tesla can use them, and Tesla is sending batteries to Fremont as fast as they can use them. I'm told production is currently something around 800 to 1100 batteries per
(The second comment probably meant "per day" - so I edited this accordingly and marked the edit.)
Nevertheless we should also keep in mind that Carsonight predicted ~78k Model 3 production for Q1, which was way off. He did acknowledge that error and his latest reports are more cautious with bigger error bars - but caveat emptor.
Last edited:
True. Then the car costs more, and to some degree because of advertising. However, the goal on mass BEV demand happens only when it's cheap enough, so there goes a shot in the foot. So what, advertise to the rich to pay even more on the low volume cash cow. They are all getting one already and that wave came and went partly in 2018.
Question could be asked - does it all catch on for $35K or does it need to go lower? Keep in mind that people aren't doing the math on total ownership, so they discredit themselves thinking who could afford that luxury? Throw in range anxiety and there are many many many sitting on the fence I'm sure. Funny thing just today, my wife came home and I found myself asking "How'd the car run?" Then I thought about that... as if, what, the motor was running rough or there was a gas smell or it didn't start right away?
People don't see all this value, and tend to fear the unknown, so that's why the prices need to stay low on the 3 especially. Plus, because this is such a huge change for many, they're more likely to believe their friend or relative over some commercial ad. Besides, they had a pretty big ad recently with FSD. I guarantee that brought in some cash flow.
I don't see that as a problem. I think Elon said that he rather sells more cheaper cars than fewer expensive cars. Makes sense. It is all about the number of cars now. The more cars there are the more data is generated for FSD and the more potential cars there are for the Robotaxi. The Robotaxi business is the main focus of Tesla now. The cars are sold now only the means for the Robotaxi business.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
No, I think that was me that predicted 78K... or was that the BB Tracker?
Carsonight is quite conscientious in always stating that his information is what he hears from people that work at GF1/Sparks, and that he is privy to no more information than you or I about what happens to the packs in Fremont.
I think it was Elon's tweet (Apr 22) that finally broke up the revelry here by telling us Panasonic was the production bottleneck since July, with cell production rate at just 24GW/yr rate during 2019Q1.
I therefore now reinstate the revelry/WAG'ing for Q2 production numbers: 75.6K Model 3s (because it rhymes).
In fairness, it sounds like 'S' deliveries will be the challenge, although pre-Raven 'X' inventory seems to be moving out quickly, w. Raven production still ramping.Cheers!
P.S. I have an idea for Elon on how to move out Model S pre-Raven inventory w/o having to resort to deep discounts: Start a waiting list now for 'Maxcell' battery pack swaps for the Model S only. Provide a Right of 1st Refusal to new 'S' owners when the upgrade becomes available. Make it clear that these special owners will get the new 'Maxcell' tech YEARS EARLIER than regular customers.
Also make sure that everybody understands that Model 3 and the upcoming Model Y DO NOT support fast battery swaps, thus will not be eligible for the swap program. DO make sure people understand their 'old tech' Model S will have over 500 miles range with the swap, and their all-aluminum bodies will last at least 25 years. Hell, throw in a free FSD computer (easy to do during the 'bty swap' appointment). That'll incentivize 'S' owners to upgrade to FSD, at a small discount to make it tantalizing.
Oh yeah, that'll move'em out. I want an 'S' already, but the prospect of getting one that keeps on getting better is just so TELSA! It's the incomparable flagship of a great company.
Last edited:
I spoke too early. There are now dozens of comments containing the usual fud.
A local (Antwerp) newspaper reports that the driver had already smelled a burning smell when he left in The Netherlands.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
The basis of my assumption is that he corrected himself to 'per day' in a later comment:
"I am told that battery production at GF1 is in the 800 to 1100 per day neighborhood, and those packs are going somewhere."
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Here's a quick update to the Model 3 inventory levels, with Q1 data added:
Note that I marked two fields with an estimation disclaimer: Tesla didn't disclose the exact Model 3 in-transit numbers in Q1, so I used the S/X in-transit percentage of 18.6% from Q1'18 to estimate 2,250 in-transit S/X units and 8,350 in-transit Model 3 units. The error bar should be less than ±500 units, maybe more if my assumptions are wrong.
This table is mostly telling the story we know: in-transit Model 3 units primarily increased due to not all of them arriving at customers in China and Europe, the "fleet" inventory increased moderately by 4,700 units, this is a sum of the following categories of inventory cars:
Code:
========|============|============|============|===========|================|=============
quarter | production | deliveries | Δinventory | inventory | transit | fleet
========|============|============|============|===========|================|=============
2017/Q2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0
2017/Q3 | 260 | 220 | +60 | 60 | 40 | 20
2017/Q4 | 2,425 | 1,550 | +875 | 935 | 860 | 75
2018/Q1 | 9,766 | 8,180 | +1,586 | 2,521 | 2,040 | 480
2018/Q2 | 28,578 | 18,440 | +10,138 | 12,659 | 11,166 | 1,493
2018/Q3 | 53,239 | 55,840 | -2,601 | 10,058 | 8,048 | 2,010
2018/Q4 | 61,394 | 63,150 | -1,756 | 8,302 | 1,010 | 7,292
2019/Q1 | 62,950 | 50,900 | +12,050 | 20,352 | 8,350 [est.] | 12,002 [est.]Note that I marked two fields with an estimation disclaimer: Tesla didn't disclose the exact Model 3 in-transit numbers in Q1, so I used the S/X in-transit percentage of 18.6% from Q1'18 to estimate 2,250 in-transit S/X units and 8,350 in-transit Model 3 units. The error bar should be less than ±500 units, maybe more if my assumptions are wrong.
This table is mostly telling the story we know: in-transit Model 3 units primarily increased due to not all of them arriving at customers in China and Europe, the "fleet" inventory increased moderately by 4,700 units, this is a sum of the following categories of inventory cars:
- Unsold inventory of 1-2 weeks of batch production: they started this in Q4, i.e. no Fremont slowdown but near full production rate at the end of the quarter.
- There might have been some build-up of pre-Raven S/X units despite the production cut, as customers were waiting for the Raven refresh. Tells you why ICE OEMs are so paranoid about test mules, camouflaging them ridiculously and punishing design and media leaks with an iron fist. You can bet the media outlet that leaks the details of a new car model that the carmakers don't want to see leaked yet won't receive a single VW, Daimler and BMW advertising dollar for a long time - so the media probably isn't leaking them even if employees are leaking it. Tesla doesn't have that kind of leverage.
- U.S. showroom and test drive units which they probably depleted in Q4 but which they had to refill in Q1 due to the retail showroom turnaround and seasonal patterns.
- Increased showroom, test drive and service units in the rest of the world that is now selling Teslas.
Last edited:
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
No, I think that was me that predicted 78K... or was that the BB Tracker?
Yes, Carsonight reported ~6k/week production rate from GF1 in Q1, which is 78k for Q1:
Disqus - Tesla Gigafactory 3 is now going up at incredibly fast pace, video shows
"None. I'm going to be teasing some people about this. I've been told 6k plus per week like a litany."
"None. I'm going to be teasing some people about this. I've been told 6k plus per week like a litany."
He derived that number from a flawed cell supply of 27.5 GWh/year which he calculated from:
- the number of production lines (correct data),
- the fact that they were supply limited (correct data),
- and the actual machine throughput figures that were reported to him (correct PEAK data but incorrect effective production throughput data)
If we adjust that with a 24/27.5 factor then his 6k/week battery packs figure becomes less than 5.2k/week and less than 68k Model 3 units - much closer to the eventual 63k Q1 production rate.
In his Q2 related comments Carsonight stopped using any cell supply figures, instead he relied on 'factory floor' battery pack production rates he got from employees apparently - the numbers you cited. That should be a lot more robust - assuming he is honest (which I think he is).
I still trust the honesty of Carsonight's reporting for Q2 as well and think that he is genuine, and his latest attempt should be more accurate if it's honest, but of course in the end it's just the hearsay report of a single anonymous, unverified person on the Internet. Not advice.
Last edited:
RobStark
Well-Known Member
But he would rather sell more more expensive cars.
Elon would rather sell 350k Model 3s with an ASP of $55k than 350k Model 3s with an ASP of $43k this year. A $55k Model 3 can just as easily robotaxi as a $43k Model 3.
People say they trust a friend/family member more than advertising.
That may be true. Yet, fact is advertising works. You can have paid advertising on top of free advertising(which largely reaches the already converted) and word of mouth endorsements.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
What Do We Know About Tesla Owners? | CleanTechnica
The Hedges Company has also released some fascinating stats on Tesla owners.
Hope that isn't too much text quoted from article. Very good article with more information.
The Hedges Company has also released some fascinating stats on Tesla owners.
- The average household income of a Tesla Model X owner is $143,177 per year. A Tesla Model 3 owner household makes $128,140 per year.
- Compared to a median age of 38 for the US population, the median age of a Model X owner is 52 years old, and the median age of a Model S owner is 54. The median age of a Tesla Model 3 owner is 46 years old. Tesla has tapped a demographic which is willing to step well outside of their normal price range in order to get the Model 3, it seems.
- The Model X has a higher percentage of women owners. Women own 29% of Model X vehicles, and men own 71%. The Tesla Model S, a 4-door sedan, tends to have more male ownership than the Model X. Males own 77% of Model S vehicles, and women own 23%. Women only own 16% of Model 3’s, men own 84%.
- 88% of current Tesla Model S and X owners own their own home. That puts Tesla owners for these 2 models a full 21 to 24 percentage points higher for home ownership than the general population. Yet –only 56% of current Tesla Model 3 owners own their own home, which means that Tesla ownership is almost more important to this segment than is residential ownership.
Hope that isn't too much text quoted from article. Very good article with more information.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
I'd like to add that I consider this a valid viewpoint: we cannot know whether it's possible up to the moment it's done.
There were a lot of doubters of SpaceX's "can rockets be landed safely and reused economically" thesis, and those were rocket scientists.
Also note that historically Elon expressed more doubt about the ability to reuse rockets than about FSD. (!) So if you trust Elon's off the cuff remarks about future technologies I think that should count for something.
Finally, if we are doubting whether a computer can drive a car safer than humans we should also consider how really, incredibly, stupidly bad drivers we humans are. We humans falsely believe that we can drive safely, and kill more than 1 million people a year trying ...
Even if the safety and regulatory bar is unfairly set much higher for an FSD car than for human drivers, isn't all that high.
So yes, I think this is another "computers won't be able to beat the chess world champion" kind of moment. They won't be able to, until they do, and then they leapfrog human chess players in ways that were hard to imagine originally.
Think about this: in two decades an FSD car will have enough processing power to file an insurance claim with estimated damages before the (at that point inevitable) crash actually happens. It might perform an online data exchange with all the other vehicles involved in the (inevitable) crash to change its behavior in the final 500-1000 milliseconds before the crash: which other car to crash into, which passengers/occupants are more vulnerable and should be protected more.
Sorry about my previous snarky reply, but I still think this is patently false if we consider safety an exercise in risk management.
Some people use taxis for leisure and convenience, but many people are using them due to urgency and the ability to arrive quickly point to point.
The point is that Tesla is free to make the business decision to require actual passengers to hold a driving license and act as a safety driver during a trip with passengers and possible valuable goods on board, at least in the initial phase. Just like AirBNB insists on the renting guest to hold a valid passport, credit card and requires them to sign a contract to be liable for damages at the host's home.
If the 'FSD car driving empty' experience is super safe to everyone but is simply inconvenient to its occupants - for example there's a nonzero percentage of trips that end in a 'remote driver' having to intervene, or a car having to park itself because it cannot continue, then it would be an entirely valid decision for Tesla to not carry passengers in that phase - even if it was 100% safe according to safety thresholds they (or regulators) are using.
I.e. as others here have remarked on it, my point is that the Tesla Network could be introduced as an automated car rental service initially. This already unlocks a healthy revenue stream, this market is ~28 billion dollars per year in the U.S. alone:
If we assume that the U.S. is about 20% all car rentals then the global market should be beyond 100 billion dollars.
Tesla would likely be able to match traditional car rental pricing, expand the market, and generate higher margins, due to the automated fleet management and the much more convenient "the rented car can drive to you" aspect.
Eventually they would offer full taxi service as well - but my point is that the "FSD rental car" technological milestone is easier to reach and is a stepping stone to an automated taxi service and "you can sleep in your car while it's driving" FSD autonomy levels.
Also note that 'empty car FSD' unlocks a number of service improvements for Tesla themselves:
- A Tesla that has developed a fault that requires service inspection could drive itself to the service center while you are at work, could be repaired there and could drive back by the time you need the car.
- "Test drives" could be automated to a large degree: anyone who signs up to the Tesla Network as a user would be able to experience the car for a few hours with no pressure and a modest taxi fee. (Tesla could even incentivize the first few test drives of new Tesla Network users.)
- New car delivery could be automated, the empty car could drive to the home of the owner, who would take delivery or send it back.
- Various convenience features could be implemented: 'FSD car wash' and detailing, where the car would drive itself to the car wash facility on a Friday during work hours to get prepped for a weekend trip, etc.
Last edited:
Costing Tesla $38k to build, or priced at $38k? I suspect the later, therefore costing the owner $38k.
GSP
ZachShahan
Active Member
Yes, just that statement about not getting a return.
But there's good stuff in there otherwise, so I figured I'd force anyone who clicked through to watch good stuff.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
