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

[KarenRei]

EV startup Rivian nets new $350M investment

Plymouth-based electric vehicle startup Rivian Automotive LLC announced Tuesday it netted a $350 million investment from Atlanta-based Cox Automotive as the automaker readies to produce its first vehicles.

The investment follows $500 million from Ford Motor Co., and $700 million from Amazon.com Inc. earlier this year. Rivian aims to launch its first electric pickup truck and electric SUV by 2021. The automaker is currently renovating an old Mitsubishi plant in central Illinois where it plans to start building those vehicles late next year.

I don't know if they'll be good at building EVs, but they're sure good at collecting cash.

 

[JRP3]

Model 3 and Model Y will be assembled in the same way - whatever way that may be. The whole point of them is that they're as similar as physically possible in all respects.

Y should be designed for the more modular wiring process than the 3, probably other manufacturing improvements as well.

 

[Reinhard]

Looks like I may have been wrong about the stock price movement.

I’d like to see Tesla doing this.

I think it’d be very beneficial to have Google, Apple, and Amazon buy small stakes (1-5%) in Tesla. I don’t think Tesla needs more money on the balance sheet, even in a recession, but it doesn’t hurt. And it sends an implicit to potential customers that Tesla is here for the long run.

I much prefer sending that message this way, rather than by paying for advertising.

Tesla: Wolfgang Porsche schließt Beteiligung nicht aus - manager magazin

Volkswagen co-owner Wolfgang Porsche apparently does not rule out a participation in the US electric car manufacturer Tesla. "One must always be allowed to think about everything," the 76-year-old said in response to questions from journalists at a VW event on the eve of the IAA motor show in Frankfurt. At the moment, however, Tesla is far too expensive.

It was only in August that Volkswagen had rejected a report in manager magazin according to which CEO Herbert Diess flirts with a stake in the electric car pioneer. Such speculations are pointless. manager magazin had quoted a high-ranking manager as saying that Diess "would get in immediately if he could".

The money was there, with the approval of the major shareholders, the Porsche and Piëch families, but it was difficult. A banker close to VW had said that Diess would like to have access to Tesla's software expertise, but that it was probably impossible to justify buying the whole company for this reason. On the stock exchange, Tesla is currently valued at 42 billion US dollars.

Meanwhile, Volkswagen presented the battery-powered ID.3 to a broad audience for the first time at the IAA. Over the next few years, the group intends to become the market leader in electric cars.

 

[Carl Raymond]

3 GAs can always with (relatively) minimal effort be converted to Y GAs. But GA is the least relevant thing that needs to be done before Y can come online. They need more body capacity, paint capacity, stamping capacity, moulding capacity, supplier capacity, cell capacity, pack capacity....

But the building of new GA line means there are plans to increase capacity (of 3 or Y). If they can make 3s, they can make Ys, no?

The idea of lines that can make either 3 or Y is appealing. If it’s not possible, I need somebody to explain to this thick head why it’s not. TIA.

 

[Esme Es Mejor]

EV startup Rivian nets new $350M investment

Plymouth-based electric vehicle startup Rivian Automotive LLC announced Tuesday it netted a $350 million investment from Atlanta-based Cox Automotive as the automaker readies to produce its first vehicles.

The investment follows $500 million from Ford Motor Co., and $700 million from Amazon.com Inc. earlier this year. Rivian aims to launch its first electric pickup truck and electric SUV by 2021. The automaker is currently renovating an old Mitsubishi plant in central Illinois where it plans to start building those vehicles late next year.

For that matter, I’d like to see Tesla sell small stakes (capped at 2-3%) to legacy automakers. Again, it would send a message to potential customers that the auto industry realizes that Tesla will be around for the long run.

If there’s a visible path to 2 Terawatts of batteries, the cash could be useful for speeding that path. And it could be useful to the legacy automakers, getting them the battery supply they don’t seem to have now, and perhaps it would lead to Tesla supplying legacy automakers with the highly efficient EV drivetrains that they have thus far been unable to develop themselves.

 

[KarenRei]

Y should be designed for the more modular wiring process than the 3, probably other manufacturing improvements as well.

Which should carry over to the 3. There's no logic to doing it differently. They're the same platform and made of mostly identical parts.

 

[KarenRei]

But the building of new GA line means there are plans to increase capacity (of 3 or Y). If they can make 3s, they can make Ys, no?

The idea of lines that can make either 3 or Y is appealing. If it’s not possible, I need somebody to explain to this thick head why it’s not. TIA.

I doubt body is as vehicle-flexible as GA (assuming GA5 is done like GA4, rather than some sort of "Alien Dreadnought" ). Maybe, though. Stamping, Y needs its own tooling for most bodywork. Moulding, much of it will be unique as well. Paint is common between all vehicles. Suppliers will be a mixed bag. Giga, should be able to allocate drive units, cells and packs to either without changes.

There's IMHO no question that Tesla should be able to readily adjust the 3/Y mix to a good extent in the future. But that doesn't let them get away with not having to tool specifically for the Y in a number of major regards. Any new changes to be introduced to the platform (such as major wiring changes) will also need a lot of work. And then there's the testing of early-production vehicles....

 

[JRP3]

Which should carry over to the 3. There's no logic to doing it differently. They're the same platform and made of mostly identical parts.

They may introduce new processes on the Y first. Keep the 3 lines going as is to avoid creating new problems and work the kinks out of the new processes on the low volume, (to start), Y, then go back and retrofit the 3 production lines.

 

[KarenRei]

They may introduce new processes on the Y first. Keep the 3 lines going as is to avoid creating new problems and work the kinks out of the new processes on the low volume, (to start), Y, then go back and retrofit the 3 production lines.

It's possible. Or it could be done in just the opposite manner - testing the changes before the Y even rolls out.

My personal suspicion? The order will simply be, "Whatever Tesla thinks they're ready with first" They're not one to hold back new tech for "new model versions"; they release when things are ready. Y will launch without wiring upgrades if they're not ready. 3 will get them before Y's out if they're ready first.

My suspicion, at least.

 

[Zaxxon]

I don't know if they'll be good at building EVs, but they're sure good at collecting cash.

I'm glad they're good at collecting cash, because I really want to see whether they can be good at building EVs. And starting out building EVs takes a lot of cash...

They may introduce new processes on the Y first. Keep the 3 lines going as is to avoid creating new problems and work the kinks out of the new processes on the low volume, (to start), Y, then go back and retrofit the 3 production lines.

That's my guess. I also agree with the thought that they're sandbagging start of Y volume production (no, not to the point that it's coming in 3 weeks like some crazy person said on here earlier today). A big part of the 3 ramp bad press was all perception. They said they'd do X/week by date Y, then had trouble doing that.

Stating fall 2020 start of deliveries, then having, say, quiet first production in June gives a nice cushion to get things rolling and meet respectable volume in the fall even if (when) issues crop up.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Frankly, this sounds like a whole lot of Hooydonk!

"Adrian van Hooydonk is a Dutch automobile designer and BMW Group's Design Director and best known for several modern BMW concept cars and production"

​

 

[mongo]

No. Everything at Fremont and Giga was designed for a peak capacity of 10k Model 3s per week. They failed in a number of ways to reach their design production rates (particularly in terms of a highly automated assembly system, with conveyors delivering parts to robots that install all the bendy bits). But Fremont is still full of systems designed for 10k/wk Model 3s, operating at below design capacity.

No, they did not make everything at 10k levels. They setup the first iteration with the intent to copy the pieces needed to hit 10k later.

From Q1 2017 letter:

Simultaneously, preparations at our production facilities are on track to support the ramp of Model 3 production to 5,000 vehicles per week at some point in 2017, and to 10,000 vehicles per week at some point in 2018.

Q3

We will provide an update when we announce Q4 production and delivery numbers in the first few days of January. With respect to the timing for producing 10,000 units per week, it has always been our intention to implement that capacity addition after we have achieved a 5,000 per week run rate. That will enable us to make the next generation of automation even better while making our capex spend significantly more efficient.

Q4 2017:

As we shared previously, in order to incorporate our learnings and be capital efficient, we intend to start adding enough capacity to get to a 10,000 unit weekly rate for Model 3 once we have first hit the 5,000 per week milestone.

Q1 18

Once we hit the 5,000 per week milestone, we intend to incorporate our learnings to continue to increase output on our existing manufacturing lines beyond 5,000 units per week, and then in a capital efficient manner to add incremental capacity to ultimately get to a 10,000 unit weekly rate.

Q2 18

Having achieved our 5,000 per week milestone, we will now continue to increase that further, with our aim being to produce 6,000 Model 3 vehicles per week by late August. We then expect to increase production over the next few quarters beyond 6,000 per week, while keeping additional capex limited. We believe that increasing capacity by improving utilization of our existing lines and making selective improvements to address bottlenecks rather than creating entirely new duplicated lines will be the most capital efficient approach. We aim to increase production to 10,000 Model 3s per week as fast as we can. We believe that the majority of Tesla’s production lines will be ready to produce at this rate by end of this year, but we will still have to increase capacity in certain places and we will need our suppliers to meet this as well. As a result, we expect to hit this rate sometime next year.

The switch in plans:
Q3 18

In order to significantly increase the affordability of Model 3, we have decided to accelerate our manufacturing timeline in China. We are aiming to bring portions of Model 3 production to China during 2019 and to progressively increase the level of localization through local sourcing and manufacturing. Production in China will be designated only for local customers.

Q4 18

Model 3’s production rate progressively improved through Q4, with December 2018 being our highest volume month ever. In our Fremont facility, we are now past the steep portion of the production S-curve, and we expect our production rate to continue to gradually improve. Every part of the Model 3 production process has demonstrated over a 24-hour period the ability to produce at an extrapolated rate of 7,000 vehicles per week. By the end of this year, we expect to be able to produce Model 3 at this rate on a sustained basis.

So the capEx heavy first round was only intended to hit 5k, and it is now near 7k on its way higher. Instead of investing more in the 10k/wk Fremont goal, they expedited GF3.

Hey, let's say that they've given up on every single Model 3 that's to come out of GF3 at peak production (3k). So only 7k/wk at Fremont, not 10k. So 91k per quarter. Q2 produced 72,5k Model 3s. So, your point? They're still way behind production goals even if you subtract the entire capacity of GF3

My point? You brought up them beung under 10k, which they are and gave said they are ok with. So it would be strange to reverse course and suddenly add a 3 line during the Y ramp up.

Says who?

Model 3 and Model Y will be assembled in the same way - whatever way that may be. The whole point of them is that they're as similar as physically possible in all respects.

I suppose they could be set up with robots and fixturing and programming that could do either car, but is that really a 3 line, or is it a Y line being temporarily used to build 3s?

Y will launch without wiring upgrades if they're not ready. 3 will get them before Y's out if they're ready first.

I'd sort of lean against dual path sourcing the wiring. That is a lot of NRE and tooling fir no result. It seems like Tesla would have already picked a path well before tooling launched and validated it on test vehicles.

 

[Maitri982]

It's possible the timing makes sense for a temp 3 line, but I'm not seeing it. They've been behind their original 10k a week goal since the beginning and have since guided for less from Fremont and more from GF3.

All those additional things are equally needed for 3k more Ys or 3k more 3s. However, a new Y line would have robots and tooling whereas a 3 line would be more manual. Why put in an additional manual 3 line when they need the space soon for the Y line? Assuming they even have the equipment laying around.
I suppose they could make a manual line that can do 3s now and Ys later. In that case, we'll see a GA6 permit soon.

I'm sticking with my prediction, Q1 for Y production beginning.

 

[RobStark]

I don't know if they'll be good at building EVs, but they're sure good at collecting cash.

Yeah, being good at building EVs is at the cutting edge of human knowledge.

Corporations like handing out $1.5B on very long shots.

 

[MarcusMaximus]

Yeah, being good at building EVs is at the cutting edge of human knowledge.

Corporations like handing out $1.5B on very long shots.

You say that as if it’s sarcastic, but there’s only one company really mass producing EVs right now; nobody else has cracked it. And even they barely survived the ramp up.

 

[CaliBear1]

"Adrian van Hooydonk is a Dutch automobile designer and BMW Group's Design Director and best known for several modern BMW concept cars and production"

​

And that's why this name will now be synonymous with bs! ;-)

 

[dc_h]

Note that the email from JG isn't necessarily about Model 3 production increase:

Tesla is preparing a mysterious production capacity increase - Electrek​

If they increased production beyond the 5-10% QoQ that would result in the estimated 100k-105k deliveries, where did those cars go? Europe, China and RHD countries seem to be accounted for, and InsideEVs's Q3 US delivery numbers are modest so far.

I don’t want to get to optimistic, which has led to a win not feeling very winlike. I do think USA sales will be up from Q2. It seems like west coast deliveries have been delayed to support exports and east coast shipping. I think Europe will be even, plus UK and Asia even but plus Australia. We have at least 4 more days of boat loading in Q3 vs Q2 to Europe. If we’re only up UK and Australia and even everywhere else, that’s at least 5000 added deliveries and likely closer to 7000. I’m up from 100,000 and guessing 103,000 with more upside potential than miss potential.
It’s all tea leaves until October, but I think production is up and they’re shipping and delivering as fast as possible.

 

[RobStark]

You say that as if it’s sarcastic, but there’s only one company really mass producing EVs right now; nobody else has cracked it. And even they barely survived the ramp up.

Only three have really tried.

Tesla, BYD, and Nissan.

Tesla and BYD seem to be doing ok. Nissan made bad design and marketing choices. Not lack of technical ability.

VW will try next year. I think they will do Ok was well. Not perfect. But Ok.

Geely,Byton,SAIC,BAIC, Rivian and perhaps Ford will try soon enough.

 

[kengchang]

F19-0017-E - Anchorage for various pieces of equipment. Mino BIW closure/underbody equipment.

Mino Automation USA, Inc. | Automation Solutions Systems Integrator for Intelligent Manufacturing

TECHNOLOGIES OF AUTOMATION
Virtual Commissioning (VC)
PVS Process Visibility System Envision
Vision Systems

Body In White (BIW) Production Systems concentrating on:

• Resistance Welding Systems

• Body Framing Systems

• Laser Application Systems

• Sealing Systems

• Hemming Systems

• Automated Transfer Systems

 

[dc_h]

TSLA was the #1 sold stock on Robinhood today. Over 700 accounts sold out their shares today. If retail is selling, institutions are buying (slowly)
Robintrack

This may be the first stock millennials sell for a 30% profit and regret selling the rest of their lives.