You keep missing that the entire S&X supply line and production system is sized for ~100k cars a year. Just getting more battery cells/packs isn't going to allow them to increase production.
-
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
You keep missing that the entire S&X supply line and production system is sized for ~100k cars a year. Just getting more battery cells/packs isn't going to allow them to increase production.
I think a combination approach is best, but I'd like to see them keep the better/newer technology moving into the cars. I'd prefer to see them move the 18650 technology more into the storage space, where the overall reliability and maximum battery capacity impact is I think less impacted by higher states or charge (SOC) more frequently. Most battery backup systems spend more time at capacity, dipping into capacity and going back UP to capacity. Whereas, in the cars there is much more charging CLOSE to capacity, running down CLOSE to low SOC and running back up CLOSE to capacity.
Can't keep up with this thread, but I wanna make a few comments on what's happening.
Tesla reducing the price by $2000 is most likely just keeping the cost of US Tesla sales in line with the cost of Europe and China Tesla sales because it is likely that the cost of shipping a Tesla to Europe and China is around $2000. Therefore, by lowering US prices by $2000, it expands their addressable market, create good will, and keeps cost in line.
Next, I want to take a moment to address Apple for a second before relating back to Tesla. Apple lowered their Q1 sales forecast and they blame it on China. But I think that's not the real reason. Apple is a classic case of the innovator's dilemma, where they are doing incremental improvements and increasing their profit margins. They can't or won't compete in the lower priced smartphone, and we see that from Apple abandoning the low priced iPhone 5c and SE. Instead, they retreated to even higher priced models (iPhone X/XS) to get even higher profit margins. This makes them very susceptible to being disrupted by low priced competitors because the low priced phones now finally have good enough performance for most.
Apple had the beautiful position of ~60% gross margins on their iPhones and a stunning ~90% of the smartphone industry's profit margins for years! Most smartphone makers actually lost money because Apple and Samsung had over 100% of the profits. What Apple did of increasing the average smartphone prices to get higher profits is likely a very poor strategic choice. This is because by raising all of their smartphone prices, and thus raising the industry average smartphone price, they allowed their struggling competitors to raise prices and bring themselves out of negative profit margins. That allowed Apple competitors to out-innovate Apple in various areas and slowly but acceleratingly eat away at Apple's sales. What Apple should have done is LOWER their iPhone prices. They still would have had a very healthy profit margin of say 40-50%, but it would have wiped out their competitors because Apple represent the ceiling of smartphone prices, and by lowering them, they lower average smartphone prices, and bring their competitors into further losses. This reduces competition and innovation from competitors, and likely would have been much better for Apple in the long run.
Now going back to Tesla. Tesla's decision to lower prices is, in my opinion, a fantastic strategic choice. By passing on savings to consumers as they improve production efficiency, they lower their prices, and make it THAT much harder for the competition that struggles to make a profitable EV. This has the strategic advantage of reducing the growth rate of competitors, which has side effects of reducing their innovation due to lowered profits that leads to lower R&D budgets. Tesla's continual price reduction is very smart to increase its EV moat against competitors, and the competition should be sweating bullets with Tesla's move of passing on savings.
Tesla reducing the price by $2000 is most likely just keeping the cost of US Tesla sales in line with the cost of Europe and China Tesla sales because it is likely that the cost of shipping a Tesla to Europe and China is around $2000. Therefore, by lowering US prices by $2000, it expands their addressable market, create good will, and keeps cost in line.
Next, I want to take a moment to address Apple for a second before relating back to Tesla. Apple lowered their Q1 sales forecast and they blame it on China. But I think that's not the real reason. Apple is a classic case of the innovator's dilemma, where they are doing incremental improvements and increasing their profit margins. They can't or won't compete in the lower priced smartphone, and we see that from Apple abandoning the low priced iPhone 5c and SE. Instead, they retreated to even higher priced models (iPhone X/XS) to get even higher profit margins. This makes them very susceptible to being disrupted by low priced competitors because the low priced phones now finally have good enough performance for most.
Apple had the beautiful position of ~60% gross margins on their iPhones and a stunning ~90% of the smartphone industry's profit margins for years! Most smartphone makers actually lost money because Apple and Samsung had over 100% of the profits. What Apple did of increasing the average smartphone prices to get higher profits is likely a very poor strategic choice. This is because by raising all of their smartphone prices, and thus raising the industry average smartphone price, they allowed their struggling competitors to raise prices and bring themselves out of negative profit margins. That allowed Apple competitors to out-innovate Apple in various areas and slowly but acceleratingly eat away at Apple's sales. What Apple should have done is LOWER their iPhone prices. They still would have had a very healthy profit margin of say 40-50%, but it would have wiped out their competitors because Apple represent the ceiling of smartphone prices, and by lowering them, they lower average smartphone prices, and bring their competitors into further losses. This reduces competition and innovation from competitors, and likely would have been much better for Apple in the long run.
Now going back to Tesla. Tesla's decision to lower prices is, in my opinion, a fantastic strategic choice. By passing on savings to consumers as they improve production efficiency, they lower their prices, and make it THAT much harder for the competition that struggles to make a profitable EV. This has the strategic advantage of reducing the growth rate of competitors, which has side effects of reducing their innovation due to lowered profits that leads to lower R&D budgets. Tesla's continual price reduction is very smart to increase its EV moat against competitors, and the competition should be sweating bullets with Tesla's move of passing on savings.
anthonyj
Stonks
Does it really even matter? Point is the media/shorts control the narrative. Doesn’t look like that’s changing anytime soon no matter how well Tesla performs. It’s sad really. Hopefully Apple or SpaceX can take a 10% stake so we can finally breakout
TE is defined by chemistry (NMC vs NCA), not form factor. With 2170 as the more optimum form factor, no reason to develop products with lesser cells. Beyond supply capacity, could make 18650 modules for Megapack...
MartinAustin
Active Member
They could introduce a 120kWh (or bigger) pack that uses the 21-70 battery cells. But keep producing the 75 and 100kWh packs with 18650 until demand falls off. Tesla tends to "crossfade" across battery size improvements in this manner. New battery pack sizes and performance envelopes usually come with even higher base prices, to exploit those that can afford it. The P120D could come with a $140,000 base price, and a fat profit margin since it's using batteries developed for Model 3 that are actually quite inexpensive.
Also, some have expressed worry that Panasonic will be able to sell 18650 batteries to "whoever wants them" after Tesla is finished with that format, and find themselves undermined by rivals. Some thoughts on that -
- Tesla's mission is to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. Shutting down 18650 battery production, or stifling the access to 3rd party auto producers, would definitely be contrary to that mission!!! Tesla tends to help other companies, not stifle them (except via the undeniably gentlemanly approach of superior innovation), if they are executing on the same mission.
- Tesla co-owns the adaptation of Panasonic's original 18650 formula that they co-developed for their automotive purposes. So these aren't the 18650 batteries that would go into vaping devices, for example. But it does mean they're probably well-suited to automotive applications. If other companies want to buy these cells - the kind that enabled the world's fastest-accelerating car of all time, the Model S P100DL+, I am sure Tesla would be happy to be sell them at a profit and so would Panasonic. In fact they could probably be sold at a higher price than Tesla has been paying for them.
- With older factories/lines still operating, Tesla can always dip into this excess capacity if it needs more batteries for powerwalls or other cars like the even-cheaper "Generation 4" car that was mentioned a couple of years ago. Keeping priority access to 18650 battery capacity ensures Tesla can respond to weather emergencies, big national-level policy changes, or other market demand moves.
I don't think you'll regret that, but it probably wasn't worth the sale. I almost bought some jan330 for 4$ earlier today. Next week 335$ couldn't have been more than about 1.5$.. I mean it's something. Probably a safe bet.
MartinAustin
Active Member
It was started by a troll, innocently asking about a rumored refresh that has no official schedule so as to distract us
I think you would need a FactSet subscription to see that data. From https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...timates/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.af6a40381062:
Essentially analysts made up numbers and Tesla missed them and that is bad. The fact that Tesla met the guidance that they provided for Q4 is meaningless.
In the case of tornado, it might be illegal. Crossing median strip or otherwise crossing double yellow. In the case of flood, say you're already in 1-2 feet of water. The car will not see lane markings etc., so it might not be super easy to figure out where the road is and where you need to go for the best chance of success - forward or back. So, it's not just a question of physical turn, but what the FSD was allowed to do as far as violating rules and otherwise picking the best route for escape in limited visibility conditions.
Hey look, an article just popped up about this today. Seems like everything is on track.
Tesla Is Close to Model 3 Approval for Europe Sales
And giving up the advantage of having both cars build on the same platform?
That's a very small group of customers to invest all those resources in a new battery pack. Plus, they don't have any extra 21-70 batteries. That would mean giving up Model 3 sales or Tesla Energy sales when they could keep using 18650s like they have been doing.
There may be some competitive reason to make the change down the road, but it doesn't make sense today. Maybe when they have excess battery capacity.
I’m saying this a lot, but it bears repeating: Also, said analysts were strangely not giving those numbers until *after* the real ones came out.
It’s like when, as kids, we’d play the “I’m thinking of a number” game: one person says “I’m thinking of a number”, then the other person has to try to guess it and the first says whether or not they were correct. If the second person was correct, they win, otherwise, the first person won. Guess who would tend to win?
Interesting take, here are my thoughts.
What you are saying about Apple is true if this was years ago. The problem with smartphones is that performance per user experience has peaked. The user experience of a faster phone is becoming negligible. So a lot of budget phones (like a LG V35) being sold for 300 bucks are way more than good enough.
This will happen to the EV market as well. As battery prices drop and every car can get you 600 miles range with good autonomous features, there's little reason to get the top of the line vs the budget ones unless flaunting that status is your thing.
This is why I place my bet on Tesla being the energy company to supply the batteries vs a car company with mountains of competition 10 years from now.
sundaymorning
Active Member
Replying to
@CharlieMilton
@Reuters
and 2 others
Weirdly, all the negative press seems to increase sales!
Right. I made around $4,500, but I put over 3,000 of my shares at risk. Definitely not worth it if the stock shoots up to $400 and never comes back down..., but I don't see a break-out happening in the next 8 days.
What these professionals seem to be missing but we can see is clear data
Perhaps a year later they do?
Don’t bother. If you ask Wall Street to project 6-12 months into the future they come up with some BS small number to sink the share price. Then magically few weeks before the sales release they come up with big numbers to make sure Tesla’s number disappoints. Example AJ at MS didn’t think Tesla will come close to ramp M3 yet his latest note to clients had him all disappointed. He didn’t think Tesla could hit 5K/wk.
And for our trusted media journalist they find one single biggest projection and conclude a big miss.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
