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.
So I saw the following advertisement here in the forums.. I couldn't help but click it. I consider it dual-purpose, transfer $ from Audi, send it to TMC..... Google gets their cut, whatever. The site was horribly lacking in details on range and performance where the link takes you. You have to navigate to the main page by URL editing to find out it has a 160mi range, where they claim the Model X has a 144.5mi range. (where do they get that? And it only gets 160mi range from a 95kWh battery? Whoah inefficiency!)
(EDIT: I discovered those numbers are the estimated range you get from 30 minutes of charging..)
ConsidereTron.JPG
 
Last edited:
So I saw the following advertisement here in the forums.. I couldn't help but click it. I consider it dual-purpose, transfer $ from Audi, send it to TMC..... Google gets their cut, whatever. The site was horribly lacking in details on range and performance where the link takes you. You have to navigate to the main page by URL editing to find out it has a 160mi range, where they claim the Model X has a 144.5mi range. (where do they get that? And it only gets 160mi range from a 95kWh battery? Whoah inefficiency!)View attachment 373746
Found it, they are talking about charging speed...

On first glance I also thought they are talking about range.

upload_2019-2-1_14-17-59.png


Additionally, they claim that 30 minutes charging with 150kW charging station provide 80% of charge. Coupled with the estimate of 160 miles range from 30 mins -> 200 miles range.

I searched in past electrek articles. It seemed like they initially claimed ~300 mile range, and adjusted down to 250 miles. Now it seems like reality is even harsher than that.
 
Last edited:
I disagree strongly, that's a very U.S. centric view - while SUV sales have indeed been increasing in the U.S., where roads are generally wider, gas prices are much lower and high earners tend to have their own garage space, in Europe it's not such a strong trend, both large SUVs and mid-size SUVs are still only a tiny percentage of the market:

European sales 2017 Premium Large SUV segment - carsalesbase.com

"Sales of premium large SUVs in Europe declined in 2017 after three consecutive years of explosive growth during which 100.000 annual sales were added. A lack of new products may be responsible for the slowdown which caused sales to slip 6% to 270.000 units, or 1,7% of the overall European car market, down from 1,9% in 2016."

European sales 2017 Premium Midsized and Compact SUV segments - carsalesbase.com

Sales of midsized premium SUVs in Europe continue to boom with a fourth consecutive year of double digit growth, of which the last three years showed at least 20% growth. In 2017, the segment grew by 21% to a record 492.500 sales, or 3,2% of the overall European car market, up from 2,7% in 2016.​

So yes, even in Europe SUVs are a nice growth segment, especially when gas prices are not super high - but the real money comes from sedans and compact cars.

Oil prices are another factor: SUV sales tend to go down when gas prices go up sharply - a larger car has worse fuel economy.

So IMO it was the right decision to start with the sedan form factor:
  • it's easier to sell in Europe and other regions with old cities and dense urban traffic,
  • but it's also cheaper to make and thus easier to scale up to larger manufacturing output.
Even in the EV space, with 50% of Tesla's market being the U.S., there's no clear shift of SUV vs. sedan, if we look at Tesla's recent sales of S vs. X there's no real shift in demand, the last 4 quarters were 50%/50%:

Code:
  2017/Q3 14,065 11,865
  2017/Q4 15,200 13,120
  2018/Q1 11,730 10,070
  2018/Q2 10,930 11,370
  2018/Q3 14,470 13,190
  2018/Q4 13,500 14,050

In 3 quarters there were more S sales than X sales, and in 3 quarters there were more X sales than S sales, with the total unit count favoring the S a bit more, which is also an effect of its slightly lower entry price (S starts at $85k, X at $88k, 3.5% more expensive).

The shift towards SUVs in the U.S. is:
  • in part due to consumer preference (a larger, taller car is more practical),
  • in part due to more road and parking space,
  • in part due to lower oil prices and improving ICE car fuel economy reducing the 'pain at the pump' factor,
  • in part due to lackluster sedan offerings on the domestic U.S. market.
While it's no doubt SUVs will become more popular as EVs drastically improve fuel economy, my guess is that the 50-50% equilibrium shown by Model S/X sales is probably the natural preference of customers globally, all other things equal. Sedan sales are no way going to zero - as the Model 3 has shown it already.

In fact as Tesla walks down the price ladder consumers tend to become more price sensitive, and the fundamental cost difference between SUVs and sedans will shift demand more towards sedans as we go to $35k cars and below.

After reading this I kind of get the impression that if Y is made in Nevada, that perhaps the majority of Fremont factory output from mid-2020 onwards will be for Europe. (At least until a Europe GF eventuates in the early-mid 2020s)
 
I think this a very Eurocentric view.

The Chinese not only prefer bigger cars but they prefer the Model X over Model S specifically for Falcon Wing Doors.

Many Americans avoid Model X specifically because of Falcon Wing Doors. Put conventional doors on Model X and sales would increase substantially in the US.

South Koreans also prefer bigger cars.

US/Canada/China/South Korea long term represent at least 2/3 of Tesla vehicle sales IMO.

Long term Tesla SUV will outsell Tesla sedans at least 2:1
Model Y should be upwards of 3:1 or even 4:1. EV suv has way less penalties vs ICE SUV. 12-15bMPG really sucks! Totally agree had the X had regular doors the vehicle mixed would be crazy high for the X.
 
On that note, I find that not frequently changing ones avatar helps others to associate a new post with the goodwill already accrued by the poster.

But I am that guy who buys three identical shirts. Well, if I feel adventurous they may be of different colors.
I have to say that really IS a nice tee shirt. :D
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that section is very confusing/misleading.

Isn't it interesting that they do not mention range at all? Combining both claims on the same page

1) (with 150 kW charging station) 30 mins of charging provides 160 miles
2) (with 150 kW charging station) 30 mins of charging provides 80% of battery capacity.

-> audi e tron range is only 200 miles with a 95 kWh battery.
 
Shoot. I messed up in my Capex summary of teslaQ complaints. That should read as 2018 Capex. Total 2018 Capex came in far below forecast 2018 Capex, indicating to teslaQ that Tesla didn’t have the cash to fund as much Capex as they wanted to.

Guidance for 2018 (in the SH letter for 4Q17 in Feb, 2018) was:

Capital expenditures in 2018 are projected to be slightly more than 2017. The majority of the spending will be to support increases in production capacity at Gigafactory 1 and Fremont, and for building stores, service centers, and Superchargers.
Total CapEX:
2017 $3.4 billion
2018 $2.1 billion

Whether the variance between guidance and actual CapEX for 2018 is attributable to: i) efficient spend or ii) conservation of cash depends on which faction is spinning the narrative. Probably, it was some combination of both. Also, beginning of the year guidance is predicated on multiple projections. Agile enterprises adapt to changes in circumstances (internal and external).

 
Found it, they are talking about charging speed...

On first glance I also thought they are talking about range.

View attachment 373748

Additionally, they claim that 30 minutes charging with 150kW charging station provide 80% of charge. Coupled with the estimate of 160 miles range from 30 mins -> 200 miles range.

I searched in past electrek articles. It seemed like they initially claimed ~300 mile range, and adjusted down to 250 miles. Now it seems like reality is even harsher than that.

That fits with its WLTP range.
50324531_2212545082117992_8871797713495130112_n.jpg


That's 237mi. And WLTP is more optimistic than EPA combined.
 
Isn't it interesting that they do not mention range at all? Combining both claims on the same page

1) (with 150 kW charging station) 30 mins of charging provides 160 miles
2) (with 150 kW charging station) 30 mins of charging provides 80% of battery capacity.

-> audi e tron range is only 200 miles with a 95 kWh battery.

Also, I love how these manufacturers love to compare their (well smaller than Model X) vehicles to the Model X ;) Cargo space in the E-Tron is even smaller than the Model S.
 
View attachment 373650

I think Vincent made a very good suggestion, which Tesla should consider in the future, not now, but probably 2-3 years down the road.

Chinese generally prefer larger cars, but they have relatively lower income/budget, so BMW/Mercedes/Audi all made long wheelbase version (locally manufactured in China) just to appeal to the Chinese middle class.

For those not familar with the long wheelbase China version: the 3-series Li (L means Long wheelbase) has about the same leg room as standard wheelbase 5-series, and the 5-series Li has about the same leg room as 7-series. Same for Mercedes C/E class, and Audi A4/A6.

Also note China is the worldwide biggest single market for BMW 7-series and Mercedes S class, the wealthy is very small percentage of the large China population but the absolute number is very big. So Model S&X are selling very well here, especially X.
Why don’t they just stick a 3 badge on a S and sell it as a 3L? Sorry probably the worse idea for Tesla in the next 5 years.
 
Guidance for 2018 (in the SH letter for 4Q17 in Feb, 2018) was:

Capital expenditures in 2018 are projected to be slightly more than 2017. The majority of the spending will be to support increases in production capacity at Gigafactory 1 and Fremont, and for building stores, service centers, and Superchargers.
Total CapEX:
2017 $3.4 billion
2018 $2.1 billion

Whether the variance between guidance and actual CapEX for 2018 is attributable to: i) efficient spend or ii) conservation of cash depends on which faction is spinning the narrative. Probably, it was some combination of both. Also, beginning of the year guidance is predicated on multiple projections. Agile enterprises adapt to changes in circumstances (internal and external).


The lower capex is due to the change to Model 3 production plans. They planned for most initial equipment to get to 5k/week before signing off on significant additional capex to get to 10k/week. Instead they decided to push the initial model 3 equipment to 7k/week with minimal capex, while accelerating plans to get to 3k/week in China, but with GF3 capex falling in 2019.
 
For Wall Street investment banks, getting Tesla's loan deal or not is really not that important. The overall profit from those deals is tiny. The loaner gets a few percent, the broker gets less than 1%. From this point of view, the investment banks don't care if Tesla becomes self sustained.

On the other hand, when a bank holds 500 million dollars of Put position, and if them manage to bankrupt the company, they could gain 5~20 billion dollars. I think that's why some of the investment banks hate Tesla so much (UBS? GS?).

Today 70,000 Puts reached a value of zero. It feels great.
 
Typical Chinese family have two generations live together or close by. Senior members would usually be driven by younger members, and rear seat leg room is very important because of that.
No. The real reason is Chinese are cheaper and want something bigger at a lower price. That’s typically how German car company price cars- bigger more expensive and commands the rich look. Being Chinese I can tell you my grand parents are about 8-12 inches shorter than me and definitely don’t need the leg room.
 
On the other hand, when a bank holds 500 million dollars of Put position, and if them manage to bankrupt the company, they could gain 5~20 billion dollars. I think that's why some of the investment banks hate Tesla so much (UBS? GS?).

Today 70,000 Puts reached a value of zero. It feels great.

Yeah, there was tons of betting on Tesla failing to repay:

upload_2019-2-1_23-2-11.png


Better luck next time. ;)