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.
Question about 2019 full year guidance of 360,000 to 400,000. And please don't just click the disagree button because you don't like the question.

Back when Elon tweeted that Tesla would sell 500,000 cars this year, prompting the SEC mess, I recall reading on this forum that this was NOT material information since Tesla had actually guided for 500,000 on the conference - everyone was saying that the 360,000-400,000 was Model 3 only, and then the S/X was 100k. Someone even challenged this and a poster provided a link to the transcript which proved this was indeed true.

But now, it seems like it's flipped BACK to full year guidance for all cars being 360,000 to 400,000. Is this correct or is my memory playing tricks on me?

360k is deliveries, production is higher, 500k was clarified to be build rate (as Elon stated on the Ark podcast recorded before the call)

They are guiding up to 500k production if not this year, then Q3 '19-Q2 '20:
Q1 update letter:
Although we are driving towards higher internal goals, we reaffirm our prior guidance of 360,000 to 400,000 vehicle deliveries in 2019,
representing an increase of approximately 45% to 65% compared to 2018. Please note that vehicle production will be significantly higher
than deliveries, as it takes several weeks to transport cars from California to distant customers, especially in other countries, where they must also be processed by customs. Deliveries, production and customer orders, which are all materially different, are often conflated
when analyzing Tesla.
If our Gigafactory Shanghai is able to reach volume production early in Q4 this year, we may be able to produce as many as 500,000 vehicles globally in 2019. This is an aggressive schedule, but it is what we are targeting. However, based on what we know today, being able to produce over 500,000 vehicles globally in the 12-month period ending June 30, 2020 does appear very likely.
 
The GF1 can't do 10k/w or panasonic can't do 10k/w is a Failure, at least on the standard we should hold tesla.

But everyone fails sometime. Let's focus on moving forward.


Disagree. The amount of money/ equipment/ space to get Fremont from 7k to 10k (along with near term GF1 pack supply to support it) may have been clearly the wrong choice compared to investing in a full line of improved equipment for GF3.
Especially if they are now able to find Y in Fremont due to that available space.

What if a big/ bulky/ expensive/ long lead piece of equipment turns out to max out at 8k/ wk? Why jump that section to a 16k/ week capacity just to boost output 2k?

In hindsight, even if Fremont could do 10k/ wk now, is there any indication GF1 could?
 
The GF1 can't do 10k/w or panasonic can't do 10k/w is a Failure, at least on the standard we should hold tesla.

But everyone fails. Let's focus on moving forward.

Yes, cell starvation is a fail on someone's part. However, I would say that the cell shortage makes the lack of Fremont production expansion moot. So, in terms of playing 20/20 hindsight, not expanding in Fremont and building GF3 was a better use of resources than expanding Fremont with capacity that would not have been usable.
 
"The Information reporter Amir Efrati noted that the internal org chart "helped to confirm" that Gil Passin, head of manufacturing for years, was also gone from the company." As Top Executives Leave Tesla, Elon Musk Is Left With 29 Direct Reports

"Imagine a gathering of your own direct reports. Not your entire team or your entire company, but just the people who have no other boss between you and them. How many of them would there be? Whatever the number, I'm betting it's a lot lower than 29."
— Yes, quick reminder for the writer: you are not Elon Musk, and neither are the people you're writing for.

"According to The Information, Mary Barra, the CEO of General Motors, has 12 direct reports. Ford CEO James Hackett has nine."
— Some people are smarter and have broader knowledge than others.
Edit: And some companies have more diverse and substantial innovation going on than GM & Ford.

(Also: annoying that site doesn't put the article date in an obvious location, is from Oct 2018.)
 
The big issue is that Musk abandoned near-term plans to get more than 7000/week Model 3s out of Fremont. Original target was 10000/week. This was a failure, and should be acknowledged as such. If you do the math, with the final rate being 7000/week you just can't get to to 360K-400K Model 3. With the final rate being 10000/week, you can. That was the material change.

He later corrected it and said he meant to say a yearly build rate of 500,000 at the end of 2019. That is still within sight: 7,000 Model 3 per week in Fremont, 2,000 Model S and X per week in Fremont (possible with interior and exterior upgrade) and 1,000 Model 3 per week from Shanghai. Give or take a few months.

well, the important thing is the SEC accusation had nothing to do with whether guidance would be met -- it was purely about whether he had released new guidance, as opposed to reiterating old guidance, which is a charge that was proven false.

But yes, the two posts above are correct -- when Elon made the "500k" tweet, he was talking about rate, not total made, and furthermore, the plan later changed -- 10k per week from Fremont by year's end is no longer the goal. It seems that getting that increased production (and more) out of a Chinese gigafactory instead proved the path of least resistance. Companies are allowed to change their plans -- there's nothing illegal about that, either.
 
The 2022 BMW i4 Could Be the Tesla Model 3's Biggest Threat Yet
2022 BMW i4 – New Electric Sports Sedan

"Wait, we'll have something in 2022!"

It is like "Wait, we'll have sears.com launched in 4 years!"

Old car companies are doomed.

TSLA Long. It's obvious.

Going by recent BMW exec's comments, can only assume BMW is not securing a large supply of batteries for it — since no one wants EVs.
 
But yes, the two posts above are correct -- when Elon made the "500k" tweet, he was talking about rate, not total made, and furthermore, the plan later changed -- 10k per week from Fremont by year's end is no longer the goal.
Even that 10k/wk was supposed to be 7k in Fremont and 3k in China. So, we can say the plan has not changed, the timeline may have shifted some - depending on when China starts production in volume.
 
  • Like
Reactions: humbaba
Again we had a bear attack and TMC went down at that time or was that just for me ?

It was definitely down for a few minutes, but to be honest i think it's a stretch to attribute it to nefarious anti-Tesla hackers operating in conjunction with organized wall street price manipulators. Not really seeing much motive there. I'd chalk it up to coincidence.
 
OT



The WSJ has an infamous history, having actually driven one man (Vincent Foster) to suicide through a campaign of malicious libels. So they have a LOT of reasons to get 1 star reviews.

Their editorial page lies constantly about everything.

Sure, I completely agree. Murdock's news-rags have always been full of vindictive crap when they're not cramming monetarist dogma down people's throats.