-
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
Is it because you're using v3 Superchargers and they don't have those yet? I mean... sure, there is some charging speed improvement, but is that a good enough reason to look down on them?
Does it? The highlighted part doesn’t apply, since it’s not any one of those. Which part does?
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Then why compare to depreciation ?
GF3 has weird ownership structure. A lot of capex won't show up. Also, the capex for GF3 is done - and as Tesla said, they are going to be a lot more capex efficient in GF3 compared to Fremont (50% better, if IIRC). GF3 is also smaller than Fremont and they may have shipped some unused robots etc from Fremont to GF3. Its not Tesla's problem if shorts didn't beleive this !
Tesla was spending ~600M a quarter when ramping up Model 3. For GF3, you expect the spend to be much less - ~200M looks right.
I expect Y tooling spend in Q3/Q4.
RoadsterPlease
Member
nice $tsla trajectory today, guess we're going to the Moon earlier than 2023 
Is it really? While they ordered the equipment long ago you often don't have to pay for it until it has been delivered, installed, configured, calibrated, and working. So they may have GF3 capex show up about the time they start rolling Model 3s off the line.
Did you actually look at the specs of what you linked? Either they are prototypes, or have very poor storage density relative to Tesla, or aren’t really integrated other than being housed in a literal shipping container. The Tesla solution looks far more polished and integrated. Of course, we don’t know pricing and availability, but I suspect Tesla wins hands down there.
larmor
Active Member
I still think that the satellite network being launched is not just for 'internet' to poorly served areas. Really think that there is wireless energy transfer coming. Its the patents that we dont see that should be examined... Would also be a good back up for trip to Mars to have a wireless energy transfer service. Pivot shift, amazon sold books once, apple sold computers, and netflix shipped dvds.
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
The answer to the world's energy problems is not to implement a highly inefficient method for transmitting energy . The right solution to that is to generate it at the source (wind or SOLAR, for example) and store it when your source isn't putting it out (perhaps using batteries). Cut the transmission problem out entirely.
Now if only there were a company persuing all that. THAT would be a winner.
. The right solution to that is to generate it at the source (wind or SOLAR, for example) and store it when your source isn't putting it out (perhaps using batteries). Cut the transmission problem out entirely.Now if only there were a company persuing all that. THAT would be a winner.
We (briefly) went over $240 and no one mentioned it?
Doggydogworld
Active Member
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
1. What evidence is there of GF3 tooling purchases? I've seen pics of equipment, but no tooling.
2. Why would you expect disconnected equipment to show up as capex on Tesla's cash flow statement so soon?
I don't expect GF3 building or major equipment to ever show up as capex on Tesla's cash flow statement. I think they will technically be a tenant, just as Nio would have been. But we can't say that for sure until Tesla discloses some basic information.
Last edited:
Pezpunk
Active Member
The answer to the world's energy problems is not to implement a highly inefficient method for transmitting energy
Now if only there were a company persuing all that. THAT would be a winner.
well, it's very rare for a global problem to be solved with a single uniform approach. and if you want to talk about efficiency -- well, only one billionth of the sun's energy output reaches the earth, and of that one billionth, half of that is reflected or absorbed by the clouds and atmosphere. I understand how inefficient wireless energy transfer is, but putting up with those inefficiencies may be acceptable if the energy source itself is practically infinite.
Stars aligned
Member
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
We (briefly) went over $240 and no one mentioned it?
Wake me up when we go over $340.
We already did:We (briefly) went over $240 and no one mentioned it?
In 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
Why would anyone mention the price moves in the investors roundtable when we can size shipping containers?We (briefly) went over $240 and no one mentioned it?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
