-
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
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Chemistry improvements and construction optimizing for cycle life could make it happen. Tesla doesn't want to be replacing packs prematurely.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
3 and X inventory suggests it:
You can check the backlog - there is virtually no backlog for almost all models in most major geographies (US, China, Europe). If demand was more than production, there would be at least a 4 week backlog. Because Tesla’s model doesn’t have dealerships to absorb inventory, they have to have a certain backlog (ideally 4-8 weeks), so they don’t need to worry about inventory. To avoid inventory is why Tesla cuts prices to generate more demand that can absorb the inventory and production.
Anyone who can't watch a YouTube video, will find it hard to order and own a Tesla.
IMO the ideal locations for ads are airports, train stations, trains, bus stops and buses. That is becuase the prospective customer needs the time to watch a video on their phone, you can also mention the price and the tax credit in the same ad.
But why don't we leave any decision on advertising to Tesla?
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
You talking about the song about that cheesy Egyptian tailor, Queso Ra Sew Ra?
Last edited:
Of course the decision is with Tesla, and that’s why there has been no advertising. We wouldn’t be discussing advertising if Tesla already did it. Today, Emmet Peppers (who used to be on TMC since 2012, and not active now) even created a GoFundMe for Tesla fans/investors so that people can pitch in and advertise for Tesla.
Link to vote -
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
Last edited:
Concerning advertising-seems like I read that GM alone spends somewhere on the order of $1500 per vehicle sold, just on marketing. Now, let me ask-if Tesla were to spend $1500 per vehicle, would you spend it there?
Or would you invest it in design/manufacturing improvements to reduce manufacturing costs and allow lower sales prices?
Or spend it to upgrade standard features that most cars in the price range of a 3/Y already have as standard. Things like vented seats, Homelink and a HUD (you could likely do all 3 for less than $1500).
Or maybe offer different paint or interior colors without jacking up the price?
Or build out the charging network even faster?
I think people already know about Teslas, and understand their technological advantages. But still question the price (you can still get a Rav-4, CRV or Equinox for a MSRP <$30k) and many that live outside of major metros still don't have DCFC anywhere near conveniently located. Until DCFCs are as common as gas pumps, that will be an issue for some buyers, and rightly so. The average user of this site likely has a far higher discretionary income than the average vehicle buyer-for a great many buyers, value is a major factor-what vehicle serves their needs for the lowest cost. They don't care about virtue signaling or climate change; they worry about basic transportation, putting food on the table and a roof over their heads. Advertising dollars don't change that. Now you can argue that there are a lot of people spending even more on high-end pickups and SUVs...but those aren't necessarily the same people buying compact CUVs and compact sedans.
Or would you invest it in design/manufacturing improvements to reduce manufacturing costs and allow lower sales prices?
Or spend it to upgrade standard features that most cars in the price range of a 3/Y already have as standard. Things like vented seats, Homelink and a HUD (you could likely do all 3 for less than $1500).
Or maybe offer different paint or interior colors without jacking up the price?
Or build out the charging network even faster?
I think people already know about Teslas, and understand their technological advantages. But still question the price (you can still get a Rav-4, CRV or Equinox for a MSRP <$30k) and many that live outside of major metros still don't have DCFC anywhere near conveniently located. Until DCFCs are as common as gas pumps, that will be an issue for some buyers, and rightly so. The average user of this site likely has a far higher discretionary income than the average vehicle buyer-for a great many buyers, value is a major factor-what vehicle serves their needs for the lowest cost. They don't care about virtue signaling or climate change; they worry about basic transportation, putting food on the table and a roof over their heads. Advertising dollars don't change that. Now you can argue that there are a lot of people spending even more on high-end pickups and SUVs...but those aren't necessarily the same people buying compact CUVs and compact sedans.
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
I think the main mission-aligned reason to pay for promoting Tesla/EV education campaigns would be to reduce demand for ICEVs and influence general public opinion.
Convincing people to delay buying a new car until they can buy an EV that meets their needs and budget would accelerate the transition. It would put more pressure on legacy auto to move faster and stop fighting the inevitable. It also would influence public policy decisions around stuff like clean energy incentives and streamlining permitting for critical mines for nickel and other key raw materials.
However, this is still a decision that I’d defer to Tesla management on. They have surely been considering this question and have much, much more information than we do.
Convincing people to delay buying a new car until they can buy an EV that meets their needs and budget would accelerate the transition. It would put more pressure on legacy auto to move faster and stop fighting the inevitable. It also would influence public policy decisions around stuff like clean energy incentives and streamlining permitting for critical mines for nickel and other key raw materials.
However, this is still a decision that I’d defer to Tesla management on. They have surely been considering this question and have much, much more information than we do.
Last edited:
cliff harris
Member
At the very least I'd have kept including ultrasonic sensors until there was unanimous agreement that they were entirely redundant. That was a cost saving measure too far, doing way more damage to the brand perception than it saved in costs. Also handed free ammunition to rivals.
They could even add some free 'new owner' supercharger miles?
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
That was my editorializing that I neglected to denote. I read the statement on the report about newer chemistries not being shown yet and accidentally put in my opinion.
That being said, the newer batteries should be better.
- LFP cells are inherently more durable than NCA cells like S&X have.
- These earlier S&X vehicles that have gone 200k miles have much more primitive battery management systems and thermal management systems than later generations of vehicles
- Longevity is a principal component of long-term cost and of contribution of each vehicle to the mission, because it means the manufacturing cost is amortized over more miles and years of life. Can’t optimize for cradle-to-grave cost without heavy consideration on longevity.
- Since 2016 Master Plan 2, Tesla has viewed autonomy as the primary key to unlocking greater affordability and accelerating the transition. Longer battery life means more gasoline demand displaced if and when Tesla Network goes live.
- Battery Day tech should improve not only manufacturing cost but also longevity. For example, getting rid of the solvent and having better thermal control due to the continuous tab design are innovations that ought to improve longevity.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
The charts are absolute (quantity), not relative. Notice that the inventory was higher last winter than it is now.
Then think of it in terms of days of inventory instead of a raw quantity of cars and it's even lower with that in mind.
Tesla is opening their SC network in China, on an experimental basis at a few sites. But ...
A company delivering a large percentage of charging for BEV's worldwide sounds like a good investment.
A company delivering a large percentage of charging for BEV's worldwide sounds like a good investment.
Absolutely - you can't compare absolute number of cars in inventory from a year earlier to today - you have to compare days of inventory when comparing different time periods (since Tesla grows so fast) or between different manufacturers (since they all have different sales volumes). On a days of inventory basis, I see no significant sustained increase.
I swear the twitterverse and now this thread is being taken over by hysterical fear mongerers who have nothing better to do than to misrepresent and misunderstand every bit of data that Tesla produces. Lately it has been a lot of insipid back and forth about advertising.
Tes La Ferrari
Active Member
A thought experiment:
From strictly an investment ( Value to the company / TSLA) standpoint; would it be a better idea to:
1) raise the price of Supercharging, and lower the MSRP a commensurate amount, or
2) raise the MSRP of the cars; but lower the Supercharging costs a commensurate amount.
I ask this question, NOT on the basis of what we might prefer as Tesla owner drivers; but from the perspective of what would entice more Tesla purchases, advance the mission and bring value to the company; and the SP.
From strictly an investment ( Value to the company / TSLA) standpoint; would it be a better idea to:
1) raise the price of Supercharging, and lower the MSRP a commensurate amount, or
2) raise the MSRP of the cars; but lower the Supercharging costs a commensurate amount.
I ask this question, NOT on the basis of what we might prefer as Tesla owner drivers; but from the perspective of what would entice more Tesla purchases, advance the mission and bring value to the company; and the SP.
If you mean that reporting on safety efforts should not be in the Tesla Impact Report, I disagree strongly.
'Woke' has a negative connotation for me, whereas I think it's fundamental that Tesla handles safety as a core issue.
It would be strange to make the most safe cars, while not focusing on producing them safely too.
And not only because it would expose Tesla to an avalanche of FUD about accidents in the production process if not in focus.
I can tell from experience that dealing with people and safety is pretty difficult; the report shows that Tesla is coping with this very effectively.
As an investor I am very happy to read this.
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
To be clear that quotation in my post was a joke and it's not actually in the Impact Report
Inventory, or at least how Tesla display it as one of each trim, becomes more and more meaningless as Tesla scales. If you look at inventory as 1 trim level/color for all major auto makers, the number is always max inventory as they will have at least one of every configuration available at all times. Even though their inventory will seem like it's not moving, they still sell millions of cars per quarter. Tesla will be the same as they will have one of each trim available at all times and yet still sells hundreds of thousands every quarter. We may never see inventory going down to zero ever again. The only time that happens is if there's a massive supply chain issue as we have seen with legacy auto, so it wouldn't be a good thing.
Inventory can also be interpreted through days of inventory and by tracking QoQ production vs delivery numbers: if production exceeds deliveries, that is QoQ inventory growth:
At the end of Q4 there was a bit over 13 days of inventory or 73,000 vehicles, at the end of Q1 there was a bit over 16 days or almost 91,000 vehicles available globally — what’s shown in online inventory is a fraction as duplicates of one trim at one location are shown only once. If that VIN is purchased and there is more of that trim in stock, a new inventory vehicle appears online in the previous VIN’s place. All these numbers are what I’m seeing tracked/reported by others.
This growth in inventory is of course amid everything that happened in Q1 including the IRA tax Incentives to the price reductions.
At the end of Q4 there was a bit over 13 days of inventory or 73,000 vehicles, at the end of Q1 there was a bit over 16 days or almost 91,000 vehicles available globally — what’s shown in online inventory is a fraction as duplicates of one trim at one location are shown only once. If that VIN is purchased and there is more of that trim in stock, a new inventory vehicle appears online in the previous VIN’s place. All these numbers are what I’m seeing tracked/reported by others.
This growth in inventory is of course amid everything that happened in Q1 including the IRA tax Incentives to the price reductions.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
