Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[wipster]

... so, does this mean they may release the 350 mile $25,000 Cybertruck first?

Coolio

You mean the Tonka version?

 

[LTC_RRR]

I know the range thing has been talked about ad-nauseum (and a mod has issued a caution).

I'll just point out that there's a good sized segment of folks that own travel trailers, and they typically travel much farther than 40 miles... heck loading/prepping/hooking it up almost isn't worth it for a 40 mile trip. When I owned mine, my typical trip was probably 75-150 miles one-way. Ditto for the guys I travelled with.

I see them towed far more often than mobile homes, which tend to be towed initially than parked for most of their life. Probably more than boats, bit less than construction stuff.

I do agree that there's a large population for which 350 miles is useful. But there's also a good-sized segment for which 500 miles (likely 275ish towing) is needed...

My stepson is a tournament bass fisherman. He tows his heavy boat to and from the tournaments. He was really interested in the CT, but was understandably concerned by the fact that most locations for tournaments' boat offloading were nowhere near superchargers, much less mush civilization. 500 miles range (probably considerably reduced when towing a competition-scale bass boat) might have caused him to take another look.

 

[M|S|M MYP]

Wonder if we can hit $314.68 after ER on Thursday

 

[unk45]

With all the folks pointing out that Model 3 production started with the RWD Long-Range version, perhaps this statement can be fixed up a bit:

"When is the last time Tesla launched a product with the lowest MARGIN trim level first? Hint: Never. They always release the highest end trim [that fits ease of manufacturing and marketing goals] first since it helps keep margins up while depreciating a *sugar* ton of expenditures for new equipment lines."

There's always detail to Tesla's plans/decisions. From a marketing perspective, it probably wouldn't make sense to start production of Tesla's first mass-market-intent vehicle with the dual-motor performance version -- more difficult to manufacture, and would empower the "toys for rich people" critics. Also, if I remember correctly, when the performance trim finally came out, I think Tesla said it used the same motors, but just tested for manufacturing variance that allowed higher performance. So, if that was indeed the case, Tesla couldn't have started off with 100% performance versions. Perhaps there were also initial issues with motor production, so the single motor version allowed more cars to be produced. So, if that's all true, it makes sense that they went with the bigger battery to increase price and margin a bit, and stuck with a single motor variant for simpler manufacturing.

With Cybertruck coming soon, there are certainly assorted other variables at play...but Tesla can still be expected to try to optimize for the best combination of margin, manufacturing ease, and component availability.

Still wrong. At launch the Model S had no Performance version, just 40,60, 85. At launch Model 3 did not have the highest margin products offered either. Your persistence is laudable but facts are not with the assertions.

In considering margins we do know that other things remaining equal (they don't actually) Tesla steadily reduces the cost of every product. With steady prices the margins rise, not only with cost reduction per unit but also with scale economies and materials improvements. Those are valid assertions.

The launch sequences always have been well-equipped basic models first, steadily increasing optional features, performance and more powertrain choices. They do not start at the top and work down.

For my three Tesla's sake, I waited until a higher specification product as available before taking delivery.
Had Tesla started at the top first I would have had my S and Model 3 a year or so earlier.

OTOH, had I waited the prices would ahem been lower. Hence it is true that Tesla prices early deliveries higher than they price later deliveries. That is factual but is not the highest specification or most well equipped. Even color choices have been restricted in the beginning.

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

GS released Nasdaq pro forma rebalance weight. Hate to be Nvidia.

View attachment 957030

But what does it mean for TSLA? In this chart the ‘estimated flow impact’ is $2.6 billion. Does that imply that on July 24 ETFs tracking the Nasdaq-100 have to sell that much in TSLA stock in order to rebalance and keep tracking the index?

 

[wipster]

That thing is built like a tank! Drive it off a cliff, and drive it away at the bottom.

Hmmmm... Mission Impossible 7 part 2?

 

[jkirkwood001]

Whoo-hoo!

 

[Singuy]

But what does it mean for TSLA? In this chart the ‘estimated flow impact’ is $2.6 billion. Does that imply that on July 24 ETFs tracking the Nasdaq-100 have to sell that much in TSLA stock in order to rebalance and keep tracking the index?

Based on my calculation just about .Qqq has 200B of assets, they need to bring Tesla down from 9B to 6.8B if you do the math.

However I remember Tesla's crossing cross for s&p inclusion wasn't all that eventful and only a few people managed to sell at the super peak I didn't even see from Robin hood. Seems like a lot of those shares were spoken for and bought on the open market or else a massive short squeeze would have happened. I suspect the same with this in which they are not dumping over 2B dollars onto the open market...QQQ aint no Elon Musk..lol.

 

[Mengy]

I vote as a pessimistic "no". My gut feeling is the SP will drop at the open, erasing all of this nice runup we've seen in the pre-hours.

I'm feeling dire today.

I love it when I'm wrong like this!!!! $290.38!

 

[EQC_]

Still wrong. At launch the Model S had no Performance version, just 40,60, 85. At launch Model 3 did not have the highest margin products offered either. Your persistence is laudable but facts are not with the assertions.

In considering margins we do know that other things remaining equal (they don't actually) Tesla steadily reduces the cost of every product. With steady prices the margins rise, not only with cost reduction per unit but also with scale economies and materials improvements. Those are valid assertions.

The launch sequences always have been well-equipped basic models first, steadily increasing optional features, performance and more powertrain choices. They do not start at the top and work down.

For my three Tesla's sake, I waited until a higher specification product as available before taking delivery.
Had Tesla started at the top first I would have had my S and Model 3 a year or so earlier.

OTOH, had I waited the prices would ahem been lower. Hence it is true that Tesla prices early deliveries higher than they price later deliveries. That is factual but is not the highest specification or most well equipped. Even color choices have been restricted in the beginning.

I think we're in agreement, and both correct, haha!

You might just be reading my words differently than I intended...but I definitely agree with your statements and facts, and I thought my adjustments to the other commenter's statement made it all align.

The first bit of mine says they never start with the LOWEST margin version first. That was NOT meant to say they start with the highest cost or highest margin version...just that they don't start at the bottom. They didn't start S deliveries with the 40 kWh version...they didn't start the 3 with the $35K version. That's all I meant, and I think we agree there.

On the second part, my sentence structure was weird, but when I said: "They always release the highest end trim [that fits ease of manufacturing and marketing goals] first..." I meant that to be all one statement, and to indicate an optimization of several variables. The idea was that Tesla starts production of a new model with whatever version fits their manufacturing limits and marketing goals and also has potentially high margin. So multiple variables get optimized, with a higher margin being one of those. Hypothetically, I'd imagine that if they thought Trim A and Trim B could both be successfully produced in similar quantities and had similar marketing value, they'd opt for whichever one had the highest margin of those two. Probably some chance they start with 2 versions if both look great...but that's another debate.

I think this all started with conversation on first versions of the Cybertruck...and I think we both expect a similar result there -- Tesla will likely start with some trim that isn't the highest or lowest, but somewhere in the middle, where they think they can get the supply chain, manufacturing, marketing goals, and margin to all align beneficially.

 

[Oveeus]

I’m just adding my 0.02 about the CT mileage.

The mileage of any EV is an equation of motor/drivetrain efficiency, aerodynamic, battery size and body weight.

From the specs announced in semi, I think some of the core drivetrain technology is going to be dumb down and incorporated into the CT. Namely the asymmetrical drivetrain operation. I never really considered the fact that when Elon announced the original 500 miles tri-motor variant was going to be a humongous battery.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s going to be bigger. But not anything astronomical as at certain point, you get hit with diminishing return as the extra weight of the battery starts to make a bigger toll to the mileage than the extra power added.

Thus, the mileage improvement is more likely to come from drive train control, aero and weight control.

I’ve already covered the potential drivetrain improvement. The aero, as many have already dived into when the design of CT was unveiled, there’s only so much that you could do with aero given the shape. We know it’s efficient. But that would still make a small difference in the grand scheme of things.

That leaves us with weight. I find it very curious that Elon and Tesla has kept the weight such a secrecy. Of course, it could be pure speculation, but if I’m going to bet my money, I’d like to believe that besides the drivetrain improvement, the vast majority of the remaining energy saving is going to come from weight. CT is the first Tesla platform that’s designed using first principle thinking in the entirety of the car design. Everything there was to make the car as cheap as possible to make. The less stuff you put into a car, you save money, and usually speaking, less weight since there are less components to carry.

It’s going to be super interesting to see what kind of savings Tesla was able to achieve by moving the truck to a 48v architecture and the saving from less cabling and everything in the truck. Also, the CT is looking as barebones as trick can be. That is ultimately going to shave a few lbs off its already heavy skeleton.

 

[scaesare]

I think we're in agreement, and both correct, haha!

You might just be reading my words differently than I intended...but I definitely agree with your statements and facts, and I thought my adjustments to the other commenter's statement made it all align.

The first bit of mine says they never start with the LOWEST margin version first. That was NOT meant to say they start with the highest cost or highest margin version...just that they don't start at the bottom. They didn't start S deliveries with the 40 kWh version...they didn't start the 3 with the $35K version. That's all I meant, and I think we agree there.

On the second part, my sentence structure was weird, but when I said: "They always release the highest end trim [that fits ease of manufacturing and marketing goals] first..." I meant that to be all one statement, and to indicate an optimization of several variables. The idea was that Tesla starts production of a new model with whatever version fits their manufacturing limits and marketing goals and also has potentially high margin. So multiple variables get optimized, with a higher margin being one of those. Hypothetically, I'd imagine that if they thought Trim A and Trim B could both be successfully produced in similar quantities and had similar marketing value, they'd opt for whichever one had the highest margin of those two. Probably some chance they start with 2 versions if both look great...but that's another debate.

I think this all started with conversation on first versions of the Cybertruck...and I think we both expect a similar result there -- Tesla will likely start with some trim that isn't the highest or lowest, but somewhere in the middle, where they think they can get the supply chain, manufacturing, marketing goals, and margin to all align beneficially.

This is my recollection as well. Back when I bought my S in 2013, there was much discussion of the highest model trims/options within a model line getting delivered first. If it took additional development/engineering expense for another vehicle model or major option, then that would likely come later.

 

[AudubonB]

I’m just adding my 0.02 about the CT mileage.

The mileage of any EV is an equation of motor/drivetrain efficiency, aerodynamic, battery size and body weight.

From the specs announced in semi, I think some of the core drivetrain technology is going to be dumb down and incorporated into the CT. Namely the asymmetrical drivetrain operation. I never really considered the fact that when Elon announced the original 500 miles tri-motor variant was going to be a humongous battery.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s going to be bigger. But not anything astronomical as at certain point, you get hit with diminishing return as the extra weight of the battery starts to make a bigger toll to the mileage than the extra power added.

Thus, the mileage improvement is more likely to come from drive train control, aero and weight control.

I’ve already covered the potential drivetrain improvement. The aero, as many have already dived into when the design of CT was unveiled, there’s only so much that you could do with aero given the shape. We know it’s efficient. But that would still make a small difference in the grand scheme of things.

That leaves us with weight. I find it very curious that Elon and Tesla has kept the weight such a secrecy. Of course, it could be pure speculation, but if I’m going to bet my money, I’d like to believe that besides the drivetrain improvement, the vast majority of the remaining energy saving is going to come from weight. CT is the first Tesla platform that’s designed using first principle thinking in the entirety of the car design. Everything there was to make the car as cheap as possible to make. The less stuff you put into a car, you save money, and usually speaking, less weight since there are less components to carry.

It’s going to be super interesting to see what kind of savings Tesla was able to achieve by moving the truck to a 48v architecture and the saving from less cabling and everything in the truck. Also, the CT is looking as barebones as trick can be. That is ultimately going to shave a few lbs off its already heavy skeleton.

Refreshingly new perspective - great post! It seems shortly we'll see whose - or which combinations - of speculations come the closest.

 

[MountainRatMat]

Refreshingly new perspective - great post! It seems shortly we'll see whose - or which combinations - of speculations come the closest.

And what does it have to do with investing in TSLA?

I hope I don't get in trouble for writing this to a mod but I really am an advocate for keeping this thread on topic.

Edit: Sorry I overlooked the fact that the quoted post wouldn't come through as well but it is basically a Cybertruck speculation post that has nothing to do with investing or TSLA

 

[JRP3]

And what does it have to do with investing in TSLA?

I hope I don't get in trouble for writing this to a mod but I really am an advocate for keeping this thread on topic.

Edit: Sorry I overlooked the fact that the quoted post wouldn't come through as well but it is basically a Cybertruck speculation post that has nothing to do with investing or TSLA

You don't think the specs of the latest product have any bearing on TSLA?

 

[GhostSkater]

I’m just adding my 0.02 about the CT mileage.

The mileage of any EV is an equation of motor/drivetrain efficiency, aerodynamic, battery size and body weight.

From the specs announced in semi, I think some of the core drivetrain technology is going to be dumb down and incorporated into the CT. Namely the asymmetrical drivetrain operation. I never really considered the fact that when Elon announced the original 500 miles tri-motor variant was going to be a humongous battery.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s going to be bigger. But not anything astronomical as at certain point, you get hit with diminishing return as the extra weight of the battery starts to make a bigger toll to the mileage than the extra power added.

Thus, the mileage improvement is more likely to come from drive train control, aero and weight control.

I’ve already covered the potential drivetrain improvement. The aero, as many have already dived into when the design of CT was unveiled, there’s only so much that you could do with aero given the shape. We know it’s efficient. But that would still make a small difference in the grand scheme of things.

That leaves us with weight. I find it very curious that Elon and Tesla has kept the weight such a secrecy. Of course, it could be pure speculation, but if I’m going to bet my money, I’d like to believe that besides the drivetrain improvement, the vast majority of the remaining energy saving is going to come from weight. CT is the first Tesla platform that’s designed using first principle thinking in the entirety of the car design. Everything there was to make the car as cheap as possible to make. The less stuff you put into a car, you save money, and usually speaking, less weight since there are less components to carry.

It’s going to be super interesting to see what kind of savings Tesla was able to achieve by moving the truck to a 48v architecture and the saving from less cabling and everything in the truck. Also, the CT is looking as barebones as trick can be. That is ultimately going to shave a few lbs off its already heavy skeleton.

Really nice post and insight

But its also important to note that for example, a Model 3 at 70 mph the split between aero drag power and rolling resistance power in around 60/30

Rolling resistance power goes down linearly with reduced weight, so unless Tesla has taken a lot of weight out and it's significantly lighter than other EV trucks, the impact isn't a big

As example if it keeps the 60/30 split, if you remove 10% of the weight, which is a lot already, you can only reduced your pack size by 3% to keep the same range

Just a few more ratios from other EVs in aero drag loss vs rolling resistance loss at 70 mph

Model S - 58/42 | Model X 60/40 | F150 67/33 | Hummer 61/29 / Rivian R1T 62/28

As a note, this really shows how much worse the F150 is aero wise

 

[MountainRatMat]

You don't think the specs of the latest product have any bearing on TSLA?

Very tangentially, speculation on specifications of a product that isn't on the road yet is a stretch for a thread on investing in TSLA.

I can think of many other threads that information would be well suited for.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Having said all that, IMO the rumor is wrong, and Tesla will be debuting with a long-range trim.

Ahaha, love it! 350 miles IS a long-range trim! It's just that 500 miles is crazy Class-8 Semi / "where's my pee-bottle" trim.

Cheers to the Bladderers!

 

[insaneoctane]

2 things about Ford's F-150 price cuts....

• I am surprised they did them before Tesla announces the current CT pricing (this implies that they are cutting to move inventory vs responding to CT)
• I am surprised that Ford cut the cheapest model the most

 

[ggr]

At launch the Model S had no Performance version, just 40,60, 85.

Sorry, but that Lavender Mist Model S <--- is serial number 29, and it's a P85.