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.
Always many ways to look at things...
  • You can say, glass half empty: "I'm lugging around all this battery weight but only allowed to use 80% of it!"
  • Or, glass half full: "I paid $10K less for the same car...I just accelerate a little less quickly and don't have access to the full battery, but probably wouldn't have used the full battery range anyway."
The option to pay less will make sense for some people...and it won't for others. No harm for the consumer to have more options...

The wording choice you used is also a little tricky, since a software locked battery wouldn't be disabling 200 lbs of cells...it is just restricting all the cells from reaching 100% charge or draining down to 0%. So, perhaps removing 20% of the potential usefulness of 1000 lbs of cells. So the price difference and the consumer decision should be on how useful that extra 20% would be fore an individual.

And, to be fair, for most of the battery chemistries, isn't charging to 80% for daily use typical? And I'd bet few folks regularly drain down below 20%. So, in a way, most EV drivers are already dragging around a whole battery but normally only using 60% of it....they just have the option to use it if they need it.
90% is normal for me unless the ambient temperatures is 40+ C, then 80. And yes, I can count the number of times I've been lower than 20% on both hands (over 10+ years).
 
This time two years ago, in 2021, we were all very happy with the results of TSLA. In 2023, I read a sense of frustration, despair, and laughter on this forum.

It's basically the same price point in mid-August 2021 and mid-August 2023.

In the first 2 quarters of 2021...leading in to mid-August 2021...$22.4B in revenue. In 2023? $48.2B.

Net income in mid-August 2021 from the first 2 quarters? $1.58B. In 2023? $5.22B.

That's more than 2x the revenue! That's more than 3x the net income! What's changed?

EPS was climbing rapidly in 2020 through 2021. Has been flat for last 6 quarters or so.
 
Instead as someone suggested they could have reduced the price by $7k and given the full range instead of nerfing it.

Meanwhile at breakfast on the Mountain... ;)

Meanwhile at breakfast of the Mountain.jpg


Cheers to the catz!
 
Last edited:
Dear MM's,

Please let us know when you are done pushing $TSLA down so the kids can eat again.

Thanks in advance.
This really has nothing to do with MM's. There was clear incentive for them to prop up the stock based on open interest and volume with Puts at the beginning of this week and last week...and the week before that but there's been zero buying support. Just like back in Nov/Dec, MM's are not bothering to step in and volume has dried up and gone anemic.

Just look at volume over the past month compared to the 12 month or even 6 month average volume average. We're seeing the usual hedge fund shenanigans with dropping the stock hard in the AM and spoofing the stock as macro's go higher in the afternoon.

Seems just crystal clear what hedge funds are doing and that is to push the stock down to support levels (100 day moving average and the uptrend line from Jan low) and see if they can break support which would trigger more selling.

It's a pretty simple game for them. Drive the stock down to support and see if buying volume rushes in. If buying volume does come in, flip their bets to bullish and ride the stock back up. If the stock breaks support, short it even harder and see how low it will go. This was the exact playbook from Nov/Dec. They already broke the 50 day moving average rather easily which only emboldened them to push even harder. The 100 day moving average is 219/share. They'll likely test that next week and the biggie, the 200 day moving average is 196/share. No doubt in my mind if the macro's push down another 2-3%, then they'll try and blow through the 100 day average and test the 200 days
 
Last edited:
Remember the Fremantle Highway cargo ship en route to Singapore that caught fire off the Dutch coast two weeks ago? Main Street Media blamed a BEV as the cause, ate it up and spit it out on their news outlets. Just as I suspected, now that the smoke has settled, although the fire cause still remains unknown, all 498 BEVs are accounted for and are in good condition. The BEVs were located on the four lower decks. The worst fire damage is reported to be on deck 8, likely where the fire started. O'K, MSM, we are waiting for your breaking story updates. MSM, are you there?

"Even though the cause of the fire is still unknown, the EV theory no longer holds up after the freighter was inspected. The lower four of the twelve decks are essentially undamaged, and about 1,000 cars, including the 498 electric ones, are in good condition. This is according to the chief of salvage company Royal Boskalis Westminster NV, Peter Berdowski."



 
These little victories pile up daily. I'm increasing my odds that we will see an even greater push into green tech due to awareness and weather related events.

If that includes taxis when that's around 250-300k vehicles just in NYC that need replacement. (numbers per the NYT)

View attachment 965498
I’m not enthusiastic about these kinds of announcements. We could all be dead by 2030. Make these announcements and then put the screws to people/stick a
poker youknowwhere to make change MUCH faster because we already know this will get dragged out an additional 5/10 years if it even happens.
 
Last edited:
Not just CT sightings. We're starting to see (at least I do in videos), Model Y's with white interiors. Previously Austin was only doing the black interior.
It would be nice if those with white interiours were available in Canada. That and bring back a true towing package where one can install a brake controller and have an active charge line on the 7 pin trailer connector. Those both went away with the change to a 15.5 volt lithium battery. Not sure why they didn’t address that. Weird.

Jmho.
 
Yeah but that potentially affects retained values across the fleet whereas releasing a model that simply has software-locked range creates some differentiation

at least I assume that's the strategy
When did Tesla start worrying about resale values?. And why should they? If they did that will be the wrong strategy.

When they slashed Model Y prices in Q1 did they worry about resale values? If they want to be a niche player like Porsche that makes sense. A volume player should only focus on moving metal at decent sustainable profit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Queeg500 and Drax7
When did Tesla start worrying about resale values?. And why should they? If they did that will be the wrong strategy.

When they slashed Model Y prices in Q1 did they worry about resale values? If they want to be a niche player like Porsche that makes sense. A volume player should only focus on moving metal at decent sustainable profit.
Plummeting retained values aren't great for your customer base or likely volumes as people who are looking at big depreciation (or worse yet are underwater on a loan) will be less inclined to upgrade, as we've seen anecdotally in this thread.

Sometimes it needs to happen, but you'd want to limit it as much as possible