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

[DarkandStormy]

They said on average 50%. Some years less some years more. They haven’t suggested that that will stop anytime before 2030.

Did you listen to the earnings call? Last year they were emphasizing 50% YoY over a multi-year horizon -> many have said start with 500k in 2020 and then work from there.

Elon didn't say that this quarter. He just said 50% isn't sustainable. Did not reiterate 20m units in 2030 as the goal. Did not mention maybe 35-40% as the new goal (which, btw, would still be incredible pace of growth). The new CFO mentioned something about they may have more guidance at Q4, so we will have to wait three months to see.

 

[MP3Mike]

Did you listen to the earnings call? Last year they were emphasizing 50% YoY over a multi-year horizon -> many have said start with 500k in 2020 and then work from there.

Elon didn't say that this quarter.

He didn't need to say it, it is right in the Q3 slide deck.

 

[cliff harris]

He just said 50% isn't sustainable.

Why do people keep misunderstanding this.
Elon is autistic, like me. It bugs him, and people like me, that the idea of eternal CAGR is not understood to obvious have a limit, such as the total amount of matter in the known universe.
He basically just pointed out, that technically there IS a limit to the theoretical size of the company, due to fundamental physical limits. There is also a limit to what percentage of new cars can be Teslas: 100% of all cars made on Earth.
That in no way suggests they are not still aiming for 20 million, or even higher. Elon didn't feel the need to clarify that there is a gap between 2 million cars a year and the combined mass of the earth, because its obvious.

 

[geometro]

Why do people keep misunderstanding this.
Elon is autistic, like me. It bugs him, and people like me, that the idea of eternal CAGR is not understood to obvious have a limit, such as the total amount of matter in the known universe.
He basically just pointed out, that technically there IS a limit to the theoretical size of the company, due to fundamental physical limits. There is also a limit to what percentage of new cars can be Teslas: 100% of all cars made on Earth.
That in no way suggests they are not still aiming for 20 million, or even higher. Elon didn't feel the need to clarify that there is a gap between 2 million cars a year and the combined mass of the earth, because its obvious.

Why say it then? Seems like it can go un-said.
Also, why conflict with what was in the presentation/slide deck? Makes it feel like either that is outdated information or they disagree with it.

 

[Buckminster]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1716453478359326860

Woo hoo!
Did I say that right?

 

[mongo]

Did you listen to the earnings call? Last year they were emphasizing 50% YoY over a multi-year horizon -> many have said start with 500k in 2020 and then work from there.

Elon didn't say that this quarter. He just said 50% isn't sustainable. Did not reiterate 20m units in 2030 as the goal. Did not mention maybe 35-40% as the new goal (which, btw, would still be incredible pace of growth). The new CFO mentioned something about they may have more guidance at Q4, so we will have to wait three months to see.

Question from call: "Current sell-side consensus assumes that Tesla will deliver 2.3 million vehicles in 2024, representing 28% growth versus 2023 guidance. Is this growth rate achievable without any mass market launches in 2024? And when does Tesla expect to return to its 50% long-term CAGR?"
This question wrong on its face. The prediction was 50% overall, some higher, some lower from 2018, not 50% higher every year.

2018: 245,240
2019: 367,500 projected: 367,860
2020: 499,550 projected: 551,790
2021: 936,172 projected: 827,685
2022: 1,313,851 projected: 1,241,528
2023: projected: 1,862,291
2024: projected: 2,793,437

2.3 million in 2024 would be 45% annualized delivery growth and only 18% off the idealized progression

 

[SOULPEDL]

Meanwhile, did I missed another buying opportunity trying to read some nonsense about 50%?
Where's the next bus stop?

 

[scaesare]

Transaxle usually means that the shafts goes though the middle of the transmission, or in this case the motor

I don't believe that's correct... the typical definition is: "A Transaxle combines the transmission, differential, and ancillary systems around the axle into one integrated assembly. You will usually find transaxle configurations in cars where the engine is placed at the same end of the car as the drive wheels. For instance, when you have a front-engine, front-wheel drive configuration, or a rear-engine, rear-wheel drive configuration, the design will use a transaxle."

Thus, the shafts would not be aligned with the center of the engine, or motor in the case of an EV. In the case of the typical ICE transaxle, it's parallel to the engine, driven by ring gears on the output shaft of the engine, and the input shaft of the transaxle. This is the same as all the Tesla drive units I've seen as well.

And since one function of the transaxle is to gear down, the output shafts are not in the center of the trans axle, but off to the side, as the input and output ring gears and shafts are also parallel. I suppose in the case of a planetary gearset, the input shaft could be offset and the output hub of the planetary gearset would be more centered on the transaxle case, but still not exactly. And definitely not on the motor.

My eyes see the CV joints being on the same axis as the motor axis vc how a regular Tesla drive units is

This is a Plaid front drive unit with a traditional spur gear reduction, in red would be the half shafts for each wheel

View attachment 984452

This is how I imagine the new one, black is the motor, green planetary gearbox + differential, brown inverter and red drive shaft

View attachment 984453

Keep in mind it doesn't need to be planetary for it to be a transaxle, a spur works also, and allows for tighter packaging in a small vehicle, take a look at a GM Bolt one, it's basically that, the @15:00 you can see the transaxle part

By the way, if someone doesn't know this channel, they have hours of Tesla educational content, and goes way deeper that MunroLive since they aren't worried if you will buy something if you want to know more

I dunno... I suspect this mounting plate on the far side of the motor is what's supporting the "output lobe" of the casing. Besides, how would the shafts be running at the correct RPM on both sides of the motor and have an operational differential? (That does not appear to be a 2-motor design):

 

[scaesare]

Actually the CT did handle the iron ball a bit earlier in the day. That is why Elon and Franz seemed genuinely surprised at the unveiling of the CT when the glass cracked.

He subsequently said it was the sledgehammer blows to the door itself that caused the skin to flex and impinge on the glass, weakening it before the steel balls were thrown at it... it was an order of operations issue... kinda like Amos 6, lol...

 

[Cosmacelf]

Why do people keep misunderstanding this.
Elon is autistic, like me. It bugs him, and people like me, that the idea of eternal CAGR is not understood to obvious have a limit, such as the total amount of matter in the known universe.
He basically just pointed out, that technically there IS a limit to the theoretical size of the company, due to fundamental physical limits. There is also a limit to what percentage of new cars can be Teslas: 100% of all cars made on Earth.
That in no way suggests they are not still aiming for 20 million, or even higher. Elon didn't feel the need to clarify that there is a gap between 2 million cars a year and the combined mass of the earth, because its obvious.

Yes, we all understand that, in which case it was a messaging failure on Elon’s part. The fact that even people here on TMC are “misunderstanding“ Elon goes to show how bad that riff of his was. It was a completely pointless statement. Of course you can’t grow 50% forever, why would you need to tell people that? Saying that statement implies Tesla is abandoning that goal, REGARDLESS of what was printed in the letter. The CEOs live statement is going to carry more weight than a PR letter.

 

[Buckminster]

Tesla will beat 50% growth for at least one year when the gen 3 ramps - assuming 50% of assembly is completed by the bot.

Utility vehicle that is half the cost and simple to make.

 

[SOULPEDL]

I thought this might be useful for some key data. Maybe we can compare notes when Ford posts.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1716157947007377736

 

[NicoV]

Shouldn’t the stock go up now that Tesla is advertising?

 

[cliff harris]

Just a comment on the teslabot:
I know people here are excited at the idea that the bot will help out in the factory. I do suspect they will use the factory as a test bed for the bot, but its not designed to be a production line worker at all. We already have that in the shape of robot arms by Kuka, ABB etc. Those are very good, and very fast and very very very precise. Just watch the kuka youtube vids...

The reason tesla is developing a general purpose humanoid bot is not for constant repetitive work on a production line. Its because FSD research has proven to be very good at real world AI, and that expense can be spread over the *totally separate* development of a humanoid robot.

I do think that some of Tesla-bots object recognition stuff will enable Tesla to make a bunch of previously 'fuzzy' production line tasks that humans currently do, much more automatable, but that will likely be used to make better robot arms used on the line. I don't think tesla's progress on that will be especially public (as it does not need to be). I think we will only see hints of that in terms of reduced headcount/car produced over time.

 

[aronth5]

Just a comment on the teslabot:
I know people here are excited at the idea that the bot will help out in the factory. I do suspect they will use the factory as a test bed for the bot, but its not designed to be a production line worker at all. We already have that in the shape of robot arms by Kuka, ABB etc. Those are very good, and very fast and very very very precise. Just watch the kuka youtube vids...

The reason tesla is developing a general purpose humanoid bot is not for constant repetitive work on a production line. Its because FSD research has proven to be very good at real world AI, and that expense can be spread over the *totally separate* development of a humanoid robot.

I do think that some of Tesla-bots object recognition stuff will enable Tesla to make a bunch of previously 'fuzzy' production line tasks that humans currently do, much more automatable, but that will likely be used to make better robot arms used on the line. I don't think tesla's progress on that will be especially public (as it does not need to be). I think we will only see hints of that in terms of reduced headcount/car produced over time.

Exactly how the teslabot will be used will evolve over time. I wouldn't get hung up over the term "production line worker" since teslabot will change what that term even means going forward in ways we can only speculate at now.

 

[JoRoMo]

Just a comment on the teslabot:
I know people here are excited at the idea that the bot will help out in the factory. I do suspect they will use the factory as a test bed for the bot, but its not designed to be a production line worker at all. We already have that in the shape of robot arms by Kuka, ABB etc. Those are very good, and very fast and very very very precise. Just watch the kuka youtube vids...

The reason tesla is developing a general purpose humanoid bot is not for constant repetitive work on a production line. Its because FSD research has proven to be very good at real world AI, and that expense can be spread over the *totally separate* development of a humanoid robot.

I do think that some of Tesla-bots object recognition stuff will enable Tesla to make a bunch of previously 'fuzzy' production line tasks that humans currently do, much more automatable, but that will likely be used to make better robot arms used on the line. I don't think tesla's progress on that will be especially public (as it does not need to be). I think we will only see hints of that in terms of reduced headcount/car produced over time.

Scale, the bot will be produced in the millions (likely billions), why bother with a large range of very-low-volume (i.e. expensive) custom arms and legs if they in many/most cases will do the job sufficiently well - at a fraction of the cost per unit?

 

[mongo]

Just a comment on the teslabot:
I know people here are excited at the idea that the bot will help out in the factory. I do suspect they will use the factory as a test bed for the bot, but its not designed to be a production line worker at all. We already have that in the shape of robot arms by Kuka, ABB etc. Those are very good, and very fast and very very very precise. Just watch the kuka youtube vids...

The reason tesla is developing a general purpose humanoid bot is not for constant repetitive work on a production line. Its because FSD research has proven to be very good at real world AI, and that expense can be spread over the *totally separate* development of a humanoid robot.

I do think that some of Tesla-bots object recognition stuff will enable Tesla to make a bunch of previously 'fuzzy' production line tasks that humans currently do, much more automatable, but that will likely be used to make better robot arms used on the line. I don't think tesla's progress on that will be especially public (as it does not need to be). I think we will only see hints of that in terms of reduced headcount/car produced over time.

Kuka handles heavy lift processes on fixed, solid, well located and fixtured objects.
Line workers deal with floppy, variable, misaligned, smaller bits.
A lot of the Kuka structure is to allow repeatability and accuracy while extended. FSD real time adjustability would compensate for flex and not need as much mass. Prime is for the tasks that failed in the 3 ramp.

Consider, to get Prime fidelity on a Kuka, you'd need to mount the Prime arm/ hand as an end effector. That base itxs atrached to is overkill for the forces the effector deals with. You're also left with a fixed location arm that needs parts supplied to it. Keeping the mobility of legs reduces the need for structure to enable long reaches and also allows for the robot to get its own parts.

 

[MartinAustin]

I say, I say, I say...

 

[Krugerrand]

Why say it then? Seems like it can go un-said.
Also, why conflict with what was in the presentation/slide deck? Makes it feel like either that is outdated information or they disagree with it.

Obviously, he said it because he thought it should be said in the moment.

So just pretend he didn’t say it, then you can let it go.

 

[M|S|M MYP]

Shouldn’t the stock go up now that Tesla is advertising?

YES, market heard you loud and clear