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.
No, they did not increase yields by 40%. From the Q3 call:



That is entirely different than increasing yields 40%. For example, say yield is 92% and scrap is 8%; they increase yield to 95%, while reducing scrap to 5%. That is a ~3% yield increase with a ~40% scrap decrease.
Fair point, looks like my memory is faulty...

However, I still think reducing scrap and improving yield is the current priority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EVortex
It's not just TSLA, most of the market is down after hours for some reason.

Uh, yeah, that's how they do it. You think Meta 'missed' today? You think this drop wasn't the shortz' plan? TSLA is HALF the Options Market. The others will be allowed to rebound, but shortz plan is to cap and ride the lower-bb down.

They always do this, for nearly these past 4 years since 'Black Tuesday' (brought to you courtesy of Citadel on Feb 04, 2020). And it takes 7 years for the $EC to conduct an enforcement action (then it's a peanutz penalty).

What have I missed?
 
It’s a joke F and GM are up today
based on what?
👀👀👀

Don't you remember what Adam Jonas told Detroit to do 6 months ago? And now they've done what he asked: knee-capped their own EV programs to 'focus on near term profits'. This is exactly what AJ wanted:

MS: Will legacy OEMs slow EV plans? | Jonas' note: "Will Legacy OEMs 'Blink' on EV Growth?" | reviewed by SMR (Apr 25, 2023)

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Drax7 and H Mak
No, they did not increase yields by 40%. From the Q3 call:

"Scrap is down 40% quarter over quarter."

That is entirely different than increasing yields 40%. For example, say yield is 92% and scrap is 8%; they increase yield to 95%, while reducing scrap to 5%. That is a ~3% yield increase with a ~40% scrap decrease.
Nice cherry picking there, why not include the entire quote?

"4680 cell production in Texas increased 40% quarter over quarter. Congrats to the Texas team for producing their 20 millionth cell off of line one. Texas is now our primary 4680 facility.


We're heavily focused on quality. Scrap is down 40% quarter over quarter. With the increased volume and yield improvements, cell costs consistently improved month over month within the quarter, although we have a lot more work to do to achieve our steady-state goals. And that is our priority."

Yes, yields weren't up 40% but production was up 40% and scrap was down 40%. If you are going to correct the mistake you should do so with full disclosure.
 
Don't you remember what Adam Jonas told Detroit to do 6 months ago? And now they've done what he asked: knee-capped their own EV programs to 'focus on near term profits'. This is exactly what AJ wanted:

MS: Will legacy OEMs slow EV plans? | Jonas' note: "Will Legacy OEMs 'Blink' on EV Growth?" | reviewed by SMR (Apr 25, 2023)


I remember that note. Perplexing then and now. Is AJ saying: give up on EV, you can’t win, just enjoy the ICE party while it lasts?
 
Fremont is mature, but also inherently less profitable because it's a retrofitted facility full of compromises, and because it's located in one of the most expensive cities on the planet.
Um, Fremont is not even close to being one of the most expensive cities on the planet. It's not even a Silicon Valley suburb, it's a bunch of random land way out in the East Bay.

*Correcting this only because you are usually meticulously correct.
 
Um, Fremont is not even close to being one of the most expensive cities on the planet. It's not even a Silicon Valley suburb, it's a bunch of random land way out in the East Bay.

*Correcting this only because you are usually meticulously correct.

Everywhere in the Bay Area is expensive and Fremont is a Silicon Valley suburb. Not the ritziest surburb but It’s still a thirty minute drive from Apple, Facebook, Google etc.

Check out this 3 bed/ 2 bath, 1400 sq feet for $1.2 million. That’s what a starter SFH looks like in Fremont

 
Last edited:
Um, Fremont is not even close to being one of the most expensive cities on the planet. It's not even a Silicon Valley suburb, it's a bunch of random land way out in the East Bay.

*Correcting this only because you are usually meticulously correct.
Incorrect. Fremont is most certainly not ‘way out in the Eastbay’. It’s directly positioned in between Oakland and San Jose in the heart of the San Francisco Bay area and has some of the highest home values other than the peninsula.

Maybe you’re thinking of Lathrop. That’s more of a Central Valley farming suburb.
 
Incorrect. Fremont is most certainly not ‘way out in the Eastbay’. It’s directly positioned in between Oakland and San Jose in the heart of the San Francisco Bay area and has some of the highest home values other than the peninsula.

Maybe you’re thinking of Lathrop. That’s more of a Central Valley farming suburb.

I heard they have a terrible fire department though.
 
We're all hiding behind pseudonyms on an internet forum complaining about climate change when its staring us straight in our faces with so many people, literally, dying worldwide.

All we talk about, in this thread lately, is complaining about the guy that's leading the effort for, and options betting into, a company that's quite literally saving human civilization from itself.
 
Nice cherry picking there, why not include the entire quote?

"4680 cell production in Texas increased 40% quarter over quarter. Congrats to the Texas team for producing their 20 millionth cell off of line one. Texas is now our primary 4680 facility.


We're heavily focused on quality. Scrap is down 40% quarter over quarter. With the increased volume and yield improvements, cell costs consistently improved month over month within the quarter, although we have a lot more work to do to achieve our steady-state goals. And that is our priority."

Yes, yields weren't up 40% but production was up 40% and scrap was down 40%. If you are going to correct the mistake you should do so with full disclosure.
What do you mean "cherry picking" and "disclosure"?
@MP3Mike's point was that scrap was reduced by 40% versus yield increasing 40%. Which received a 'like' rating from the Original Poster. Yes, they could have asked if OP meant production was up 40% rather than yeild, but who has never focused on correcting an inaccuracy versustrying the discern intent?

You can increase production (total or good) without changing scrap or yeild rate. Production being up 40% doesn't say anything concrete about yeild or scrap ratios, unless you hold the number of cells they tried to make constant and term production as good cells.

Theoretically, if scrap was 50%, a 40% reduction in scrap results in a 40% yeild increase, but does anyone believe they would run millions of cells at those rates?
10 units, 5 scrap, 5 produced
40% higher yeild = 7 cells (1.4 * 5), 70%
40% lower scrap = 3 cells ((1-0.4) * 5), 30%