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

[mongo]

I can think of two reasons:

1. It’s the right thing to do: They believe potential buyers will appreciate the heads up, especially those who felt they were just about to buy. The heads up might be only due to Elon’s sense of fair play or that, in addition, Tesla wants to avoid reputational damage from raising the price without fair warning.


2. Tesla will sell more cars overall: Maybe some people really wouldn’t buy once the price goes up by X dollars/Y euros/Z whatevers so they pull the trigger.

3. The delivery teams miss the end of quarter wave rush and Tesla doesn't want them getting soft.

 

[capster]

3. The delivery teams miss the end of quarter wave rush and Tesla doesn't want them getting soft.

Not saying the end-of-quarter timing doesn’t enter into it, just saying there is value in giving a heads up on raising a price.

 

[Zaddy Daddy]

More demand goosing.

Um... yes?

If there was too much demand for current production rates, you'd want them to raise the price right away and capture that additional margin, not motivate more people to buy at the lower price.

This company is going to have YoY declines in earnings and possibly QoQ declines, they need all the boost they can get.

 

[FEERSUMENDJIN]

I agree. The Tesla Ranger concept is definitely another concept that seemed promising, and Elon hyped enormously in the 2018-2020 period. In practice, the Ranger has been limited at best and maybe even lackluster.

First new air filter on my 2019 M3P ordered on app in January, fitted by mobile Ranger (Model Y with back seats down/out in Van mode). Performed trunk harness retrofit that was clearly a programmed recall (free). 50 quid for air filter, delivery and fitting including tax. Did not have to get out of bed. Only visit to the service centre was for the squeaky control arms about 18 months ago (fixed under warranty). 95,000 miles

 

[GOVA]

As a quality engineer I would say Optimus maybe has potential to majorly improve quality but for now its hard to say with confidence.

Certainly a robot wouldn't have the main issues affecting human-performed operations. This would include problems like taking shortcuts, loss of focus, emotional issues, intentional sabotage, sneezing, and general inability to perform an action with consistency. With repetitive boring work it is inherently difficult for humans to maintain vigilance and attention, even if they're trying hard. Our brains really want to save energy and go onto habitual autopilot instead of focusing nonstop on an unchanging stimulus.

However, robots could introduce other failure modes. For example, when design or manufacturing process changes are introduced, human operators, with their intelligent understanding of context and common sense, can usually identify potential problems. If Optimus is basically just following programming, design flaws could go unrecognized for a long time without humans in the loop.

Additionally, it is likely, in my opinion, that we are nowhere close to robots having the same degree of dexterity and tactile sensing as human hands. Hands are incredible and many manufacturing operations in an automotive assembly line require that dexterity. Optimus, with its comparative clumsiness and dull sense of touch, could be more likely to cause accidental damage, incomplete wire contact insertion into terminals, dropped tools, sloppy sealant application, mis-threaded bolts/screws and so on.

I think the whole point of having this kind of robot is not to follow programming. You did lose me there @Gigapress

 

[GOVA]

Will be interesting to see if TSLA can assault 175 this week. The market makers have been vigilant in keeping TSLA from settling within about $1.50 of 175. A new development for Wednesday is that 170 calls have grown in number to over 50K calls and now the MMs really would like TSLA at least a penny below 170 on Friday's close. The thing that could screw up the MMs today would be better than expected guidance from the FOMC meeting results and subsequent Darth Powell rant. If things surprise to the high side then 175 could be breached. OTOH, if Powell does his usual scorched Earth rant, then we could see a dip below 170. Today, starting at 2pm, could be very interesting.

$175.66 I see. Does it matter @Papafox

 

[ggr]

Mod: Two posts deleted for various reasons. I chose not to delete the fairly obvious argumentative posts, but one way or the other, they will stop here.
--ggr

 

[unk45]

I disagree that Tesla’s way differs from what Deming professed. In fact I believe Tesla is one of the best in the world at actually doing what Deming proposed, this this is a major reason why I’m invested. I say this as a quality engineer who has spent a fair bit of time studying Deming and the Toyota Production System.

Nothing in Deming’s 14 principles indicates a focus solely on incremental improvement (“kaizen” in Toyota terminology) without any step-change radical improvements. And even so, Tesla’s rate of introducing incremental improvements to the production system is far beyond the rest of the industry, and it’s mostly driven by shop floor workers—a key tenet of Deming’s principles.

Sandy Munro was personally mentored by Dr. Deming while they both were at Ford, and he runs his company based on Deming’s teachings. The Munro and Associates website says, “Truly, the underlying Deming spirit and philosophy is evident in all the Munro products and services.” Sandy has called himself a “Deming disciple”. In fact, Sandy left Ford to start his own company because Deming told him to. Considering that Sandy is enamored with Tesla’s way of doing business, I think it’s safe to say Deming would be too if he was still alive.

I published an essay on this topic from a couple years ago:

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/thr...-particular-merit.140611/page-11#post-7015664

It is probably good that there is room for disagreement on both Deming himself and the revolution in Japanese industry fomented by his teachings;
As a matter of practice few adherents of Deming have actually practiced what Elon called First Principles, but there is no doubt that kaizen emphasizes what we would consider to be continuous improvement After all, everything Demings did was not focused on what manufacturing really meant, but rather on what was manufactured.
I admit to some bias, in large part driven by study of both Demings and places where be had the most influence. Since the qualifications we might have could be relevant, I did study Deming's work in some detail both at Columbia, before he arrived, and at NYU. Both of those were driven mostly by exposure to his work in Japan when I was working there, where he was nearly a minor deity.
Despite his massive accomplishments and the benefits of his thinking, over-simplified drastically by the 14 principles, nearly all his statistical base was devoted to production precision, as his famous Ford parts comparison with Japanese demonstrates. Indeed nothing explicitly says discontinuous innovation is precluded, but the very core of Demings ingredients is statistical process control, plus the crucial component of line worker input o the processes.

Those process do indeed yield very high quality. They do not explicitly consider the core capacity of materials innovation and applied physics to yield materials and process innovation.

Bluntly, Elon Musk invents. W. Edwards Demings made precise parts easier.
These are complementary, are the exceeding precise processes for cell production, Octovalve, plus rocket reuse...nearly all of Tesla and SpaceX can thrive only with precision that Demings could not have even conceived, nor could anyone back then.

Where divergence probably comes is perfectly analogous with investment management.
Demings and Graham were both seminal figures, firmly attached to the 20th century. Both are still useful, but neither adapt easily to rapid technological advance. In the world of generative AI and whatever comes next the tools themselves can build themselves, while the humans need to manage that process.

Thus, those hugely accomplished people can help us to better understand, but it is history, not today.
Without a single doubt I know that I do not have the ability to manage effectively today. That is probably why I cannot imagine voting for someone my age.

That is why I appreciate Tesla and SpaceX and have admired Elon Musk since just before PayPal. Hopefully I still can recognize such talents just as I hope that talent can survive endless attacks without breaking.

 

[capster]

…

Additionally, it is likely, in my opinion, that we are nowhere close to robots having the same degree of dexterity and tactile sensing as human hands. Hands are incredible and many manufacturing operations in an automotive assembly line require that dexterity. Optimus, with its comparative clumsiness and dull sense of touch, could be more likely to cause accidental damage, incomplete wire contact insertion into terminals, dropped tools, sloppy sealant application, mis-threaded bolts/screws and so on.

Estimating the rate of improvement of tactile sensing is interesting though not something I’ve thought about in some time.

On the one hand , the sensors and mechanical side may need some novel innovations. Though I can’t say for sure as I don’t know the state of the art here.

On the other hand, Tesla has a vision stack and visual processing is more complex than tactile sensing and there are some similarities in the neural processing structures in vivo, IIRC (Though biological tactile sensing does involve a greater variety of sensor types than vision). This is not to suggest this is done deal for Tesla, only that it may not be all that much of a stretch.

I wonder if Tesla could separate out the tactile technology trajectory—using upgradable ‘gloves’ or something—from the rest of Optimus development.

 

[H Mak]

Crazy. I live in Scotland and have 3 Tesla service centres within 1 and a half hours from my door. But then Dundee is the centre of the Universe

I can trump that. I live in Liverpool and there are 4 service centres within a 1 hour drive from my house. Soz

 

[GOVA]

Joe's video is worth watching. It looks like thy are running out of room to store CTs.

 

[dhrivnak]

It adds 2 or 3 minutes per charging session for me to park my trailer before I charge. Granted that’s a small utility trailer (so hooking up is easy); but it’s just a minor inconvenience for me.

I take more issue with the fact that lane keep doesn’t work while towing than I do with a lack of pull through charging.

Still, every time, I choose our model X vs. our gas SUV (our kids nicknamed grandpa) for towing our little 12’X6’ trailer for our 200 mile roundtrip weekly moto trip.

So one stop is definitely doable, but still for long cross country trips with a bigger trailer, I am not sure you would be using your X. I know I would not.

 

[Linkmeup]

It is probably good that there is room for disagreement on both Deming himself and the revolution in Japanese industry fomented by his teachings;
As a matter of practice few adherents of Deming have actually practiced what Elon called First Principles, but there is no doubt that kaizen emphasizes what we would consider to be continuous improvement After all, everything Demings did was not focused on what manufacturing really meant, but rather on what was manufactured.
I admit to some bias, in large part driven by study of both Demings and places where be had the most influence. Since the qualifications we might have could be relevant, I did study Deming's work in some detail both at Columbia, before he arrived, and at NYU. Both of those were driven mostly by exposure to his work in Japan when I was working there, where he was nearly a minor deity.
Despite his massive accomplishments and the benefits of his thinking, over-simplified drastically by the 14 principles, nearly all his statistical base was devoted to production precision, as his famous Ford parts comparison with Japanese demonstrates. Indeed nothing explicitly says discontinuous innovation is precluded, but the very core of Demings ingredients is statistical process control, plus the crucial component of line worker input o the processes.

Those process do indeed yield very high quality. They do not explicitly consider the core capacity of materials innovation and applied physics to yield materials and process innovation.

Bluntly, Elon Musk invents. W. Edwards Demings made precise parts easier.
These are complementary, are the exceeding precise processes for cell production, Octovalve, plus rocket reuse...nearly all of Tesla and SpaceX can thrive only with precision that Demings could not have even conceived, nor could anyone back then.

Where divergence probably comes is perfectly analogous with investment management.
Demings and Graham were both seminal figures, firmly attached to the 20th century. Both are still useful, but neither adapt easily to rapid technological advance. In the world of generative AI and whatever comes next the tools themselves can build themselves, while the humans need to manage that process.

Thus, those hugely accomplished people can help us to better understand, but it is history, not today.
Without a single doubt I know that I do not have the ability to manage effectively today. That is probably why I cannot imagine voting for someone my age.

That is why I appreciate Tesla and SpaceX and have admired Elon Musk since just before PayPal. Hopefully I still can recognize such talents just as I hope that talent can survive endless attacks without breaking.

My US immigrant mom worked an assembly line for manufacturing computer parts as a QA Inspector and I was a QA Engineer at the beginning of my career for almost half a decade. I don't think quality improvement and investment management can even be compared unless you look at it from the lens of technical analysis and optimization.

Edit: Happy to be wrong!

 

[elasalle]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1770489249801880048

 

[M|S|M MYP]

What is the line in the sand for Q1 deliveries? 475k, 480k, 499k? Or should i wait to ask this question closer to April 1st when goalposts have been moved?

 

[2daMoon]

Estimating the rate of improvement of tactile sensing is interesting though not something I’ve thought about in some time.

On the one hand , the sensors and mechanical side may need some novel innovations. Though I can’t say for sure as I don’t know the state of the art here.

On the other hand, Tesla has a vision stack and visual processing is more complex than tactile sensing and there are some similarities in the neural processing structures in vivo, IIRC (Though biological tactile sensing does involve a greater variety of sensor types than vision). This is not to suggest this is done deal for Tesla, only that it may not be all that much of a stretch.

I wonder if Tesla could separate out the tactile technology trajectory—using upgradable ‘gloves’ or something—from the rest of Optimus development.

Those Optimus videos using an egg in the demonstrations (hand and leg examples) showed the tech impressively performing delicate tasks.

On the hand demo there was an inset showing the live detection of pressure for each fingertip while placing eggs into a container.

Tesla seems to be well into developing these sensing technologies for the digits.

 

[Linkmeup]

It is probably good that there is room for disagreement on both Deming himself and the revolution in Japanese industry fomented by his teachings;
As a matter of practice few adherents of Deming have actually practiced what Elon called First Principles, but there is no doubt that kaizen emphasizes what we would consider to be continuous improvement After all, everything Demings did was not focused on what manufacturing really meant, but rather on what was manufactured.
I admit to some bias, in large part driven by study of both Demings and places where be had the most influence. Since the qualifications we might have could be relevant, I did study Deming's work in some detail both at Columbia, before he arrived, and at NYU. Both of those were driven mostly by exposure to his work in Japan when I was working there, where he was nearly a minor deity.
Despite his massive accomplishments and the benefits of his thinking, over-simplified drastically by the 14 principles, nearly all his statistical base was devoted to production precision, as his famous Ford parts comparison with Japanese demonstrates. Indeed nothing explicitly says discontinuous innovation is precluded, but the very core of Demings ingredients is statistical process control, plus the crucial component of line worker input o the processes.

Those process do indeed yield very high quality. They do not explicitly consider the core capacity of materials innovation and applied physics to yield materials and process innovation.

Bluntly, Elon Musk invents. W. Edwards Demings made precise parts easier.
These are complementary, are the exceeding precise processes for cell production, Octovalve, plus rocket reuse...nearly all of Tesla and SpaceX can thrive only with precision that Demings could not have even conceived, nor could anyone back then.

Where divergence probably comes is perfectly analogous with investment management.
Demings and Graham were both seminal figures, firmly attached to the 20th century. Both are still useful, but neither adapt easily to rapid technological advance. In the world of generative AI and whatever comes next the tools themselves can build themselves, while the humans need to manage that process.

Thus, those hugely accomplished people can help us to better understand, but it is history, not today.
Without a single doubt I know that I do not have the ability to manage effectively today. That is probably why I cannot imagine voting for someone my age.

That is why I appreciate Tesla and SpaceX and have admired Elon Musk since just before PayPal. Hopefully I still can recognize such talents just as I hope that talent can survive endless attacks without breaking.

Now, if you've gone to b-school (I have) - there's a class on pricing strategy where I learned something valuable. That is, product value = price + product quality in a general sense across any industry as a starting point.

There's optimization and QA attached to pricing and product quality that many business, marketing, and product leaders usually gloss over as irrelevant. Many with engineering, design, AND business backgrounds don't from what I can gather across public and private market companies. It's hard to find those multi-disciplinary talents.

Elon Musk? Otherworldly across all 3 disciplines all wrapped in one well-meaning Entrepreneur. It's easy to see why his companies all do extremely well from my vantage point.

 

[unk45]

My US immigrant mom worked an assembly line for manufacturing computer parts as a QA Inspector and I was a QA Engineer at the beginning of my career for almost half a decade. I don't think quality improvement and investment management can even be compared unless you look at it from the lens of technical analysis and optimization.

Edit: Happy to be wrong!

In context, I was not comparing the subject, but the two people, both creatures of the 20th century during times vastly different than those fo today, specifically in terms of both technology and information, both of which have changed massively due to calculating power and open information access via internet.

That makes both people interesting but obsolete, for the most part.

 

[Gigapress]

I think the whole point of having this kind of robot is not to follow programming. You did lose me there @Gigapress

I mean “programming” in the Software 2.0 sense of the word. Optimus wouldn’t just walk up to the assembly line and magically know what to do. It needs instructions, even if that means rote instruction with video examples of doing the operation. Programming in Software 2.0 is increasingly moving to natural language and examples rather than precise, explicit step by step commands. In a sense, telling a robot “grab this wrench and torque those nuts to 10 in-lbs” is a form of programming .

It’s still necessary for design and manufacturing engineers to document the engineering specifications and specific work instructions to tell the robot what it can and can’t do. Maybe AI could, like a human would, figure out what to do by reading written instructions and watching videos, but as with humans there is always going to be issues with design errors and vague/ambiguous technical instructions. The difference is that humans have general intelligence and broader contextual awareness that, presently, AI systems lack.

 

[Linkmeup]

In context, I was not comparing the subject, but the two people, both creatures of the 20th century during times vastly different than those fo today, specifically in terms of both technology and information, both of which have changed massively due to calculating power and open information access via internet.

That makes both people interesting but obsolete, for the most part.

A person that doesn't remember their history is doomed to repeat the mistakes of their history. There's value in all sorts of history and historical perspectives.