Todd Burch
14-Year Member
That curve went vertical in the last few weeks.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Well, I've had FSD for five years, and the last two weeks were the first time you could use it on every drive.
It was an astounding change so this is completely unsurprising to me.
Two good reasons:
- If one hangs out on the FSD12.X thread, there's a lot of people who had given up on FSD and weren't using it who've come back to the fold. Either to experiment; sometimes to complain, but mostly positive stuff.
- Since the wide release of 12.3.3 to (pretty much) any Tesla owner with a pulse, there's been a lot more people giving it a try.
colettimj
Member
Sorry. Don't you know you need sources?
One's not gonna cut it.
/s in case y'all are wondering
Last edited:
You would think. And yet it’s an off limits topic for tesla. Pretty much zero info for the shareholders.
Exactly. Tesla want's folks to believe that a personally owned Gen 3 may not ever come to market, and could be dedicated for RT only. And even better, get them to believe that the days of driving are ending soon, better get one with a steering wheel while they still make 'em!
GhostSkater
Member
Maybe first true V4 Supercharger
And also the reply to my comment, that China uses 380 V feed, vs 480 V in the US
If the 306 kW is an input current limitation, it could mean up to 480 kW
And also the reply to my comment, that China uses 380 V feed, vs 480 V in the US
If the 306 kW is an input current limitation, it could mean up to 480 kW
I happen to agree with Elon on that one.
Fully agree.
Large is, of course, a relative/subjective evaluation. Regarding the number of employees at the reported meeting, the line from the Reuters article says:
"Two sources said they learned of Tesla's decision to scrap the Model 2 in a meeting attended by scores of employees, with one of them saying the gathering happened in late February."
If a score is still 20, and knowing that people are bad at estimating, I would say that if this reported meeting indeed happened, and was attended in-person, it may have been attended by anywhere from 20-200 employees for the source to describe it in a way that led the author to describe it as "scores" and not "a few" or "hundreds."
Personally, my best guess is that BOTH the source and the author likely inflated the number a bit. The source is probably just over-estimating in their own memory, and the author probably chose the word "scores" since it is uncommon enough that readers will naturally assume it is a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if actual attendance was in that 20-40 range....and that lets my brain jump to the idea that maybe this was just one working group, or maybe the leaders at one factory, being redirected.
The article has plenty of inconsistencies and questionable bits, so even if there are pieces of truth, it doesn't all add up...
In one place, it mentions a March 1 company message "advising them to hold off on telling suppliers about program cancellation." Another reported message "sent March 1 said that suppliers should halt all further activities related to [the program].”
I guess you can tell suppliers to "halt all activities" (not pause or delay) without telling them the associated program is cancelled, but what's the point if they'd put 2 and 2 together?
And, how many suppliers would necessarily be different between Model 2 and Robotaxi anyway? The vehicles are supposed to be on the same platform, so they should share some components. And, for many elements likely to change between a consumer car vs. the robotaxi, Tesla is their own supplier -- Tesla stamps and casts much of their own body structures and body panels. Tesla makes their own motors and seats. Battery packs would likely be close to the same. Tesla wants to source all the battery cells they can get, so they wouldn't cancel a supplier if they could use those cells elsewhere.
Differences that would require talking to suppliers seems like either it would be the actual stamping/casting molds, or maybe assorted interior plastics/fabrics/etc. Or maybe tires/wheels/suspension bits.
I guess you can tell suppliers to "halt all activities" (not pause or delay) without telling them the associated program is cancelled, but what's the point if they'd put 2 and 2 together?
And, how many suppliers would necessarily be different between Model 2 and Robotaxi anyway? The vehicles are supposed to be on the same platform, so they should share some components. And, for many elements likely to change between a consumer car vs. the robotaxi, Tesla is their own supplier -- Tesla stamps and casts much of their own body structures and body panels. Tesla makes their own motors and seats. Battery packs would likely be close to the same. Tesla wants to source all the battery cells they can get, so they wouldn't cancel a supplier if they could use those cells elsewhere.
Differences that would require talking to suppliers seems like either it would be the actual stamping/casting molds, or maybe assorted interior plastics/fabrics/etc. Or maybe tires/wheels/suspension bits.
Last edited:
I tried to warn everyone that $TSLA was on sale and you only had a little time left. Nobody listens to me. Not even me.
(Actually I bought more shares yesterday at $168.60. So I did just fine. Dollar cost averaging.)
Good point.
With the difference in currency valuation and average incomes, a robotaxi in the right location in the US might produce $100,000's per year in income...but in many other countries the potential is much smaller. Google tells me the average annual income in Mexico is about $17K USD, and India is about $5K USD...even tourism or with some locals being much more wealthy, it just doesn't pan out for large numbers of robotaxis making large amounts of money.
Maybe Texas starts with a line that can produce both robotaxis AND the $25K consumer car....but for the consumer car, they only produce a dual-motor Performance version that costs somewhere in the price range of the SR/LR Model 3. Maybe make FSD mandatory too, sortof like the Foundation Series cybertruck.
That way, no osborning, and they can show a clear path to a cheaper battery, single motor with less power, utilitarian interior, and no FSD that will indeed cost $25K when Mexico comes online and production is in the millions.
I think you will get your wish. Unveiling a robotaxi makes no sense without unveiling a plan to use it.
It just has to sideswipe the car next to it. Door closed. Problem solved.
Somebody here told me that Tesla employees don't leak. So Reuters must have been lying about that.
So, how “perfect” does it need to be? Sure, there are nots to pick. But, every day, how many times do you curse another driver for doing something stupid, or say to yourself, yeah, that was an a-hole thing I just did. FSD 12.3.3 is much better than that now. As long as it doesn’t crash or run over anyone, it’s better than (most of) us already.
When it comes from the horse's mouth you don't need a source,
when it comes out of the horse's ass (FUR Reuters), you need a source
Nice analysis.IMO, TSLA might be in a world of hurt for a while.
Earnings estimates are coming in around $0.4 - $0.5 of EPS. Annualized that's around $2. At current share price, that's a running PE ratio of 85
TTM non-GAAP PE ratio would be around 70. These are high figures, usually kept for companies with very high earnings growth. Much higher than other tech stocks like NVDA.
That could be fine, if the market is valuing a high certainty of future earnings growth and discounting backwards.
High certainty, as say, a next-gen consumer vehicle.
NOT a robotaxi vehicle.
As much as bulls in here don't want to acknowledge, but the road to L5 autonomy is filled with uncertainty. Yes, one day they will get there, but in which year that happens is highly uncertain. No one can know when they will 100x their reliability. Yes that's right, the software will have to reduce interventions by 100x of the current level to even get close.
Now you may be a long term holder and not be concerned exactly when that happens, and that's fine. But Wall Street institutional investors are absolutely not basing their valuation models heavily on autonomy. They were hoping for automotive growth via a lower priced consumer product.
Now that you've taken that away, many won't invest at the current share price. It's simply too high without autonomy priced in some.
With such poor earnings growth, I expect the stock to take a dip after the latest earnings. Then there will be a run up into the 8/8 event on hype along with the fact FSD disengagements may continue to show a massive drop.
But then if earnings stay poor, there will be another selloff when folks realize the rate of improvement in the has slown down (which it will at some point).
Yes some of this is conjecture. But make so mistake - Musk is pivoting the company to be mostly dependent on autonomy success, and that will make the share price more volatile for years.
Tesla is high risk/high reward. Always has been. And as long as Elon is running the show, it always will be.
I cringe when I see someone post, "I'm all in on Tesla." I'm just thinking, I hope you are either young or lucky.
Invest wisely my friends. Don't go all in on anything unless you are prepared to lose everything.
But definitely buy some $TSLA.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
