You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If Tesla goes all in on the Robotaxi (RT) for the next generation, who buys it? Does Tesla sell RTs to consumers/businesses? Or does Tesla not sell them and operates their own fleet of RTs?
I could see the value of owning a RT so you don't have to wait for one to come get you - you just jump in and go.
If Tesla operates their own fleet, that is a ton of money they will need to build out the fleet. Where does that money come from? 1m RTs at a cost of, say, $20K each is $20B. If it all works out they will be money printers, but until then, that's a lot of cash they'll need beyond what they have now. Debt? Another stock offering?
I did some estimates on this last year. Robotaxis could have such a massive IRR that the early ones might pay for themselves within a year or so. The main variable that matters is how fast the network scales. In the most extreme case, if autonomy works and Tesla diverts 100% of vehicle production to the network, then they would likely need approximately $5-20B of additional cash from debt or selling shares to fund the investment. With a more conservative growth of the network, Tesla's existing cash reserves would probably be sufficient.
On second look, this was wrong and greatly understated the cash flow needs to build the Tesla Network fleet.
If the taxi costs $30k to make and has a $30k payback per year, then that’s an amazing ROI with an expected cash flow stream worth about $200k. But even so, the monthly profit is only $2.5k. It takes a year to make back the money spent on manufacturing. As the saying goes, you gotta spend money to make money.
If for example in steady state conditions they make 100k robotaxis per month it’ll be a monthly manufacturing cost of $3B or $36B invested in year one. Profits from that linearly growing fleet would have been 0.5 * $2.5k * 1.2M cars * 12 months = $18B. So with linear growth you’d need $36B - $18B = $18B in free cash to make up the gap until positive cash flow begins in Month 13.
With exponential growth, the lag effect is somewhat stronger. To hold things equal, let’s imagine they still spend $36B making 1.2M cars in Year 1 but they did it with exponential growth at 80% annualized or 5% month over month. That scenario is more realistic for the production ramp and is shown in the table below.
Note:
19 months until positive monthly cash flow when the fleet profits finally eclipse manufacturing costs from growing the fleet
32 months for the program to break even on total cumulative earnings
Maximum of $23B of working capital required cumulatively before reaching positive earnings on Month 19
Month
Production (K)
Manufacturing Cost ($B)
Fleet Size, Cumulative (K)
Fare Profit ($B)
Net Cash Flow ($B)
Running Cumulative Cash Flow Summation at End of Month ($B)
1
75
$ (2.25)
38
$ 0.09
$ (2.16)
$ (2.16)
2
79
$ (2.36)
114
$ 0.29
$ (2.08)
$ (4.23)
3
83
$ (2.48)
195
$ 0.49
$ (1.99)
$ (6.23)
4
87
$ (2.60)
280
$ 0.70
$ (1.91)
$ (8.13)
5
91
$ (2.73)
369
$ 0.92
$ (1.81)
$ (9.94)
6
96
$ (2.87)
462
$ 1.16
$ (1.72)
$ (11.66)
7
101
$ (3.02)
560
$ 1.40
$ (1.61)
$ (13.27)
8
106
$ (3.17)
663
$ 1.66
$ (1.51)
$ (14.78)
9
111
$ (3.32)
772
$ 1.93
$ (1.40)
$ (16.18)
10
116
$ (3.49)
885
$ 2.21
$ (1.28)
$ (17.45)
11
122
$ (3.67)
1004
$ 2.51
$ (1.15)
$ (18.61)
12
128
$ (3.85)
1130
$ 2.82
$ (1.02)
$ (19.63)
13
135
$ (4.04)
1261
$ 3.15
$ (0.89)
$ (20.52)
14
141
$ (4.24)
1399
$ 3.50
$ (0.74)
$ (21.26)
15
148
$ (4.45)
1544
$ 3.86
$ (0.59)
$ (21.86)
16
156
$ (4.68)
1696
$ 4.24
$ (0.44)
$ (22.30)
17
164
$ (4.91)
1856
$ 4.64
$ (0.27)
$ (22.57)
18
172
$ (5.16)
2024
$ 5.06
$ (0.10)
$ (22.66)
19
180
$ (5.41)
2200
$ 5.50
$ 0.09
$ (22.58)
20
190
$ (5.69)
2385
$ 5.96
$ 0.28
$ (22.30)
21
199
$ (5.97)
2579
$ 6.45
$ 0.48
$ (21.82)
22
209
$ (6.27)
2783
$ 6.96
$ 0.69
$ (21.13)
23
219
$ (6.58)
2998
$ 7.49
$ 0.91
$ (20.22)
24
230
$ (6.91)
3222
$ 8.06
$ 1.15
$ (19.07)
25
242
$ (7.26)
3459
$ 8.65
$ 1.39
$ (17.68)
26
254
$ (7.62)
3707
$ 9.27
$ 1.65
$ (16.04)
27
267
$ (8.00)
3967
$ 9.92
$ 1.92
$ (14.12)
28
280
$ (8.40)
4240
$ 10.60
$ 2.20
$ (11.92)
29
294
$ (8.82)
4527
$ 11.32
$ 2.50
$ (9.42)
30
309
$ (9.26)
4829
$ 12.07
$ 2.81
$ (6.61)
31
324
$ (9.72)
5145
$ 12.86
$ 3.14
$ (3.47)
32
340
$ (10.21)
5477
$ 13.69
$ 3.48
$ 0.01
Now let’s run it again but assume that the 80% production CAGR requires ongoing CapEx of $6B/year or $0.5B/month. We will assume Tesla gets ever more efficient with CapEx per unit of capacity as they have been for years, so we’ll keep it at the same level for the whole time.
Now we don’t start making positive cash flow until Month 22, need a maximum of $32B of investable cash, and break even overall at Month 36.
Month
Production (K)
Manufacturing Cost ($B)
Fleet Size, Cumulative (K)
Fare Profit ($B)
Manufacturing Expansion CapEx ($B)
Net Cash Flow ($B)
Running Cumulative Cash Flow Summation at End of Month ($B)
1
75
$ (2.25)
38
$ 0.09
$ (0.50)
$ (2.66)
$ (2.66)
2
79
$ (2.36)
114
$ 0.29
$ (0.50)
$ (2.58)
$ (5.23)
3
83
$ (2.48)
195
$ 0.49
$ (0.50)
$ (2.49)
$ (7.73)
4
87
$ (2.60)
280
$ 0.70
$ (0.50)
$ (2.41)
$ (10.13)
5
91
$ (2.73)
369
$ 0.92
$ (0.50)
$ (2.31)
$ (12.44)
6
96
$ (2.87)
462
$ 1.16
$ (0.50)
$ (2.22)
$ (14.66)
7
101
$ (3.02)
560
$ 1.40
$ (0.50)
$ (2.11)
$ (16.77)
8
106
$ (3.17)
663
$ 1.66
$ (0.50)
$ (2.01)
$ (18.78)
9
111
$ (3.32)
772
$ 1.93
$ (0.50)
$ (1.90)
$ (20.68)
10
116
$ (3.49)
885
$ 2.21
$ (0.50)
$ (1.78)
$ (22.45)
11
122
$ (3.67)
1004
$ 2.51
$ (0.50)
$ (1.65)
$ (24.11)
12
128
$ (3.85)
1130
$ 2.82
$ (0.50)
$ (1.52)
$ (25.63)
13
135
$ (4.04)
1261
$ 3.15
$ (0.50)
$ (1.39)
$ (27.02)
14
141
$ (4.24)
1399
$ 3.50
$ (0.50)
$ (1.24)
$ (28.26)
15
148
$ (4.45)
1544
$ 3.86
$ (0.50)
$ (1.09)
$ (29.36)
16
156
$ (4.68)
1696
$ 4.24
$ (0.50)
$ (0.94)
$ (30.30)
17
164
$ (4.91)
1856
$ 4.64
$ (0.50)
$ (0.77)
$ (31.07)
18
172
$ (5.16)
2024
$ 5.06
$ (0.50)
$ (0.60)
$ (31.66)
19
180
$ (5.41)
2200
$ 5.50
$ (0.50)
$ (0.41)
$ (32.08)
20
190
$ (5.69)
2385
$ 5.96
$ (0.50)
$ (0.22)
$ (32.30)
21
199
$ (5.97)
2579
$ 6.45
$ (0.50)
$ (0.02)
$ (32.32)
22
209
$ (6.27)
2783
$ 6.96
$ (0.50)
$ 0.19
$ (32.13)
23
219
$ (6.58)
2998
$ 7.49
$ (0.50)
$ 0.41
$ (31.72)
24
230
$ (6.91)
3222
$ 8.06
$ (0.50)
$ 0.65
$ (31.07)
25
242
$ (7.26)
3459
$ 8.65
$ (0.50)
$ 0.89
$ (30.18)
26
254
$ (7.62)
3707
$ 9.27
$ (0.50)
$ 1.15
$ (29.04)
27
267
$ (8.00)
3967
$ 9.92
$ (0.50)
$ 1.42
$ (27.62)
28
280
$ (8.40)
4240
$ 10.60
$ (0.50)
$ 1.70
$ (25.92)
29
294
$ (8.82)
4527
$ 11.32
$ (0.50)
$ 2.00
$ (23.92)
30
309
$ (9.26)
4829
$ 12.07
$ (0.50)
$ 2.31
$ (21.61)
31
324
$ (9.72)
5145
$ 12.86
$ (0.50)
$ 2.64
$ (18.97)
32
340
$ (10.21)
5477
$ 13.69
$ (0.50)
$ 2.98
$ (15.99)
33
357
$ (10.72)
5826
$ 14.57
$ (0.50)
$ 3.34
$ (12.65)
34
375
$ (11.26)
6192
$ 15.48
$ (0.50)
$ 3.72
$ (8.92)
35
394
$ (11.82)
6577
$ 16.44
$ (0.50)
$ 4.12
$ (4.80)
36
414
$ (12.41)
6981
$ 17.45
$ (0.50)
$ 4.54
$ (0.26)
This is generously assuming that the Tesla Network immediately hits the goal of $2.5k per month profit per vehicle from inception, and that Tesla continues to sell a bunch of their overall production to private owners instead of going 100% Robotaxi which would require more like $100B in total cash to do starting at expected 2024 run rates.
Building out a gigantic fleet at top speed while also supposedly investing a bunch in Optimus, mining and VPPs will require so much working capital if anything, another equity offering to raise capital seems much more likely than a share buyback at least until around 2027.
While I agree with that, you still have the order of operations wrong.
You don't put an L2 system on the road with a safety driver and hope "training makes it L4"
That's not what L4 is.
L4 requires specific features and capabilities FSD currently does not have- I've called them out specifically to you but since they're J3016 terms you refuse to understand what they are and why "just train more" doesn't magically create those functions.
What you do is put an L4 system (ie one that has those 3 missing things already) on the road with safety drivers. This lets you test those specifically-above-L2 items in a safe manner-- and then refine them as needed to achieve whatever your company has defined as reliable enough to remove the driver.
Which again requires at least an attempt at a complete OEDR, an attempt at a complete DDT fallback function, and a defined L4 ODD. None of which exist in FSD today.
AFTER you have those you can start doing RT work. BEFORE that you can just have a human-driven taxi with a really good ADAS system helping them out.
I've already told you the 3 major missing items. There'll be more small things they find, but they're likely things existing fleet data is already showing them (FSD curbing wheels since 12.x takes tighter turns for example).
Since you have never read it yourself, how do you know that?
I do know they'll never solve legal RTs without reading it and complying with it though.
(barring a whole revision of the laws of a bunch of places)
Sure. But you need those 3 fundamental items to exist before you can test them. In FSD today, they do not.
Because L4 is not just "really good L2". Fundamentally.
Are these regulators in the room with us now?
Seriously dude, you're factually wrong on how any of this works legally. It's been explained to you over and over and you simply ignore it.
The actual laws already exist in a bunch of states. 100% of them require compliance with J3016 for legal self driving. There's no "regulators" to satisfy- that ship has already sailed and what you need to satisfy is already on the books.
Even in the one US state that DOES require "approval"- CA- THOSE regulators ALSO use J3016 as the benchmark, not just "Tesla says it's good"
Why keep ignoring the actual laws?
Why keep refusing to answer the question of what US state you believe Tesla can deploy driverless in without J3016 compliance?
I think this is the first major divergence for AMD cars vs MCU2 cars in terms of basic look and features I can think of... remains unfortunate Tesla didn't design MCU 3 to be retrofittable like they did MCU2- seems like a lost revenue opportunity.
I'm not going to address every point. I don't have that kind of time.
I never said that "training makes it L4". And I never said that FSD is now feature complete for robotaxi.
Yes, there are missing features. Some Tesla knows about. Some they don't know about. There is no reason not to get started testing robotaxi functionality as those features are being developed. That's how you find issues. That's how you find the missing features you don't know about.
Honestly, I think we are mostly saying the same thing here, except that I refuse to go along with your "but-but the document" narrative. And that seems to annoy you to no end. The document can give Tesla some good ideas. But following the document doesn't solve the problem.
You asked how I know that Tesla will never solve robotaxi by reading a document. I know this because the people who wrote the document have never implemented a robotaxi service. They don't know what they don't know.
If following the document solved robotaxi, many would have done it by now.
Robotaxi will be solved by great engineers doing great engineering. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I agree. The specs on the cameras show the car is very nearsighted. In the country I’m often looking a half mile or more ahead. I drive a lot on two lane rural roads with passing necessary. The car has to move to where the center of the windshield is clear of the truck it’s passing and then can’t see more than about 1000 feet at best..NOT GOOD! A long range camera in the drivers side mirror housing would be a godsend. Also, my S is at least 10% less efficient on FSD.
I agree that FSD needs to become more strategic in its behavior. On you second point, you may just be a more efficient driver than I am. In a mixed freeway/town scenario, FSD is about 7% more efficient than I am. My LR Y gets 262 wh/mi on FSD and I only get 285!
Your system must comply with J3016 because the law says it must. I'm not sure "Compliance is because the law says so, not because SAE says so" is a useful distinction.
I can assure you I've read it more thoroughly than the two folks (not you) trying to debate it with me
In fact I've provided links to it multiple times in the last couple days in the discussion.
None of those things are being validated in any public version of the software- those things don't even exist in them.
Nor were they in evidence in the Elon version of V12 he livestreamed.
Again one can hope there's some WAY more advanced version in secret internal-only-not-known-to-anyone-even-the-employee-version versions, but I continue to find hope a poor investment strategy.
People keep saying it's a "bet the company" situation, but I think that's hyperbole. OG roadster, S and 3 were true do-or-die product launches. Nowadays, Tesla has a comfortable lead over the competition and plenty of cash, thanks to their prudent rejection of the shareholder demands to buy back stock last year to prop up the $TSLA price. They can afford to make a bold bet on autonomy and come up empty. At worst it will cost the company around $10 billion and set back the mission by a couple of years.
You are so disingenuous it’s become hysterical. There’s as much honesty in you as I have respect for you. To be clear, that’s less than zero.
Twitter lost much of its valuation BEFORE Elon bought it. It’s pretty easy to go back and see what happened market wide. That loss in value was one of the reasons people were all twisted sideways - he had to buy it at its peak market value; a clear overpay.
Yes, there are missing features. Some Tesla knows about. Some they don't know about. There is no reason not to get started testing robotaxi functionality as those features are being developed.
You CAN NOT put a robotaxi on the road, even with a human in it, without those things.
You CAN put a human taxi with L2 ADAS on the road. Lots of folks are already doing that via uber and lyft in Teslas though so I'm not entirely sure why Tesla would do that.
The fact you keep coming back to this is more evidence you don't actually understand the difference though.
Seems like confirmation that Elon has decided to bet the company again. I think it's unnecessary to take that approach at this point and adds risk that wasn't needed.
Elon has a good track record. Time to decide in / out again for the ride.
The uneasiness that I have with Elon "betting the company" on robotaxi is his track record with predicting FSD. He has demonstrated a blind spot for consistently over estimating solving FSD. I have great confidence in Tesla's ability to ultimately solve FSD. What makes Elon's ability to foresee FSD solving robotaxi - on a timetable that justifies deprioritizing gen3 any better than the 5 or 6 years of his FSD expectations? V12? I am impressed with v12, but no way I'm ready to bet my TSLA portfolio and delay gen3. Maybe he knows more than I do (he does), maybe he'll be right, but this bull is officially nervous about the next 6+ months now. I have NO idea if Q1 conference call helps or hurts!
B) Do you really think there are not potentially unforseeable circumstances that require reducing workforce... or that as organizations evolve there can't be some duplication of roles?
III) Or are you of the opinion that judicious cost control should be avoided in favor of employee retention, even if it jeopardizes the future of the company?
But how will a TaaS market move people? Our traffic jams exist for a reason. There is no traffic on many roads for many hours for a reason. I just don't see it from a network POV. Then I would add that I don't see it from a societal POV either. I don't see how the average family moves the crapola out of the car. I have posted all these concerns many times but nobody has ever responded with legitimate solutions.
I could see some movement if we shifted to remote work much more aggressively. EM does not like remote work. Traffic jams exist. Ride sharing buses make only 1 or max 2 trips in and out. They go 1 direction almost always completely empty. Still the best thing for traffic.
I think if an outsider actually looks at how people use cars and why they will become very very skeptical of TaaS. If it is cheaper than owning a car it will be really cheap. If the miles are that cheap, how do you make $. Todays owners take on all the variable costs and don't actually account for them.
I come back to RT simply replacing Ubers current market and expanding on the edges, so more likely a traveler uses a RT than renting or asking family for rides. Everyone contemplating driving somewhere for a short time and searching for expensive parking would likely use a RT. Etc etc. Same markets Uber serves.
To put it simply:
- At least initially, Robotaxis will have success in the same places, and to the same degree (although perhaps more profitable per vehicle) as current Uber ant Taxi services. In a city where uber/taxis are a small minority of cars on the road? Robotaxis can fill those spots and not much more. Likewise, in a city with tons of taxis in operation, robotaxis can take those spots and become a large percentage of the cars on the road.
- For other places, cities and/or lifestyles will have to be redesigned to make robotaxis (just like taxis of any kind) a big market in those places. That will take time for both the redesign and for people to actually accept it and shift.
new job listings being purged. I'm sure there will be new ones in near future, but existing ones are no longer available. This is far more than just removing the bottom performers. Seems more like a total reset.
Yikes! I wonder if the Tesla factory was a target for a specific reason, other than being a large place of employment that would get good publicity.
From one of the articles: "While demonstrators appear to be united in their objection to the ongoing war in Gaza, organizers say Tesla is also being targeted because they use minerals minded in the Democractic Republic of Congo (DRC) and that the company is complicit in genocide happening in that country."
Hmm...so at least based on Tesla's claims of how they ensure they aren't using minerals mined horribly un-ethically, it seems like the protesters may have just been heading toward the Tesla factory as a near-by target of convenience, but at least one of them came up with the standard anti-EV excuse that hits the media regularly...
If Tesla goes all in on the Robotaxi (RT) for the next generation, who buys it? Does Tesla sell RTs to consumers/businesses? Or does Tesla not sell them and operates their own fleet of RTs?
I could see the value of owning a RT so you don't have to wait for one to come get you - you just jump in and go.
If Tesla operates their own fleet, that is a ton of money they will need to build out the fleet. Where does that money come from? 1m RTs at a cost of, say, $20K each is $20B. If it all works out they will be money printers, but until then, that's a lot of cash they'll need beyond what they have now. Debt? Another stock offering?
There are many flaws in the robotaxi models, imo. I do not think it is a "build it and they will come" type of model. I could be wrong.
Several points/questions:
-if a $25k robotaxi would be "worth on the order of at least $100,000" (per Elon) why would Tesla immediately take a $75k+ loss on each one they sell?
-if those parameters held true, why wouldn't buyers just get into the perpetual flipping business? Buy one for $25k, sell it for $100k, buy four more, repeat.
-A lot of the "have your car work for you" models seem to assume constant demand, 24 hours a day. That's not how society works.
-I think people are vastly overestimating tolerance of random strangers in your car...free to do whatever they want without the peer pressure of a driver to not do stupid *sugar. Just look up the stories of what has taken place in trials with Waymo, Cruise, etc.
-Elon has said the fare per mile will be about half that of an Uber, roughly $1/mile for the person hailing the robotaxi. At today's interest rates (~6%), $25k over 5 years is $483/month, or $.48/mile if I drive 1,000 miles each month. The federal mileage rate for fuel and maintenance is $.67/mile. So all in, that's $1.15/mile even less bc, in theory, the Tesla should cost less for fuel and maintenance) if I own a $25k vehicle that acts as my personal taxi. And then I'll own it outright after five years, when I could sell it for ~$6-8k if I wanted. So who are all these end users of the RT that would pay ~$1/mile for a RT that isn't theirs vs $1.15/mile (highest end) for a RT that is their personal vehicle? I mean, the "fuel" cost is really probably going to be closer to $0.04-$0.05/mile so $.62/mile in maintenance is probably absurdly high. It's likely to be cheaper than $1/mile if someone just buys a $25k vehicle for themselves even if they finance $25k.
The math really isn't there to the extent that folks like Ark think it is once your start applying the tiniest bits of logic and critical thinking.
The uneasiness that I have with Elon "betting the company" on robotaxi is his track record with predicting FSD. He has demonstrated a blind spot for consistently over estimating solving FSD. I have great confidence in Tesla's ability to ultimately solve FSD. What makes Elon's ability to foresee FSD solving robotaxi - on a timetable that justifies deprioritizing gen3 any better than the 5 or 6 years of his FSD expectations? V12? I am impressed with v12, but no way I'm ready to bet my TSLA portfolio and delay gen3. Maybe he knows more than I do (he does), maybe he'll be right, but this bull is officially nervous about the next 6+ months now. I have NO idea if Q1 conference call helps or hurts!
I was wondering why everyone thinks Elon is betting the company on robotaxi/autonomy all of a sudden, so I:
- read the last 25 pages of this thread (consisting of mostly panicky "WTF is Elon doing?" versus a minority of "CHAAARGE" approval-posts)
- searched the interwebs for the source of these rumours.
I couldn't find more than "sources familiar with the matters" say (insert opinion of author).
I read a lot of "it looks like Elon is doing so and so" or "the layoffs seem connected" blah blah blah.
What I cannot find, is cold hard CONFIRMED facts. I guess I'll listen to what Elon has to say on the earnings call to find out what is happening. Clicking around on the internet for info on this is like diagnosing your symptoms on WebMD: you always end up thinking the worst case scenario.
TL;DR: take a chill pill everyone. As long as Tesla isn't losing money on every vehicle sold, they can outlast the macro storm (which, if you hadn't noticed, is still raging). If Tesla solves autonomy in the meantime, big bonus.
I don’t know about sounding the alarms, but inquiring minds would like to know why the numbers are down.? Tesla is still a relatively small auto manufacturer, and it’s at least curious why growth has stalled. One would think given the size of the auto market, the quality and price of Tesla’s products, particularly the Model 3 and Y, would continue to drive sales growth. Unfortunately, that’s not happening.
We can’t have a discussion about this as some people have heads in sand syndrome.
I don’t know about China but I think despite the economic situation and Elons behaviour in the US and Europe enough people can afford to buy the two models to match the maximum production possible.
Tesla should be taking more sales from the ICE vehicles at these price points.
The reason why this is not happening is because tesla is not doing targeted pro active advertising focusing on these potential customers.
In addition the overall customer service needs to improve to help facilitate sales.
I've thought about this notion a great deal over the last week.
Cancelling the $25K car to focus on RT could possibly be a brilliant move in hindsight years from now. My gut feeling is it would be a terrible choice, but seeing how competitive the auto and EV market has become, and seeing how efficient Chinese brands are getting at making affordable EV's, maybe Tesla is making a choice to give up on growing its auto market to instead focus on the new market no one else has the ability to compete in: TaaS (Transporation as a Service).
FSD when solved would be a huge tech breakthrough, one which no one else has nor can easily follow. It would enable Tesla to create a brand new market practically all to themselves with RT's.
Foregoing the super competitive auto market to focus and grow on a Tesla only RT market...well, its not a concept without a crazy degree of sound reasoning.
1) We know that some months ago there was a shift so that the initial production of Gen 3 will be in Austin (rather than the much larger Mexico factory). Following that, maybe it makes sense to do the Robotaxi first in smaller numbers. If there is demand for 4 million consumer $25K Tesla's per year, producing a few hundred thousand in Texas isn't going to meet that demand. People will be able to see how awesome the car is on the road, not be able to get one, but know that Mexico really will be spitting them out in huge numbers "soon." While some might step up to a 3/Y, many others who might have been thinking of "stretching" for a 3/Y might realize they really can wait, thus osborning the 3/Y to some degree. On the other hand, a few hundred thousand robotaxis (built on the same platform, just with a different cosmetic design, and more utilitarian materials) won't osborn anything...and they can be deployed into select cities to start testing service. And, at the same time, much of the robotaxi production will still prove out how the consumer version will be made, once Mexico starts.
2) As you said, the Chinese are very good at making inexpensive EV's. What if...WHAT IF...there has been some recent deal between Tesla and a Chinese company to do some badge swapping or shared engineering of some sort to better enable the net gen $25K car from Tesla? Something like that could take many forms...but I'm imagining something that enables Chinese-like production in North America. Maybe a deal like this resulted in a drastic change in how the $25K model will be designed and produced, resulting in scrapping the "old" plan. This is 100% wild idea from me...and there are many reasons why it is crazy...but a sudden deal like this could explain the apparently sudden shift in direction over the past few months.
There are many flaws in the robotaxi models, imo. I do not think it is a "build it and they will come" type of model. I could be wrong.
Several points/questions:
-if a $25k robotaxi would be "worth on the order of at least $100,000" (per Elon) why would Tesla immediately take a $75k+ loss on each one they sell?
-if those parameters held true, why wouldn't buyers just get into the perpetual flipping business? Buy one for $25k, sell it for $100k, buy four more, repeat.
-A lot of the "have your car work for you" models seem to assume constant demand, 24 hours a day. That's not how society works.
-I think people are vastly overestimating tolerance of random strangers in your car...free to do whatever they want without the peer pressure of a driver to not do stupid *sugar. Just look up the stories of what has taken place in trials with Waymo, Cruise, etc.
-Elon has said the fare per mile will be about half that of an Uber, roughly $1/mile for the person hailing the robotaxi. At today's interest rates (~6%), $25k over 5 years is $483/month, or $.48/mile if I drive 1,000 miles each month. The federal mileage rate for fuel and maintenance is $.67/mile. So all in, that's $1.15/mile even less bc, in theory, the Tesla should cost less for fuel and maintenance) if I own a $25k vehicle that acts as my personal taxi. And then I'll own it outright after five years, when I could sell it for ~$6-8k if I wanted. So who are all these end users of the RT that would pay ~$1/mile for a RT that isn't theirs vs $1.15/mile (highest end) for a RT that is their personal vehicle? I mean, the "fuel" cost is really probably going to be closer to $0.04-$0.05/mile so $.62/mile in maintenance is probably absurdly high. It's likely to be cheaper than $1/mile if someone just buys a $25k vehicle for themselves even if they finance $25k.
The math really isn't there to the extent that folks like Ark think it is once your start applying the tiniest bits of logic and critical thinking.
I don't think a regular Tesla car owner would be the ones to set their cars to be part of the RT service. The math doesn't work I don't think. It'll be all Tesla due to lower costs/maintenance/repair/parts shortages/certified shops/lack of care/concern for the vehicle/dealings with cleaning/maintenance/you name it.
Aside from that, do you/anyone thinks Uber/Lyft will take this lying down and let Tesla wipe out their companies completely by offering half the cost of an Uber? If someone needed a taxi, they would probably gravitate towards the lowest cost option of course and why Taxi's are in such a bad shape. This could be a Tesla RT, but I personally don't think it'll be as profitable as folks make it out to be (just random thinking, no facts here).
One thing with cars vs. trains/rail is that traffic messes up all that. Rail can be faster, especially in some markets where there is heavy traffic. You have some silly protestors blocking roads and you aren't getting to where you want to. This is a problem with driving too of course, but outside of how cool a RT service will/can be, how profitable is it really going to be and how much cash flow is it going to generate with all the maintenance? I understand software margins for folks who buy FSD if it works and one can sleep in the back seat, but I think the profits are limited for Tesla on a RT service which won't have the margins of simply selling software.
I don't drive enough to consider paying for any of this so I'm probably biased. Curious as well, how many of people's wives/females are hardcore looking forward to using FSD? I've mentioned before my partner has no interest in self driving or even basic auto-pilot stuff. Seems to be more of a boy and their toys thing.
