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.
Stop trying to make me say things I didn't say sir. My point (not yours) is that these are inventory vehicles that were produced but not yet shipped.
what basis do you have for claiming those missing cars cost sales?
South Shanghai Port. Specifically M3 Performance. This was posted days after Q1 P&D.
The C code and the NNs run on different chips though. There's SOME shared resources, but not nearly as much as it sounds from throwing that 300k lines of code bit out there.
Different parts of the same chip. The original FSD chip had 8 ARM cores right next to the NN accelerator. I assume the latest chip uses a similar design.
You are conflating "chip" with 'board'
The resources "freed up" by not using 300k lines of C code are mostly cycles on the ARM cores.
The end to end NNs run on the NN accelerators.
Again there's probably some "savings" from reduced traffic between them, and some memory savings, but it's not like the NNs themselves can suddenly run the stuff they were running on the NN chips on those ARM chips instead.
Given Tesla had ample inventory in the places those cars were going- what basis do you have for claiming those missing cars cost sales?
Can you cite any specific places there's any reports of cars not being available from inventory but there being expected deliveries to customers? I'm entirely open to the idea this is true but I've seen nothing in the numbers to actually support that, and plenty that contradicts it.
Understood. I know I don't know this stuffThe C code and the NNs run on different chips though. There's SOME shared resources, but not nearly as much as it sounds from throwing that 300k lines of code bit out there.
Agreed.It wasn't dead- they still delivered 387k cars--- but it was factually lower than in the past, even for historically weak Q1.
Agreed.Only because the massively cut production YoY. By nearly 70,000 cars.
And STILL ended up with sales also down YoY for the quarter.
Agreed....although I'll point out that, depending on the media source, the readers shouldn't be expected to know about the seasonal nature of car sales...which can result in misleading headlines.Last quarter was terrible though.
This one is "only" down a little under 5% YoY (which is the more correct way to compare given the seasonal nature of car sales)
Whoa whoa whoa...please don't read into or misinterpret what I said. I may be more optimistic than you (that's not supposed to be an insult), but I'm fact-driven as I believe you are.They really do- and you're engaging in exactly the same misrepresentative hyperbole you appear to be mad at others for.
Because again that's the most fair and accurate way to compare an industry that is seasonal in sales.
If you think QoQ is better then Q1 was really awful. Can't have it both ways.
You SHOULD ignore them-- because Tesla clearly had tons of inventory cars available and none of those things hurt sales.
Lack of higher demand hurt sales.
As proven by THIS quarter where they had to cut production almost 70,000 cars YoY to manage to show inventory drawdown and still had lower sales YoY despite record low promo rates on financing.
Again if you want unmitigated great news- it's over there under Tesla Energy.
The best spin you can put on the car business right now is "not as bad as feared and Tesla is being increasingly nimble in mitigating the situation"
BTW someone else mentioned it earlier but seems worth calling out again--- S/X sales appear to have been terrible....
21,551 total deliveries for "other" and most seemed to be guessing CT was around 15k.... meaning only ~6500 S/X for the entire quarter? What's going on there?
I get it's a tiny part of the business anymore, but was historically a nice margin pad...
No, he wasn't. The ARM cores and the NN procesing units are on the same chip not board:
View attachment 1061618
View attachment 1061619
So, to conclude:
I know last quarter was bad. We agree on that.
I suspect Q1's numbers were made somewhat (maybe very slightly) worse due to the shipping and production disruptions. We may disagree on that...but I suspect that there may have been a few extra custom-order cars that couldn't get to their owners before the end of the quarter because they were either stuck on a ship taking the long way around Africa, or because the production disruption at Berlin caused a misalignment of when some custom-order cars could be produced vs. shipped and delivered to their orderer before the end of the quarter. Yes, inventory went up by a huge number...but SOME (even just a few) of those may have just been cars that couldn't get to the right place at the right time and delivered before quarter end because of the unique issues.
Q2, for car deliveries, is worse than Q2 2023...but is better than Q1 2024. I think we agree on that?
I'll admit to being over-imaginative and hyperbolic in illustrating how biased *some* media sources are, I'll agree with you on that too.
Interesting. I think I would assign a smaller number for Cybertruck deliveries in Q2...but even if I go all the way down to like 8,000 cybertrucks delivered (which seems WAY too low), then the S/X sales are still much smaller than expected.
Possibly low COGS. We've been seeing cost of goods dropping the last few quarters, and Tesla has mentioned it themselves.Accountant as a profession here. That's not how it works.
Simplified, gross profit = delivered units x (ASP - COGS).
Delivered units is known. 443k is a good number, but not a surprise anymore.
ASP and COGS have little room for surprise
So where's the massive profit is coming from?
Your comment adds nothing to this investment thread so it got a disagree. If you insist on a reply, TSLA being at 230 doesn’t change the fact that Elon should be spending more of his time at Tesla, laying off the entire SuperCharger team was a mistake, and Tesla is dropping the ball not announcing/breaking ground on more Gigafactories/Megafactories.
My apologies for not being specific enough.
Change it to "the ARM cores on the SoC are not where the NNs are running so freeing up space by reducing C code doesn't magically create a bunch more processing power the NNs (which run on the TPU cores on the SoC) can use."
I don't believe he was arguing that regarding C-code execution location.
now that they have cut out the 300,000 lines of C++ code, the hardware is now able to be used more efficiently and make the best use of its capabilities.
Eager intern must have hit the publish button before getting approval.As I’ve been monitoring my CNBC app more than usual this morning, I noticed a new article headlined:
Tesla shares rise on better-than-expected Q2 deliveries report
When I read it I realized it was basically the same article I had read earlier by Lora Kolodny but I think the headline had previously featured the huge YOY drop in deliveries. The article no longer showed the poor lonely Tesla sitting on the lot anxiously awaiting a buyer, but a picture of a bustling scene of numerous Teslas loaded on trucks and awaiting delivery.
I hope Lora doesn’t get too upset about some editor changing her story. It would be such a loss for CNBC if she quit.
Then what do you think this meant, which was the original post that spawned this discussion?
Different parts of the same chip. The original FSD chip had 8 ARM cores right next to the NN accelerator. I assume the latest chip uses a similar design.
You are now quoting a different person.
Ah ha! Ross Gerber identified!Your comment adds nothing to this investment thread so it got a disagree. If you insist on a reply, TSLA being at 230 doesn’t change the fact that Elon should be spending more of his time at Tesla, laying off the entire SuperCharger team was a mistake, and Tesla is dropping the ball not announcing/breaking ground on more Gigafactories/Megafactories.
Accountant professional here . Large jump in profits due toAccountant as a profession here. That's not how it works.
Simplified, gross profit = delivered units x (ASP - COGS).
Delivered units is known. 443k is a good number, but not a surprise anymore.
ASP and COGS have little room for surprise
So where's the massive profit is coming from?
I don't see how margins get squeezed much on the energy side. Demand is still quasi-infinite and battery cell prices will continue to fall.