Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Donn:

If? The buyers already have pushed for more EVs. We knew that when the EV-1 came out.

The legacy OEMs are moving as sluggishly as humanly possible, for the most part. This is why Tesla is taking over. This is why the big auto companies in a decade will be Tesla, BYD, Geely, etc. and not the legacy OEMs.

This is how capitalism works. The OEMs can, in fact, choose not to go along; they just go bankrupt and get replaced by new companies. Most seem to have made this choice. :shrug: Weird on their part, but hey, it's why Tesla's a great investment.
You are missing the bigger picture.

The legacy OEM's answer to their shareholders. The legacy group are mostly all profitable. To do a major about face and go all EV would produce HUGE losses and cost many $billions. Tesla has racked up $11 billion in debt to get where they are but their shareholders expected that going in. The legacy shareholders would revolt if management tried this abruptly and all the CEO's would get canned. Then they have their global dealer networks to wrangle with.

You have to recognize their operating constraints. The fact Ford is committing $11 billion along with big changes at GM and Volvo is HUGE. Give them some credit for working towards EVs in their heavily shackled environments.

Tesla is like a 100 ft yacht surrounded by cruise ships. Tesla can be much more maneuverable since shareholders are along for the ride at this point solidly behind management.
 
Tesla is opposed to fundraising through dilution, but not through debt financing on favourable terms. E.g. GF3 is being built with local loans.
Interesting, i agree he has been cobsistent about no further dilution. Even buying back convertible rather than issue stock. No analyst (i am being generous in calling them that) thought to ask a single question on the financing of the china factory are they loans? Could they be grants? Are they subsidized interest rates? Is their loan figiveness based on production levels or hiring or buying chinese produced batteries? We have absolutely no information on any of this because the "analysts" did not think to ask
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden and M|S|W
You are missing the bigger picture.

The legacy OEM's answer to their shareholders. The legacy group are mostly all profitable. To do a major about face and go all EV would produce HUGE losses and cost many $billions. Tesla has racked up $11 billion in debt to get where they are but their shareholders expected that going in. The legacy shareholders would revolt if management tried this abruptly and all the CEO's would get canned. Then they have their global dealer networks to wrangle with.

You have to recognize their operating constraints. The fact Ford is committing $11 billion along with big changes at GM and Volvo is HUGE. Give them some credit for working towards EVs in their heavily shackled environments.

Tesla is like a 100 ft yacht surrounded by cruise ships. Tesla can be much more maneuverable since shareholders are along for the ride at this point solidly behind management.

I don’t think any of that actually disagrees with neroden’s point. To borrow your analogy, they’re all the Titanic headed for a glacier. Tesla nimbly turned and seems to have ensured their survival. That some or all of the rest may end up being too large to avoid the collision doesn’t change the result. Whether it’s fair or not, the iceberg is there.

EDIT: and, yes, I realize the irony in talking about icebergs when discussing a company whose primary objective is to slow global warming.
 
OK, you've convinced me to make one more point which I had in the back of my head.

I think until the how-to-drive problem is properly specified, which it has not been yet, we won't know what the neural network needs to be able to identify, so we won't know how to start working on the NN training.

Example already brought up: it needs to know when it is approaching a blind curve. This is a pretty complex 3d modeling problem -- not just about modeling the things you can see, but the implications of empty space which you can't see. Example from the other end: identifying that there's someone else on the other side of the blind curve requires listening for their horn. (I don't think Tesla's system even has the microphone pickup yet.) Another example: identifying the type of road surface (dirt, gravel, grass) is actually quite important for certain driving tasks.

Until the specification of the how-to-drive problem is nailed down, we don't actually know what the neural network needs to be able to identify. I fully expect that when the how-to-drive problem is being seriously worked on, it will end up requiring a basically-from-scratch retraining of the neural network because it'll have to pick out data which they didn't previously realize was necessary.

This is the problem with not understanding what problem you're working on.

(For this reason, I think Tesla's existing data collection isn't worth much of anything. Having the largest fleet of cars on the road to collect data with will, however, be worth quite a lot sometime in the future when they actually have a self-driving problem specification -- they'll be able to do that training stage much quicker than anyone who doesn't have millions of instrumented cars on the road. They will, however, be starting from scratch at that point.)
A Microphone to hear someone honking around a blind curve isn't going to be very useful if nobody is using their horn correctly in the first place. So slowly creep around the corner and hope for the best.

Identifying the road surface can probably be done with vision, though I'm not sure how well it can do so at distance (up close as it's driving over it, the side cameras should have a pretty good view).

But for both of these, if they could do it with audio cues, would probably be NN's and part of the sensor processing NN not part of the driving decision system (whether NN or not), and the information about horn honks and surface type would come out of the sensor NN.
 
Interesting, i agree he has been cobsistent about no further dilution. Even buying back convertible rather than issue stock. No analyst (i am being generous in calling them that) thought to ask a single question on the financing of the china factory are they loans? Could they be grants? Are they subsidized interest rates? Is their loan figiveness based on production levels or hiring or buying chinese produced batteries? We have absolutely no information on any of this because the "analysts" did not think to ask

I was disappointed by this too. I'm very curious as to how much of the cost has been secured through local loans thusfar. Not specifically "How much of the funding for an entire, completed GF3 has been secured?", but rather "How much of the funding has been secured for getting GF3's basic transportation/utility/support infrastructure in place and a single GA line and paint shop built?" Because once they have GA and paint in China, that offloads production-limiting steps from Fremont, increasing Tesla's total capacity.

I seriously doubt the full cost of GF3 has been raised. But I wouldn't be surprised if they've already funded up through a GA line and paint shop, so they can switch to shipping body-in-whites to China. Wouldn't be surprised to see the GA line in Q2/Q3 and the paint shop in Q4 (possibly even earlier).
 
That's sort of interesting. As it stands, Tesla does basically ZERO marketing or advertising, relying solely on owners and showrooms for building awareness and interest. It would be interesting if internally at TESLA they had moved to some types of product placement, in shows, movies, etc., in some fashion. ti's usually a more complementary form of advertising, not in lieu of usually, but it would be interesting is somewhere internally they had decided to put product placement in the mix for a start.
I've seen 3 in the last week (but I can only remember the last one... hell to get old).
 
I don’t think any of that actually disagrees with neroden’s point. To borrow your analogy, they’re all the Titanic headed for a glacier. Tesla nimbly turned and seems to have ensured their survival. That some or all of the rest may end up being too large to avoid the collision doesn’t change the result. Whether it’s fair or not, the iceberg is there.

EDIT: and, yes, I realize the irony in talking about icebergs when discussing a company whose primary objective is to slow global warming.
I was going to post something snarky but you said it better anyway...carry one
 
But on a positive note I've noticed quite a few more Teslas showing up on TV shows recently. For instance, on Chicago PD last night, the bad guy was being driven in a Model X (by a good guy... kinda) and it was way cool to see one of the falcon wing doors open.

That's great, cheap advertising. I suppose the cops kept the car though...
Best marketing was Curb’s aggressive beep episode.

Larry-David-Tesla-Honk-Curb-Your-Enthusiasm-.jpg
 
  • Funny
Reactions: AZRI11 and wipster
You are missing the bigger picture.

The legacy OEM's answer to their shareholders. The legacy group are mostly all profitable. To do a major about face and go all EV would produce HUGE losses and cost many $billions. Tesla has racked up $11 billion in debt to get where they are but their shareholders expected that going in. The legacy shareholders would revolt if management tried this abruptly and all the CEO's would get canned. Then they have their global dealer networks to wrangle with.

You have to recognize their operating constraints. The fact Ford is committing $11 billion along with big changes at GM and Volvo is HUGE. Give them some credit for working towards EVs in their heavily shackled environments.

Tesla is like a 100 ft yacht surrounded by cruise ships. Tesla can be much more maneuverable since shareholders are along for the ride at this point solidly behind management.


load of BS
what’s the implication? they have only themselves to blame.
 
You do realize that that's exactly what I said, right? Why are you acting like you're disagreeing with what I wrote? Did you happen to see one word in my post and then pounce without actually reading the post?

A) We didn’t say the same thing
B) I was addressing those who keep bringing up (and thinking) stamping as a non-issue in terms of production starting next year- it is an issue. The time table is nigh impossible.

Stamping was going to be the issue for M3 production except something else happened first at Gigafactory requiring roof smores and Teslaquilla and then a second thing happened called fluffer bot. Those two mistakes allowed the stamping issue (that Elon talked about on an ER) to not happen because extra time was created.

C) I didn’t pounce. I simply used your post to nip the thought that stamping wouldn’t be an issue for GF3 production next year. Yes, it will be because not enough time.

It’s a flat year to make a new press line from scratch. There’s no way around it. Schuler (or whomever) needs to be building it now to be ready for Q419. A shorter time frame for a press line could occur if they find and buy an appropriate used one. However, they aren’t a dime a dozen and even a fairly newish one is going to be less sophisticated and made for different sets of dies. There will be retrofitting and reprogramming and maybe changes to die sets for optimizations and on and on. I also think they’ll need two lines sooner rather than later; maybe one custom built and one used can work. A second for sure when Y shows up unless they decide to outsource those body panels. Don’t know why they’d do that but it is always an option.

Die set copying is minimum 6 months, which is good except that there’s still trials to be done on the presses and if the presses aren’t ready it doesn’t matter that the dies are. Trials are several weeks in length even for copied dies and several more weeks for getting to run rate so talking a number of months added onto the 6.

So while copy can reduce time for GA, batteries, paint shop et al...stuff still takes time. Producing at GF3 next year is an aggressive timeline no matter how you look at it. Even building lines while tent being thrown up. It’s full throttle at Tesla as usual.

In conclusion, I caution people adding GF3 production into their analysis for next year.
 
The fact Ford is committing $11 billion along with big changes at GM and Volvo is HUGE. Give them some credit for working towards EVs in their heavily shackled environments.

Tesla is like a 100 ft yacht surrounded by cruise ships. Tesla can be much more maneuverable since shareholders are along for the ride at this point solidly behind management.

Yes their captain turned the rudder slightly, but I think I heard "2021 (or 2022) as originally planned all along" for their EV's. By then, where will Tesla be? Not disagreeing, it's the typical Quarterly vision.

This reminds me of when AMD made a cheaper version of the Intel 486. From that day forward, the pricing changed for everyone. Let's see if Ford or GM can get ANY margins on an EV. Elon just repeated that Tesla has the lowest costs on Batteries. IMO, the big three are in deep deep trouble moving forward.

Elon's right to be more excited about the Tesla Truck than the Model Y. The Truck could be the final nail in the coffin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.