Tesla Burns Through $2 Billion In 2017 (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Tesla reported record revenue for 2017, floated by customer deposits of the recently announced Semi truck and Roadster sports car. Despite its optimistic sales numbers, Model 3 production issues and cash flow problems haunt the company, but Tesla insists its on track to meet its production goals of 5,000 cars a week by mid-2018. Tesla reported $3.3 billion in revenue, which was expected, but also posted a $771 million quarterly loss -- its largest quarterly loss ever. The company reported a negative free cash flow of $276.7 million. And it reported a net loss of $2.24 billion in 2017, a significant increase over the $773 million net loss it reported in 2016.

Comments

Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[Anonymous Coward]

You gotta do things in order to get things done.

You gotta spend money to make money.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[zifn4b]

You gotta do things in order to get things done.

You gotta spend money to make money.

Except if you spend too much money and don't get enough results, bankruptcy for you. It doesn't matter how good your idea is or if it's going to change the world for the better. In most of the world, it only matters whether it can achieve ROI and there are constraints in the form of how much VC a firm is willing to put into your company before they don't think you're going to do anything else other than throw them under a bus.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[mspohr]

So far, Tesla has produced enough so that people are eager to throw money at it. No problem raising funds.
They are making cars and have plans for new models and trucks and energy storage and solar panels and roofs. That takes money. As long as they deliver, they can continue to raise money to grow. If they stopped spending on new stuff today, they would be profitable but wouldn't have much of a future.
It took Amazon years to become profitable and now Bezos is world's richest man.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[mamba-mamba]

"No problem raising funds." This is actually not true. Last time they raised funds they did so by selling bonds. Their corporate debt is rated below investment grade (in other words, they are "junk bonds."). I don't think they can easily issue new stock. That would have to be approved by the board and the shareholders.

It doesn't matter how high the stock price is. That doesn't really help them raise money in any significant way.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[Anonymous Coward]

You gotta spend money to make money.

As I learned, watching Robocop.

What I don't get is how Tesla burns money. They're supposed to discharge money.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[vtcodger]

Let me get this straight. Tesla is booking significant revenue from cars they haven't yet built and likely won't build for years and THEY ARE STILL LOSING MONEY? Did Elon take a business management course from Donald Trump?

Yes, Tesla has a great story, but ...

Not all great stories have a happy ending. In this case, there may be a great success story. But looks like there is a significant chance that the company name and some products will survive as a division of some other car maker, but the current investors and bondholders will end up with nothing more than a tax writeoff.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but Bezos didn't expect me to buy low quality books with wild panel gaps, door rattles, no safe exit from the back seat in a crash, etc. etc. Bezos' stuff was just as good as his competitors. Tesla is still trying to do better than KIA and Hyundai, from the 90's even. Just the other day I stood in the parking lot to count panel gaps on a Model S. I counted 4 different panel gaps, including thumb and pinky gaps. The Hyundai it sat next to had only 1 panel gap size, for ALL the panels. It was easy to see who knows how to make a car and who is still figuring it out.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla is booking significant revenue from cars they haven't yet built and likely won't build for years and THEY ARE STILL LOSING MONEY?

Deposits don't do Tesla any good on profits. They get money in but they now owe the money back to the depositor. It does help their cash flow, which is important but not part of profits.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[Paradise Pete]

Let me get this straight.

Go ahead.

Tesla is booking significant revenue from cars they haven't yet built and likely won't build for years and THEY ARE STILL LOSING MONEY?

Damn. You want to get it straight, we tried to let you get it straight, but then in the very next thing you write you get it wrong. Deposits are not revenue. They don't affect the profit/loss in any way.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[goose-incarnated]

So far, Tesla has produced enough so that people are eager to throw money at it.

And? All companies get investment, until they don't. It's a tautology so I'm not sure what that sentence is supposed to prove.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[Rei]

This is actually not true

No, it is true. Despite all the hyperventilating last fall, Tesla finished Q4 with their third highest (nearly second highest) cash-on-hand, $3,4B (#2 was $3,5B in Q3, #1 was 4B in Q1). And now they're actually getting meaningful revenue from Model 3s, and that will only increase throughout 2018. The guidance is now to become GAAP-profitable on a more or less permanent basis later this year.

It doesn't matter how high the stock price is

The stock price is a reflection of the fact that - whether you do or not - people believe in the future of Tesla, regardless of short-term hiccups. There's a huge number of people who want to buy low to ride what they see as its huge long-term growth potential (again, whether you do or not). And helping drive that is public enthusiasm for their products. There's a half million people on the waiting list for the Model 3 alone - the waiting list. Many of whom have been waiting for nearly two years. Again, regardless of whether you personally are enthusiastic for them.

I don't know if you've ever hung out with any TSLA investors (I'm not an investor, but I know quite a few). These are people who've profitted hand-over-fist betting on the company while listening to people like you talk about how the company is doomed for the past decade, and laughed their arses off at people shorting the company while shouting doom and gloom about some sort of imminent bankruptcy, and then losing their shirts. They see each quarterly report as win-win. If the stock goes up after the quarterly report, they make a ton of money. If it goes down, they get to buy on the low.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[Rei]

Pick a brand. Now google phrases like "problems with my X" or "problems with my new X", where X is the brand. You'll find tons and tons of pages of people complaining about it. And of course you will, because you're deliberately imparting selection bias to your search.

It's amazing the difference I see reading these "Tesla build quality is terrible!" articles / vids people share, versus the reports over on the Model 3 forum of random people documenting their delivery processes as they happen and going over their car with a fine-toothed comb afterwards. From the former, you'd think that they're held together by gaffer tape and carpenter's glue. From the latter, it's nothing even remotely resembling that.

There is a measurement of how satisfied customers are with their cars overall, and that's... wait for it... customer satisfaction. If you don't want a statistical bias, that's your measure. And of course, Consumer Reports tracks it. Guess what? Tesla is almost always at the top of the list. The question you should be asking yourself is not "Why are 10% of Tesla owners unsatisfied", it's "Why are 38% of BMW owners unsatisfied"? "Why are 24% of Audi owners unsatisfied?" "Why are 30% of Lexus owners unsatisfied?" "Why are 40% of Infiniti owners unsatisfied?" "Why are 36% of Cadillac owners unsatisfied?" Etc. And it's worth pointing out that most Tesla customers came from other luxury brands.

Re your "no safe exit from the back" remark:

1) Model 3 unlocks the doors automatically in the event of an accident. P. 33 of the manual. Listed in the crash events alongside the airbags going off, hazard lights going on, interior lights going on, and HV disabled. Note that it takes 12V to trigger the airbags as well, so if your airbags are going off, your rear doors are getting unlocked.

2) Depending on how the rear latch mechanism works (I don't know this), it may well *default* to unlatched upon loss of 12V. Has anyone actually checked what type of electronc latch it has? (or for that matter, checked for an emergency release under trim, like the X)? I'd wager it probably stays latched, but without checking, it's not something you can flatly assert.

3) Even if it did not auto-unlock, even if it did not passive fail to unlocked... how would it be any worse than a coupe? How would it be any worse than child safety locks on most cars (most cars, not Teslas - child safety locks are disabled in the event of an accident in a Tesla)? Where is your doom-and-gloom public safety campaign against coupes and child safety locks?

Just the other day I stood in the parking lot to count panel gaps on a Model S.

Funny, because for me finding a panel gap on a Tesla has been somewhat of a unicorn. I keep hearing about this supposed problem of widespread panel gaps, and yet I'm yet to find one in real life - despite trying. I don't doubt that they exist somewhere, but as of yet? I'll keep hunting for them ;)

FYI, Consumer Reports ranks the current Model S as "above average" reliability.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, they're not investing in the company. They're just feeding off the stock market fluctuations. Company doesn't see a dime of the money your friends are making.

The problem is that just as he pointed out, you're not willing to engage with the point that is being made. Tesla is burning through money it has on hand rapidly, it cannot easily get corporate debt as its corporate debt is junk-grade, and whatever stock market values its shares at is irrelevant for cash it has on hand. Because it can't just issue new stock to sell.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[Rei]

Company doesn't see a dime of the money your friends are making.

The fact that there are huge numbers of people out there who want to "buy low" - the reason Tesla's stock has held its value through the Model 3 delays - means that they can raise money through stock if they ever need to. Easily. The only time Tesla will not be able to raise money from stock is if the market suddenly decides that it has no future - aka, customers stop having interest in their products and/or they show signs of sustained negative margins on their products. Neither are even close to reality. Interest is sky high, and Tesla - despite all the capex from scaleup - has solid margins.

Tesla is burning through money it has on hand rapidly,

Try reading a post next time before commenting: "Despite all the hyperventilating last fall, Tesla finished Q4 with their third highest (nearly second highest) cash-on-hand, $3,4B (#2 was $3,5B in Q3, #1 was 4B in Q1). And now they're actually getting meaningful revenue from Model 3s, and that will only increase throughout 2018. The guidance is now to become GAAP-profitable on a more or less permanent basis later this year."

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[Maritz]

I don't think you're going to tempt him away from his 'tesla is doomed' comfort blanket.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[mjwx]

So far, Tesla has produced enough so that people are eager to throw money at it. No problem raising funds.
They are making cars and have plans for new models and trucks and energy storage and solar panels and roofs. That takes money. As long as they deliver, they can continue to raise money to grow. If they stopped spending on new stuff today, they would be profitable but wouldn't have much of a future.
It took Amazon years to become profitable and now Bezos is world's richest man.

Amazon went into a completely uncontested market, in 1995 no-one had even considered e-commerce. Musk is entering a market where he will not only compete with existing ICE cars, but electric cars from existing manufacturers with far deeper pockets.

Single trick companies are notorious for failure in the automotive world. Musk is depending on subsidies to make his products palatable to buyers and isn't profitable. If you've ever seen a map of who owns bits (or in entirety) of who you'd realise why Tesla is doomed to failure, the entire industry is incestuous.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[vtcodger]

From the article: "Tesla reported record revenue for 2017, floated by customer deposits of the recently announced Semi truck and Roadster sports car...."

Apparently they really are booking the deposits as revenue. That's not entirely unreasonable. My belief is that the IRS to expects you to report income in the year that you get constructive use of the funds. Unless Tesla is putting the deposits in escrow, I reckon they'd probably have to book the deposits as revenue.

I have no idea what GAAS says you should do wrt to the future costs associated with the transaction. Perhaps they are booking some sort of offsetting debit for the expected future costs of manufacturing the goods. ... or maybe not.

Re:Gotta break eggs to make an Omelet.

[mamba-mamba]

Basically there are two ways for a public company to raise money. They can sell bonds, or they can issue new stock. Tesla's bonds are rated below investment grade by industry rating agencies. Big Tesla shareholders will not allow Tesla to issue new stock, because it will dilute their percent ownership. When existing shares of stock change hands, the company doesn't get any of that money. You may already know this, but from your comments it sounds like you don't realize that. It sounds like you think that somehow, when the stock price goes up, the company somehow receives money. But that is not the case.

Tesla has accomplished many amazing things and advanced the state of the art. They have proved that there is a market for electric vehicles. But they have not yet proved that a company can turn a profit selling electric cars. (Tesla has not yet achieved profitability.) And the last time they had to raise cash (August 2017), they did so by selling 1.8 billion in junk bonds at 5.3% yield. That is one reason why they have so much cash on hand. Because they just sold 1.8 billion in junk bonds.

Now everything hinges on the model 3. If they cannot get it on track, they are going to be in financial trouble. If they try to sell more bonds, the market will not react well. It will reek of desperation. Based on anecdotal stories from the inside, things are not going well. I am not a Tesla hater. I just think the stock is over-valued.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/1...

If it gives me another Starman

[the_skywise]

I don't care!

Re:If it gives me another Starman

[nospam007]

It's just accounting.

He can claim the 140 million miles to Mars his red convertible makes this year as business expense ($0.54 per mile)

Perhaps he also got a bill from SpaceX for the publicity stunt that he an claim as well. :-)

Re:If it gives me another Starman

[david_thornley]

He did get the right to say that Tesla made the fastest production car in the Solar System.

Smart with money

[Anonymous Coward]

But, he's being smart with money, like firing a Tesla into space, buying a failing SolarCity and absorbing its losses, losing money on an Australia battery contract just to make big news, etc.

Re:Smart with money

[WindBourne]

His personal tesla was launched into space, because SPACEX had to launch some weight. This was cooler than simply putting in lead.
Solar CIty was doing fine, except towards the end, a number of companies were targeting SC. And now, SC, who has 1/3 of the installation, will be back to do so.
Huh. Tesla sold a product at a profit that has now saved Aus. state gov millions of $. As such, nearly all of the Aussie states want to work with Tesla so that all make money. And yes, Tesla made money on that contract.

Re:Smart with money

[jezwel]

And that same Australian government that commissioned the battery has now commissioned solar roofing for 50,000 houses from Tesla. No more free batteries required either after the first, now it's order taking and (you'd expect) profit making for that part of the Tesla group.

Re:Smart with money

[Anonymous Coward]

And that same Australian government that commissioned the battery has now commissioned solar roofing for 50,000 houses from Tesla. No more free batteries required either after the first, now it's order taking and (you'd expect) profit making for that part of the Tesla group.

Profit making? Are you certain?

Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[darkain]

Inb4 all the comments of Telsa being a failure for the amount of money they are losing. But, in reality, that money isn't a loss. It is investment. Look how long Amazon lasted before they turned their first profit.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Anonymous Coward]

No you are wrong. Tesla loses money on every car it sells. Cite: Tesla cash flow statements - see cash flows

Tesla has been losing for 14 years. If they can't make money while they control the market for EVs, they will get their asses kicked. Tesla will never be profitable enough to give an adequate return on all that capital that has been dumped into it. It was a nice dream, but it going to go the way of Iridium. Some one will buy the assets in bankruptcy and turn it into something successful - hiring a competent CEO. The current shareholders and bondholders will lose.

Too much stupid money in the stock markets

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Wookie Monster]

...except Amazon has had little competition. There's a quite a few other companies producing successful electric and hybrid models, and they have been for many years. Is Tesla a failure? Only if they try to compete in the mass market. As a luxury brand they should do fine, but they decided to play with the big boys and it's not going to work out well. Especially considering that the Model 3 is a terrible design from a usability standpoint. If I could buy a Model 3 today, it's the last choice I'd make, electric or gasoline.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[nospam007]

"Tesla loses money on every car it sells."

You told us the same thing when Amazon lost money on every book it sold.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Idou]

>...except Amazon has had little competition.
Any competitor list that includes "Walmart" is not "little competition."

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Wookie Monster]

Back in the days that Amazon was burning cash and not posting any profits they were still mostly known as being an e-commerce book company. And today there's no company that competes with them on selection, prices, delivery speed, and customer service. When you want to go buy something online, where do you go first most of the time? The only real competition they face right now is in streaming media and cloud services.

Re: Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon had, and has, lots of competition. All the major booksellers were on its tail from early on. No doubt if Tesla comes out on top youâ(TM)ll be saying they had no real competition.

Hindsight is always 20/20.o

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon was cool and had something for everyone at low price. That's why it lasted as long as it did.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[quantaman]

Inb4 all the comments of Telsa being a failure for the amount of money they are losing. But, in reality, that money isn't a loss. It is investment. Look how long Amazon lasted before they turned their first profit.

There is a difference with Amazon in that their expenses were largely fixed (building out their infrastructure) and their per-transaction cost was very low. It was fairly clear that at any point they could just tune down the investments and R&D and profit off their ecommerce margins.

Tesla's problem is that building a car is still really expensive, especially when you take into account things like recalls. And the R&D and factory construction are huge sunk costs. There's a real risk they can't sell enough cars at enough of a markup to pay off their capital expenses.

Of course, there's also a possibility they'll scale up production and suddenly be insanely profitable.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Bing Tsher E]

So Amazon is the go-to for online purchases of general merchandise. Which they are still not making much if any money at.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[vtcodger]

More important is that Tesla's competitors didn't just fall off a turnip truck. They are perfectly capable of and are building EVs, hybrids and plug-in hybrids. In the mass market, their offerings look quite competitive with Tesla. Maybe better. In some cases cheaper. It's far from clear that the Model 3 can sell in huge numbers at a price that will allow Tesla to make profits, pay down its debt, and eventually return cash to investors.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Anonymous Coward]

amazon wasn't using govt subs/tax money for their losses tho.

tesla is.

thats YOUR MONEY they are pissing away.

amazon never pissed away YOUR MONEY.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[WindBourne]

Oh thank god that you are so bright.
Since you are, I hope that you have put EVERYTHING that you have and shorted Tesla.
I am sure that you will get what you should if you will just dump everything that you own and short Tesla.
Go ahead. Trust in yourself.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[WindBourne]

Actually, none of Tesla competitors are building EVs worth a plug nickel.
Sure, they are building and PUSHING Hybrids, but that is because it is far more profitable to builders AND dealers.
As such, they will continue to push such crap until Tesla really cuts into their sales.
Right now, Telsa has not cut into anything except for luxury sedans above $40K. The MX is cutting into luxury X-overs, but, not as large as MS/M3 have cut into sedans.

And it remains to be seen if the competitors CAN AND WILL build EVs to compete against Tesla.
My feeling is that they will continue to fight it, until MY hits the market and then they will have no choice.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[WindBourne]

Uh, Tesla outsells all EVs and Hybrids, except for Hybrids in China.
Assuming that Tesla will hit 5000 cars / week with M3 by june, then they will be #1 in the world of all EVs/hHybrids.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[WindBourne]

Tesla has not a single penny from the feds.
The only money that they have had is from states fighting to have them manufacture there: CA, NV, and NY. And both CA and NV have actually made back the money that they invested into Tesla. NY still has not, but, Tesla is just scaling up that plant.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[jezwel]

Tesla's energy business saw an increase in sales of its Powerwall storage battery, Tesla said. The company expects sales of energy storage products to triple in sales and gross margins to improve in 2018.

This is where the real money is. Tesla cars are an moving advert for the non-sexy parts of the company. Who notices anything about Gigafactory 1 & 2?

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Registered Coward v2]

Inb4 all the comments of Telsa being a failure for the amount of money they are losing. But, in reality, that money isn't a loss. It is investment. Look how long Amazon lasted before they turned their first profit.

While I wouldn't call Tesla failure, yet, there are some significant differences between Tesla and Amazon. For starters, much of Amazon's stock is not paid for by Amazon until it is sold, so they don't have to tie up funds and take losses on unsold goods. They make money off of logistics and can scale a lot more easily then Tesla. Amazon can also return old inventory to free up space if they don't want need it; and for other sellers on Amazon who hold the stock themselves Amazon doesn't even have storage costs but still get their cut. It's a lot harder to do that as a manufacturer, where making the wrong guess on demand or supply chain problems directly impact the bottom line. As for Tesla's deposits, those are liabilities they must book until they deliver so while tehy can spend the cash to fund operations they still risk a cash drain if people get tired of waiting or other manufacturers start selling electric vehicles in large enough quantities to dampen demand for Teslas. If enough people cancel Tesla could face a severe cash crunch and decide bankruptcy and restructuring is the way to go. In addition, I wonder how many people who thought they'd get a 30K Tesla discover they aren't available and only fully loaded ones at maybe 10K more will decide they can't afford one and ask for a refund.

Re: Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla is an oddity in the srketplace. They haven't sold enough of anything to put a dent in any market, much less a scratch.

Re: Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay! Number one of a tiny segment of a huge marketplace!

Dont make any stock picks. Find a nice vanguard index fund and stick with it.

Re: Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. I'm in California so I'm subsidizing a billionaire's pet company with both my federal AND my state taxes.

FML!

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[LynnwoodRooster]

Amazon turned it around and became profitable before they ran out of cash. Tesla has about 2 quarters left to do the same thing...

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[AmiMoJo]

The Nissan Leaf is the best selling EV by a fair margin.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[stooo]

>> They are perfectly capable of and are building EVs, hybrids and plug-in hybrids.

Yeah, not really.
The other car makers build EVs in homeopathic numbers and they all say that they will ramp up suddenly after 2020.
No one believes them on that.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[stooo]

>> The Nissan Leaf is the best selling EV by a fair margin.
Not for long
BAIC or BYD will probably overtake the leaf this year.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[AmiMoJo]

That's true. BYD are shifting a lot of EVs, and the infrastructure in China is quite impressive. They actually sell some BYD cards in Europe, particularly as taxis and other commercial vehicles.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[AmiMoJo]

The new Nissan Leaf is actually a really great car. The autopilot works better than Tesla's, it's quieter than any Tesla model, it looks pretty good... It's also much cheaper than a Model 3 and actually available to buy.

I really didn't expect Nissan to come out with such a competitive car, to be honest. Sure, some stuff is a bit lacking, like the head unit and screen, but overall it's a really great EV.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Alioth]

The Nissan Leaf is doing quite well where I live - I've seen many Leaves driving around the place, the person I know who has one is pretty enthusiastic about it.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

They spent 5 billion fed dollars so far. And more state too. And tax breaks directly for building the factory. And more money too.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

You are wrong. And musk is a welfare queen.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[AmiMoJo]

It's actually a really great car, highly underrated.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Rei]

Says someone who clearly didn't read the quarterly report. The difference between end-of-Q4 cash on hand and end-of-Q3 cash on hand is $100M ($3,4B vs. $3,5B). Except now they're starting to get significant revenue from Model 3.

Re: Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Rei]

Tesla is the top selling EV brand in the US, despite their sales historically having been to a much smaller market (nearly 6 figures) than its econobox-selling competitors. If that's not a damning indictment of the poor state of its supposed "competition", I don't know what is.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Rei]

Yeah, here's a fun exercise for you. Calculate how long it takes to drive LA to NY in any of Tesla's "competitors" and compare that time to a Model 3. We'll just ignore how much slower they are, how much dorkier they look, how much they lack in standard and optional features relative to Model 3, and all of that. Just do the calculation and report back your findings.

There's a reason why the Model 3 has a half-million-long waiting list and its competitors don't.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Rei]

No you are wrong. Tesla loses money on every car it sells. Cite: Tesla cash flow statements - see cash flows

I'm looking at it right now. Automotive gross margin, GAAP: 18,9%. It's dropped since 2016 when it was 22,6% because the margins on Model 3 are currently poor (actually slightly negative) due to its currently low rate of production, but will be positive in Q2 and should be similar to S and X by the end of 2018.

When will people learn to distinguish between margins and capex? Seriously people...

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Rei]

There is a difference with Amazon in that their expenses were largely fixed (building out their infrastructure)

Same with Tesla.

and their per-transaction cost was very low.

And so was their per-transaction profit.

Tesla's problem is that building a car is still really expensive,

Tesla has historically had around 25% margin on S and X, and should get the same on 3 when production is up to speed (due to the low Model 3 rate their current overall automotive margin is 18,9%). There's nothing bad at all about a 25% margin in the automotive industry.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon's primary income sources have nothing to do with selling books.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Rei]

How on Earth did you get a new Nissan Leaf already? Last person I heard from who went into a Nissan dealership to ask about it was told that there was a 9 month waiting list. Now, that could have just been a lying dealership, but...

Anyway, take it on a long road trip and let me know how much time you spend charging ;)

Re: Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[WindBourne]

No. They had been. The model 3 is going to leave the leaf in the dust this year. Yes, Tesla is behind with their predictions. However, they are now doing about 1000 cars / week. With more equipment on the way, they are supposed to hit 5000 cars / week before end of June. The leaf does not come close to that level.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Carewolf]

Says someone who clearly didn't read the quarterly report. The difference between end-of-Q4 cash on hand and end-of-Q3 cash on hand is $100M ($3,4B vs. $3,5B). Except now they're starting to get significant revenue from Model 3.

How does the revenue help if they still are losing money on every sale?

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Rei]

Again, read the bloody report. The average margin in their automotive products is 18,9%. And it's only that low because Model 3 is dragging it down due to its production being so far below the design level.

Quit confusing capex with margins.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[AmiMoJo]

I don't have the new one, only the old model. I've driven the new one briefly in Japan.

The current battery is good for about 150 miles of real range, with air conditioning and cruise control/autopilot on. The 60kWh model due at the end of the year is basically the same as what Tesla is shipping in the long range Model 3.

Has Tesla announced a battery size for the normal Model 3? 40kWh sounds about right for the price they are selling it at.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Rei]

The current battery is good for about 150 miles of real range

Followed by at best 40 minutes of charging to get 120 more miles (but in the real world in general, expect over an hour). Aka, on long trips, 1/3rd to 2/5ths of your time to be spent charging. That's terrible. And CCS/CHAdeMO networks are terrible, too - the poor reliability, the generally low numbers of chargers at a given site, the super-high density in some places and then absolutely nothing elsewhere, etc. The new Leaf maxes out at 180mph in theory, generally 100-ish in practice. Model 3s charge at up to 450mph at low SOCs. And according to EPA testing it's capable of even more; the chargers are the limit.

The primary difference between "Teslas" and "Everyone else" is that Teslas are suitable to roadtrips, while others aren't. Beyond all issues of style, performance, the far better option list (e.g. mine will have AWD + air suspension), better standard features, the comparably high degradation rate of Leaf's primitive battery pack, Leafs' demonstrable high depreciation rate vs. Teslas, etc... the state of fast charging just kills it for non-Tesla vehicles. Just utterly kills it.

Has Tesla announced a battery size for the normal Model 3? 40kWh sounds about right for the price they are selling it at.

Guess again ;) Model 3 LR ($44k) = 80,5 kWh total, 78,2kWh usable. Model 3 SR ($35k), based on the disclosed 31 cells per bricks vs. the LR's 46, should be 52,5 kWh. Also, Model 3 is more efficient than Leaf. Real-world highway numbers are coming in at around 240-245 Wh/mi with the aero wheels (flat ground, California winter conditions, 70-75mph average speed) and around 270 with the 19" "sport" wheels, for long trips. The EPA puts the Model 3 as the most efficient 5-seat EV on US roads, and more efficient than a number of 4-seaters; only the 4-seat Ioniq is more efficient. SR will be even slightly more efficient than LR (should be about 1-2% more efficient due to the reduced weight).

Surprised? You shouldn't be. The cost to produce a vehicle is heavily affected by your capital investments. The more capital you pour into tech and production systems, the lower your unit costs. Tesla has been investing far more than everyone else. It's a pretty simple equation. You can try to cheat the equation by lowering your margins (or going negative), but if you do that then you'll have to try to disincentivize sales and just use the vehicle for PR (a lot of manufacturers do this, sadly).

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[AmiMoJo]

It really depends where you live. In Europe the 150 mile range is pretty good. There is plenty of reliable CHAdeMO and personally I find that I want to stop for a break to eat and rest anyway by the time I need to charge.

150 miles is the realistic range on the 40kWh battery. Bjorn Nyland got that in his tests, for example.

Of course, if you regularly do 500 mile trips it's not so good. But then again, neither is the Model 3. The long range one is, but costs a hell of a lot more than a Leaf. Even with Tesla's impressively low cost batteries, for example the Leaf with autopilot is still a lot less than a Model 3 SR with autopilot and similar spec level.

The other thing is, I stand a chance of buying a Leaf this year :-)

I was actually thinking about a Model X. It depends what country I end up in in the next year or so. I'm a little concerned about the quality issues, especially with the FWD, but the European ones seem to be better made. The Model 3 is interesting but I'll have to try it out first, see how it works without an instrument cluster. A lot of people have said that the touch screen is janky, e.g. having to go through multiple menus to change basic settings like the windscreen wipers or headlights. To be honest I was disappointed they got rid of the big digital speedo on the Leaf, it's really useful and important in a car that quiet.

Also autopilot is really important for me. Tesla does software updates which is nice, but their system also doesn't work as well as ProPilot. Maybe the real test will be to see where ProPilot is in next year's model, compared to how far Autopilot improves.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, the average margin on their automotive products is negative; the GROSS margin is positive, but that does not include the cost of operations associated with those sales. Musk loves to trumpet gross margin - but that doesn't help you in terms of cash flow or profitability.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Rei]

I find that I want to stop for a break to eat and rest anyway by the time I need to charge.

It takes you 40 theoretical / 75 real world minutes to eat? You have to eat every 1 2/3 hours?

. But then again, neither is the Model 3.

Huh? Model 3 is the fastest road tripping EV in the world. A Model 3 recently drove from LA to NYC in 50 hours 16 minutes. Unlike your "40 theoretical / 75 real world minutes every 1 2/3 hour" meal/break schedule, Model 3 LR has a "25 minutes every 2 1/4 hours" meal/break schedule (real world). Which is perfectly reasonable. Model 3 SR is more like "30 minutes every 1 2/3 hours".

There is plenty of reliable CHAdeMO

I don't know where you are in Europe, but I just now did the same experiment I've done many times with CHAdeMOs in London - I clicked the closest 10 CHAdeMOs to downtown London in Plugshare and looked at the reviews. One was down. Another had been down in the second-to-last review but was up in the most recent review.

Is that the sort of reliability you consider acceptable for a road trip - 80-90%? 10-20% chance of getting stranded?

There's a reason that Tesla never has only a single charger per station (most common is 4x chargers feeding 8x stations, but that seems to be growing). Why they're all on the same network. Why they're all closely monitored with fast response times. Etc. When it comes to transportation infrastructure, you just can't be having people get stranded due to downed chargers. It's just not tolerable.

Also, CHAdeMOs are most commonly 1x per site (click around with PlugShare). How much you want to bet a road trip on a charger happening to be free when you get there?

The fast charging situation between "Tesla" and "Everyone else" is just night and day. I've watched some CHAdeMOs on Plugshare be down for *years*. Meanwhile I watched Hurricane Irma, with its widespread flooding, only take down one supercharger, and only for a few hours. Maria, the US's largest power system disaster in history, managed to take many down, but only for a couple days; the only one that was down for more than a couple days was on Marathon key, and that whole island went under. They got it back up a couple weeks later, before the gas stations even reopened.

A lot of people have said that the touch screen is janky, e.g. having to go through multiple menus to change basic settings like the windscreen wipers or headlights.

Windshield wipers and headlights are both auto, so I'm not sure why you'd want to change them. No, it's not multiple menus in, they're each one menu in - and that menu pops up when you do a related activity. For example, if you do a single wiper flick with the stick, the wiper menu comes up (otherwise it's just a swipe on the screen to bring it up). Note that your high beams / blinker are still controlled with the stick, as is normal (although if you have the autopilot option then you get auto hi-beams too).

There's a lot of misinformation about the interface. For example, I've seen claims that you have to control the dome lights from it. Not true; you simply press them to turn them on and off. I've seen people on Youtube complaining about how you'd have to adjust the volume or change tracks/stations from the screen. Again, not true; that's what the steering wheel controls are for. Etc.

Tesla does software updates which is nice, but their system also doesn't work as well as ProPilot.

I've never used ProPilot, but I doubt this. But I am curious; have you used the most recent versions of each? Googling comparison reviews between people driving the two of them generally gets articles that sum up as, "It's good, but it's no Autopilot". To pick one of many examples:

In comparison to Tesla’s system which features obstacle detection, speed li

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[AmiMoJo]

In the UK that kind of range week mean charging every couple of hours for about half an hour. I usually stop for half an hour or so, so it's fine for me. Anyway, the 60kWh model seems like it will be a better comparison. 40 isn't really a regular long distance car, although in the UK there aren't many journeys where you would charge more than twice anyway. Europe is another matter.

Chademo reliability is fine. London is exceptionally bad, but for distance you use the ones on the motorway that are pretty good. They are reasonably well spaced and there are always multiple units. In fact they usually have multiple units on both sides of the road. Check the Electric Highway site or Zap Map.

ProPilot does less than Autopilot in some situations, more in others. For example, it's got more complex parking options. The main thing though it's that it's better on highways. It keeps in the middle of the lane better, and it anticipates corners more like a human. Tesla turns fairly late in comparison.

For me I'm more interested in reliable highway driving that doesn't result in soiled underwear, rather than things like handling urban intersections semi reliably.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[david_thornley]

Lots of families have two or more cars, only one of which has to be suitable for road trips. The other could easily be a Leaf.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[david_thornley]

When I want to buy something, I usually have several choices. Some of them involve going somewhere the item is offered for sale, buying it, and having it immediately. That can be a lot better than saving some money and getting Amazon Prime shipping.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Rei]

In the UK that kind of range week mean charging every couple of hours for about half an hour.

Could you parse this sentence for me? Thanks :)

in the UK there aren't many journeys where you would charge more than twice anyway.

What car are you talking about? London to Inverness, for example, is 568 miles. What's your comfort level for a buffer in a Leaf upon arriving? 20mi? What percent do you charge up to? 80%, to minimize the current rampdown? So 100mi per leg, except 130 for the first leg? That's 4 charging stops. If you're getting an average of... oh, say 43kW out of the CHAdeMO?... then that's 48 minutes per stop... 192 minutes charging. Plus a per-stop overhead of 3 minutes (including acceleration / deceleration time) that's 204 minutes.

Model 3 LR, same 20mi buffer... now the optimal cutoff SoC is more personal opinion. Let's go with 60%. You get about 116kW up to about 45% SoC, then a roughly linear rampdown thereafter. That's 15 minutes up to 45%, and then with, say, an average of 100kW to 60%, that's another 7 minutes. So 22 minutes per stop. 319 real-world miles on a full charge, so subtracting the to , 299 miles on the first leg, 171 on each subsequent leg. So 2 stops - 44 minutes charge time, 6 minutes overhead = 50 minutes (under an hour). Vs. 204 (2 1/2 hours).

For Model 3 SR, same 20mi buffer, and let's go with a 65% SoC to charge to for convenience. We can't properly evaluate the rampdown SoC yet. It's probably lower than LR, but it's an open question as to how much lower. Let's say 35%. Now we're 7 minutes to 35%, and then with an average of say 90kW to 65%, that's 10 1/2 minutes, so 17 1/2 minutes total. Expected real-world range for the SR, given the battery ratio and a small bonus (~1 1/2%) for the reduced weight, 220mi, so 200mi on the first leg, then 123mi on each subsequent leg, so 3 stops (coming in right at the 20mi safety buffer, mind you), so 52,5 minutes charging plus 9 minutes overhead = 61,5 minutes. 1 hour vs. 2 1/2 hours.

I mean, you can tweak the numbers in various ways, maybe cut the Leaf's last charge shut to come in closer to the limit, things like that. But there's a massive difference in charge rates.

The thing is, I just don't get why someone would pick the Leaf. Is $5k MSRP really worth the difference? Getting far higher depreciation? An econobox plasticky interior and more mundane appearance? Significantly slower acceleration and handing not nearly as well rated by testers? Far more limited options selection? 2/3rds the range? Drastically slower charging, at less reliable charging stations, which generally charge significantly more (at least in most places)? Missing all that gorgeous tinted glass? A battery pack that degrades significantly faster (Tesla average = ~3-4% the first year, 1/2% each subsequent year)? Far more limited standard features? I mean, I just simply don't get it. Is $5k worth all that to you? I'm trying to understand why anyone would choose the Leaf, and I just can't.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[AmiMoJo]

What I mean it's that London to Inverness isn't a very common journey in the UK. London to Birmingham, London to Manchester perhaps.

As I said, the more reliable and less janky autopilot is worth a lot on longer journeys.

Anyway, maybe the Leaf is different in other countries but the UK and Japanese model has tinted glass etc. The interior is fine, screen could be better. The basic M3 one isn't all that great either.

I'll definitely drive both, and the Model X, but the Leaf is a hell of a lot cheaper. Again, depends where you are but no one pays the list price for the Leaf. My last one was discounted by £7500 before the tax break. They were doing a ridiculously low finance offer too, although the first one had 0% finance on it. With Tesla you can't get any discounts really, just the referral offer.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Rei]

I'm not talking about regular tinted windows, I'm talking about the panoramic "glass atrium" effect (side). Which also does this in the rain.

I wouldn't count on £7500 discounts on a car with a 9 month waiting list (2018 Leaf). That's an abnormally deep discount, for any car.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of the reservations have been canceled.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[AmiMoJo]

True, the glass roof on the M3 is nice. But again, the Autopilot... It's a difficult choice between good today and potentially better tomorrow.

The dealer can get a £5000 discount from Nissan as the basic offer, which is a "staff and family" thing but widely offered to anyone if you ask. I've always had it. Then on top of that you can negotiate more. There is a bit of an inventive if you already have a Nissan because they will usually give you a trade in deal that is a bit better than you could get on the open market, and of course is hassle free.

It might be a moot point anyway since the M3 probably won't be available in Europe this year, at least unless you pre-ordered. So maybe an X if there are any good deals, depending on which country it is etc.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[AmiMoJo]

I popped into the dealer today and they said they could get me one in about six weeks. Looking at the forums that seems in line with what other people are seeing, and what I've had to wait in the past for factory cars.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Rei]

I'm not sure what bad experience you had with Autopilot, but it doesn't match my experience at all. Or those of all of the pages that turn up when you google comparisons between Autopilot and ProPilot (I can't personally compare as I've never driven a ProPilot car). But, I'll try ProPilot myself when I get the chance so I don't just have to rely on other people's takes :)

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[AmiMoJo]

ProPilot is where AP1 would have been if Tesla had not parted ways with MobileEye. On highways it's extremely stable, no ping-pong in the lane, no truck lust, and it takes corners like a human rather than waiting a little too long for comfort like Autopilot does sometimes.

But it's also quite conservative compared to AP. It beeps at you if you take your hands off the wheel for just a couple of seconds. It doesn't even attempt to handle junctions and usually won't engage on more urban roads.

It does however handle poor quality lane markings and exit roads very consistently and correctly... Or just refuses to even try and makes you handle it if it's that bad. So I guess it depends if you prefer AP to try and possibly fail with you having to take over at the last moment, or just have it demand you take over slightly more often but in good time for you to react.

The whole interface is quite conservative, which can be a little annoying. When parking you have to keep your finger on the button the whole time as a dead man's switch. The ePedal always defaults to off (as does B mode, which I use all the time) so you have to hit the button every time. The navigation and centre display also needs an update, the demo vehicle was the same as my December 2016 car. Strangely the digital instrument cluster is a lot better, higher resolution, more responsive etc.

Speaking of which, let's hope that the S and X get some updates ported form the M3 to improve their screens a little.

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Rei]

BTW: Björn Nyland just did a lot of comparisons between his experience with ProPilot and Autopilot in this new video, chatting while driving the Model 3. The short of it: he wasn't very impressed with ProPilot vs. Autopilot (and there's few people with more Autopilot experience than him, outside of Tesla... while he had just finished road tripping with a ProPilot vehicle before is US trip to drive the Model 3)

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[AmiMoJo]

I watched that video yesterday. He seems to confirm what I was saying - it's not as capable as autopilot, in that it works on fewer roads and doesn't have things like semi auto lane changing, but what it does do it does extremely well. There is stuff it has that Tesla does not too, such as 360 degree cameras and auto-park that takes advantage of them.

I was at the dealer again today so they could fix my 30kWh Leaf after they broke it during servicing somehow... Servicing is a total rip off, by the way, considering the report sheet basically says "we topped up your wiper fluid", but then again I looked at Tesla and BMW EV servicing prices and they are no better.

Anyway, I tried out their new Leaf demonstrator. Keep in mind it's been about a year since I tried AP2 but ProPilot seemed a lot more confident and relaxing. Zero ping-ponging, no "will it won't it" worries coming up to corners. Couldn't really test truck lust or how it handles things like roadworks.

I really want to drive a Model 3 now. In many ways it's a great car, but I have a few worries about it. For example, to change the TACC distance you have to go to the touch screen and tap options, tap Cruise Control and the tap the +/- buttons. Even changing the wiper settings is swipe + tap. It might be fine, but what I read is basically the same as other cars: the auto mode works great for some people, and needs manual adjustment for others.

The other issue is the lack of 360 degree cameras, which I've got really used to now. The M3 is fairly large too, although not as large as the X than I am leaning more towards because of the controls. It's hard to say how low the M3 is without trying it too - the S is lower than I like for getting in/out, but so are most saloon cars.

Has Tesla stated why the M3 has so few controls? Is it Apple-style courage or are they trying to drive cost out?

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[Rei]

I watched that video yesterday. He seems to confirm what I was saying - it's not as capable as autopilot, in that it works on fewer roads and doesn't have things like semi auto lane changing, but what it does do it does extremely well.

Maybe you were watching a different video? He certainly didn't say anything like "but what it does do it does extremely well". He said, and I quote (11:15):

"... self driving abilities in other cars. The ProPilot system in Nissan Leaf is actually pretty good, but you have to push the steering wheel too often. After just five seconds. And also the ProPilot, it was, I mean, I could handle the turns 'okay', but, well, the ProPilot is designed for motorways only..." (stops to pay attention to the road) "... But you know, the ProPilot system in the Nissan Leaf, for some reason, when we're doing like a right turn like this, it tends to go too much to the centre dots. But when it does a left turn like this, a left bend, then it does it pretty nice. But, um... again, you know, it was only designed for motorways, not for like two lane highways like Tesla can. So... overall, I mean, I've tested the systems - I haven't tested the systems for BMW or Mercedes or Infinity or whatever... but at least the systems I've tested, Tesla is the best. And I've read reviews of other people testing the other systems from Mercedes and whatever, and.... very consistent, you know, every time, Tesla wins the Autopilot tests. So, Tesla is considered to be the, Autopilot... I mean, Autonomy level 2.5, whereas the other ones, like the Leaf, or Ionic, is like... level 2. Or maybe even a weak level 2, it depends on which car it is.

How did you get "it does things extremely well" (or even more, that it's better than Tesla) from that? You're of the view that Autopilot wavers in its lane; Björn found just the opposite, e.g. when the road curved right, ProPilot tracked poorly (and consistently poorly), while Autopilot tracked correctly.

(If I remember right, later in the video he also started talking about ProPilot again, and faulted it for two more things - not disengaging immediately upon user steering input, and for not making disengagement as clear as Autopilot.)

Zero ping-ponging, no "will it won't it" worries coming up to corners.

Heh, you know what I get zero ping-ponging, no "will it won't it" worries with? Autopilot ;) Again, I'm confused by your experience. I can't deny your experience, because it was yours, but it doesn't match with mine - or apparently that of most reviewers. :)

But anyway, I just thought of this conversation when I watched the review :)

As for the interface, I fully agree with you that there are some changes they should make, and the TACC target speed is #1. They're not even close to fully utilizing the steering wheel controls, so it's an easy fix. They've been rolling out the updates pretty quickly, so I hope to see that one on the change list of an update soon. If they don't, that's a huge missed opportunity.

Wipers by contrast, I have no issue with, and neither does almost everyone I've talked with who has their Model 3 - particularly now that they've pushed out the autowipers update. Because with auto you just don't have to mess with it at all (unless you're in the minority who doesn't like autowipers), and even without autowipers, it's so easy to get into the menu - the left stick triggers it when you do a single wipe or cleaning, and you can do a screen swipe to access it rather than a click on the screen as well.

Hey, I'll give the Leaf credit on the 360 degree view - that is a neat feature Tesla lacks :) Although to be fair, I like how Tesla gives precise distances to vehicles near you.

There've been a number of interviews given about the design. While a number of changes surely do reduce the cost, having such a large, responsive touchscreen is certainly not a co

Re:Many people: "TESLA IS A FAILURE"

[AmiMoJo]

"... self driving abilities in other cars. The ProPilot system in Nissan Leaf is actually pretty good, but you have to push the steering wheel too often. After just five seconds. And also the ProPilot, it was, I mean, I could handle the turns 'okay', but, well, the ProPilot is designed for motorways only..." (stops to pay attention to the road) "... But you know, the ProPilot system in the Nissan Leaf, for some reason, when we're doing like a right turn like this, it tends to go too much to the centre dots. But when it does a left turn like this, a left bend, then it does it pretty nice. But, um... again, you know, it was only designed for motorways, not for like two lane highways like Tesla can. So... overall, I mean, I've tested the systems - I haven't tested the systems for BMW or Mercedes or Infinity or whatever... but at least the systems I've tested, Tesla is the best. And I've read reviews of other people testing the other systems from Mercedes and whatever, and.... very consistent, you know, every time, Tesla wins the Autopilot tests. So, Tesla is considered to be the, Autopilot... I mean, Autonomy level 2.5, whereas the other ones, like the Leaf, or Ionic, is like... level 2. Or maybe even a weak level 2, it depends on which car it is.

Right, that's pretty much what I said. It's more limited, but it's reliable. The Tesla system lets you get away with a lot more dangerous driving, like taking your hands off the wheel for a relatively long time, or using it on local roads where it tends to have rather sudden disengagements (or the driver feels compelled to grab the wheel).

For me I'd use it on motorways, when going some distance. Until they get to level 3 I'm not really interested in anything else. Obviously if you like using it on local roads or whatever then that's a big selling point, but I can only tell you how I'm making my decision.

The biggest issue with ProPilot for me is the lack of updates. I'd probably wait until at least V2 to see what they change before deciding if I can live without updates or not. They really need to update the centre screen too. The software seems to be different to even the standard Nissan stuff, I guess to add in the EV bits, and I actually preferred the old version. Functionality was the same, just a better skin... Which tells you how old it is, apart from map updates the whole thing is at least 6 or 7 years old now.

At least the new one has Android Audio so I can use Waze on long trips. I heard that you can use Waze in a Tesla via the web browser, although the built in nav looks pretty good.

Heh, you know what I get zero ping-ponging, no "will it won't it" worries with? Autopilot ;) Again, I'm confused by your experience. I can't deny your experience, because it was yours, but it doesn't match with mine - or apparently that of most reviewers. :)

Following the forum threads it seems that they improved the ping-pong issues a hell of a lot around October. Might have been the V40 update from memory. My experience was from before then so I'm interested in trying it again. I really need more time with the car... Keep finding little things, like there is no speed sensitive volume control and the auto lane change doesn't check for a space (at least on AP2, not sure about AP1). It feels very "beta", stuff being improved all the time, which I'm kinda up for.

Hey, I'll give the Leaf credit on the 360 degree view - that is a neat feature Tesla lacks :) Although to be fair, I like how Tesla gives precise distances to vehicles near you.

Yeah, the cameras are not perfect and I'd actually like both cameras and ultrasonic sensors given the choice, but the cameras are pretty essential. I don't know why Tesla didn't put an extra camera on the front to make 360 possible, it seems like an odd omission. I guess on the 3 it might spoil the clean front, but the X and S should be able to hide it pretty well.

Sick of cars. I want a personal flying machine.

[Narcocide]

Or at least an electric scooter. Come on, Tesla! Gimme something here.

Sunk Costs Fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The money they've spent is more or less gone whether they make another dime or not.

Calling it an investment depends on how they do going forward: if they're able to ramp up production of the model 3 and newer models going forward then you're right.

If not then it's only a matter of time before they burn through their current cash and they stop getting deposits, cause at a certain point people stop falling for the whole "no trust me THIS time we've got it figured out"

Re:Sunk Costs Fallacy

[letthelightin]

People don't mind tossing their money into the Tesla furnace because it offers hope in the future in terms of real social value, as opposed to financial numbers value. They are the only public facing company making any significant efforts toward a better future.

Re:Sunk Costs Fallacy

[Bing Tsher E]

They are the only public facing company making any significant efforts toward a better future.

Wow, what a cynical (and unsupported) opinion.

Re:Sunk Costs Fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a very easy way to refute the "only one" claim and you're avoiding it for some reason.

I'll avoid naming the reason since I don't want to put you into a "nuh-uh" loop.

Re:Sunk Costs Fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

> you can't say success bcus it depends what happens later
This applies equally to saying failure.

So I guess until it's 2100 and everything is past-tense there's no point in speculations, such as "tesla's gonna lose all their money"

Re:Sunk Costs Fallacy

[rsborg]

They are the only public facing company making any significant efforts toward a better future.

Wow, what a cynical (and unsupported) opinion.

Your comment is completely useful - not. Hyperbole aside, some people actually feel like Tesla is the only company building for a better future.

Re:Sunk Costs Fallacy

[larryjoe]

They are the only public facing company making any significant efforts toward a better future.

Wow, what a cynical (and unsupported) opinion.

Your comment is completely useful - not. Hyperbole aside, some people actually feel like Tesla is the only company building for a better future.

Why is Tesla the only such beneficent or visionary company? It can't be because they build electric cars, batteries, solar systems, spacecraft, or other leading-edge technologies because they're not the only such company. It can't be because they treat their employees better than other companies because numbers such as salaries and benefits and other new articles don't seem to support that idea. Maybe the reason is that Elon Musk has Steve Jobs magic fairy dust and is the fount of innovation?

Seriously, I like Tesla. I think they're doing some interesting things. I think Elon Musk has tried some visionary things. Time will tell whether those efforts impact society in a significant and positive way. That they are the only well-intentioned company in existence seems hard to substantiate.

Re: Sunk Costs Fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

For better future of some ceos

Re:Sunk Costs Fallacy

[hackertourist]

They are the only public facing company making any significant efforts toward a better future.

That is incorrect.
- any number of solar panel companies
- any number of wind turbine manufacturers
- a whole pile of car manufacturers sell hybrids and plugin hybrids. Electric cars are available from at least VW, Audi, Jaguar, Nissan, Renault.
- you can buy a house that does not need heating (passive house) from several companies
- heat pumps (renewable heating, more or less) are widely available

I could go on and on.

Re:Sunk Costs Fallacy

[AmiMoJo]

Tesla is the only manufacturer that is 100% electric. Along with Nissan they pretty much created the EV market by proving that such cars were both practical and by debunking all the FUD about batteries needing replacing after 3 years etc.

People who own them seem to either really love of hate the cars. The deciding factor seems to mostly be how many problems the car experiences. Tesla seems to still have some really severe quality control issues in the US. The problems seem less common in Europe, which is thought to be because they assemble and re-check the cars in the Netherlands.

Re:Sunk Costs Fallacy

[david_thornley]

Tesla does not make spacecraft. That's Space-X.

And, yes, if Tesla crashes, it's still had a significant and positive effect on society. Space-X certainly has.

ACCOUNTING is a failure

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all a stupid numbers game.
The worst run companies can post positive numbers year after year while rotting inside.
R&D is treated as an expense, not capital acquisition.
Employee salaries are like any other purchase in that they are subtracted from income.

If you try to gear up for anything new yourself it's a heavy loss. But you could "acquire" the same result by buying up a competitor and it would be glowingly positive, even though all the consultant fees would triple the cost.

Re:ACCOUNTING is a failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Accountant here. You're either talking out your ass, or you know so little about how accounting works that you're unable to express your thoughts coherently. Possibly both.

It's all a stupid numbers game.

Inasmuch as knowing what your resources, financial position, and outlook are is a "stupid numbers game" ...

The worst run companies can post positive numbers year after year while rotting inside.

The worst run companies don't run positive numbers year after year. Not unless someone is cooking the books, which is fraud, not accounting. It is true that sometimes short term numbers hide long term issues, but that's usually a case of management only caring about the short term (blame investors for that), looking at the wrong numbers, or refusing to invest in upgrades to capacity or capability. And it's certainly not a situation that can continue year after year.

R&D is treated as an expense, not capital acquisition.

Capital acquisition isn't a thing. Capital can refer to either the cash invested into a company, or to the company's total equity. Expenditures other than inventory are either expensed (if an asset is not acquired for the expenditure) or capitalized (if an asset is acquired). R&D is treated as an expense because no asset is acquired for the expenditure. Patents that result from R&D are capital, and are treated as such. Process improvements that result from add to the top line, which can in turn result in more capital if you reinvest your net income rather than distributing it. But the process of research and development is rightly considered an expense because the expenditure does not directly lead to the acquisition of an asset.

Employee salaries are like any other purchase in that they are subtracted from income.

To be clear, they are subtracted from gross profit, not net income. Also, other purchases are not necessarily subtracted from revenue. Inventory purchases are subtracted from revenue. Salaries are expenses because the company does not acquire an asset for the expenditure.

If you try to gear up for anything new yourself it's a heavy loss. But you could "acquire" the same result by buying up a competitor and it would be glowingly positive, even though all the consultant fees would triple the cost.

This doesn't make any sense. In both cases, assets are acquired. In both cases, it requires cash or equivalent that may be provided by debt or take from treasury. If you can find a company to purchase that has the same assets you would otherwise be acquiring directly from vendors, you're going to be paying a premium for their other assets that you don't need, or you're going to be getting assets with shorter life spans, or you're going to be taking on the acquired company's liabilities. The exact same assets will not be available for drastically different costs.

Just because you don't understand how something works, or why it's done the way it's done, doesn't mean that that thing is bullshit.

Re: ACCOUNTING is a failure

[netwiz]

Does Tesla? AFAIK, theyâ(TM)re non-GAAP for generating their numbers. That, plus the junk bond issuance? Run.

Re: ACCOUNTING is a failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me be clear: I'm defending accounting, not Tesla - I don't trust Elon Musk any further than I can throw a Tesla. Tesla's use of "individually tailored standards" has rightfully drawn scrutiny. But it should be noted that the person at Tesla who put those standards in place was an MBA, not an accountant. Really, the problem there is not accounting standards, it's a refusal to abide by them. It's the *management* decision to put the appearance of the company's health above its actual health.

Rocket

[dohzer]

Let's not forget about all that rocket advertising they purchased.
That must have cost quite a bit, with the payoff expected in the near future.

Tesla is a success ... at graft

[Anonymous Coward]

Over 8 Billion dollars in subsidies, and they're still bleeding billions a year. Where's the money going?

Sources -
  http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html
  http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-price-california-state-government-bailing-out-2017-7

Re:Tesla is a success ... at graft

[Anonymous Coward]

Over 8 Billion dollars in subsidies, and they're still bleeding billions a year. Where's the money going?

Sources -

  http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

  http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-price-california-state-government-bailing-out-2017-7

So ExxonMobil, Citgo, etc. are paying for those 40,000+ American troops stationed in the Middle East? They're not there to protect the sand.

Hint: Nope. The US military presence/intervention is a big, fat subsidy to the oil industry. Far larger than anything renewables ever recevied.

Re:Tesla is a success ... at graft

[Bing Tsher E]

What does that have to do with anything? When the government subsidizes oil, it keeps the price low so people can afford to drive their cars and heat their homes. When the government subsidizes Tesla, rich people get a fast trendy sports car.

Re:Tesla is a success ... at graft

[WindBourne]

the majority of Tesla owners are not rich and are not driving a sports car (the roadster is the only sports car by tesla).
The feds have never subsidized Tesla other than a LOW-INTEREST LOAN, which was paid off ahead of time . BTW, that contrast to GM, Chrsyler and YES, FORD, who have taken massive subsidies AND/OR no-interest loans. In fact, Ford will not pay of their no-interest loan until 2022.
OTOH, the states HAVE done subsidies to GET TESLA THERE. Basically, California, Nevada, and New York have all put forward various subsidies knowing that the company(ies) would pay more out in side businesses, etc than the small amount they invested. Even now, Nevada and CA have both said that they brought back more than they put in; IOW, it paid off quicker than they expected.

So, if you are going to bitch about Tesla, Space, or Musk, please go for it. Just be accurate rather than lie about it.

Re: Tesla is a success ... at graft

[Anonymous Coward]

Dummy, testa hasn't had a single profitable day. They paid off that loan with other loans. Oh no wait you must be right because it's musk and he's magical and doesn't have to obey the laws of physics becuae musk is like Nicola Tesla (omg did you see how musk did that?!) except he's way smarter and cooler but to be ice he named a car after the lesser tesla.'

Oh sorry I got lost in my musk fanboi-ism.

The fact is tesla is a negative value company and has not earned the funds to pay off a bucket of piss much less their government gimme.

Re:Tesla is a success ... at graft

[haruchai]

What does that have to do with anything? When the government subsidizes oil, it keeps the price low so people can afford to drive their cars and heat their homes. When the government subsidizes Tesla, rich people get a fast trendy sports car.

That didn't prevent the price of oil from reaching over $150 and a good chunk of the money spent on the oil-supporting war machine would have been better spent making cars and especially homes, more efficient and paid / re-trained soldiers to build them if necessary.
For 15-20% above the typical cost of standard building code, you can build a Passivhaus for which the heating & cooling bills could be reduced by 75-90%, even if you live in a place with cold winters or hot summers

Re:Tesla is a success ... at graft

[Rei]

http://www.latimes.com/busines...
http://www.businessinsider.com...

Let's parse.

Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times.

So you start off by pretending that SpaceX and Tesla are the same company. Clever move! What is this "government support"?

New York state is spending $750 million to build a solar panel factory in Buffalo for SolarCity. The San Mateo, Calif.-based company will lease the plant for $1 a year. It will not pay property taxes for a decade, which would otherwise total an estimated $260 million.

Wow, OMG, a state government gave financial incentives for a large company to build a factory in their state. This has never happened before in the history of business! Except bloody always, but apart from that, OMG!

Nevada has agreed to provide Tesla with $1.3 billion in incentives to help build a massive battery factory near Reno.

Stop the presses again!

That's nearly half of the $4,9B in the article, and it's just your standard "incentives to get a large company to move to your state" game that all large companies play.

The federal government also provides grants or tax credits to cover 30% of the cost of solar installations. SolarCity reported receiving $497.5 million in direct grants from the Treasury Department.

All solar installers received this; it is nothing SolarCity specific. You could start a solar installation company yourself today and receive tax credits.

The Palo Alto company has also collected more than $517 million from competing automakers by selling environmental credits.

Same story. The other automakers wouldn't have sold credits had they actually made the ZEVs that the legislation was intended to make them produce. And any automaker could get the credits.

Meanwhile, everyone shoulders the huge financial costs of air pollution from fossil fuel power (the healthcare costs alone from the worst coal plants can be up to 45 cents per kWh). But I know you want to slap down renewables with everything and give fossil fuels a pass for everything, so let's keep going!

Since 2006, SolarCity has installed systems for 217,595 customers, according to a corporate filing. If each paid the current average price for a residential system — about $23,000, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists — the cost to the government would total about $1.5 billion, which would include the Treasury grants paid to SolarCity.

Oh, so now we're taking in subsidies to consumers and pretending that they're subsidies to SolarCity? Clever girl! But okay!

But wait, that article was just for $4,9B (and that includes SpaceX). Where did your other $3B come from? Oh right, this:

The California state Assembly passed a $3-billion subsidy program for electric vehicles, dwarfing the existing program.

So we can now play the game where we pretend that Tesla gets all of that! But of course, we know that there are other other EV manufacturers; again, any company cam make EVs and get incentives. But let's go with it. How much money does Tesla

Re:Tesla is a success ... at graft

[Rei]

Check out the articles. The supposed $3B (for all manufacturers, not just Tesla) in the latter article didn't pass, and of the former $4,9B, half of it applies to all EV or solar manufacturers (mainly solar), and the other half is your standard "incentives for you to build your factory in our state" game that all major companies play ($1,3B incentives for the battery gigafactory, $1B for the solar gigafactory). For comparison, for Amazon's new headquarters, Atlanta offered over $1B, Chicago offered $2B, Newark offered a freaking $7B incentive, etc. But hey, let's pretend that Tesla is the only company that plays this came because, ooooh, evil Tesla!

Re:Tesla is a success ... at graft

[Anonymous Coward]

If you drive a $70K car, you're rich. I don't care if you don't feel rich, you're rich. I make well into 6 figures, I consider myself quite well off, and I look at the price of a Tesla and think "damn, that's expensive".

Re:Tesla is a success ... at graft

[Bing Tsher E]

For 15-20% above the typical cost of standard building code, you can build a Passivhaus for which the heating & cooling bills could be reduced by 75-90%, even if you live in a place with cold winters or hot summers

Sadly, you probably can't build it where you want to build it, because building codes and government guidelines will prevent it. Plus, you will never be able to secure the loans to build said house.

You can go off into an undeveloped area and build it, but most people don't want to live in those areas.

Re:How is this not a pyramid scheme?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.

Re:Sick of cars. I want a personal flying machine.

[mspohr]

Maybe you can arrange to be the driver of the next Tesla to go into space.

Re:How is this not a pyramid scheme?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Isn't that pretty much the nature of a leading question? Can't a single individual run multiple businesses without being accused of evil intentions? Cars and rockets have basically nothing to do with each other.

Gotta SPEND money to MAKE money

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the US Treasury. Mnuchin and his bitch need more doughnuts!

  BYB: SEEEEELLLL!! We don't want no more stinkin shirts!

Tax changes

[DogDude]

Everybody's taking a loss in 2017 and posting profits in 2018 to take advantage of the tax changes.

Re: Tax changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla is doing it slightly differently: loss in 2017 and bankruptcy in 2018.

Re:Tax changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever modded that +5 insightful really REALLY doesn't understand Tesla's financial situation.

Hint: Taking an on-paper loss because you paid taxes on overseas profits (Intel did that and it hit Apple hard too) is a hell of a lot different than taking a loss because you didn't make any profit at all and there was nothing to be taxed.

Re:Tax changes

[zlives]

lol, nice try i think elon just launched his 2018 profits to mars

Re:Tax changes

[apoc.famine]

You really think people would be willing to pay him to launch multi-million dollar satellites on an untested platform? That wasn't launching profits to mars. That was setting a max limit on how high SpaceX can pile it's money after that demo.

Deposits are not revenue

[magarity]

Tesla reported record revenue for 2017, floated by customer deposits

Deposits are liabilities. They only turn into revenue when you deliver whatever it was the deposit was for.

Re:Deposits are not revenue

[MikeDataLink]

Deposits are liabilities. They only turn into revenue when you deliver whatever it was the deposit was for.

Exactly, and that deposit is nothing more than a loan with interest attached to it when it costs them 1.5X the price to deliver the car.

Example: Car costs 50K. Deposit is 50K. Car costs 75K to make and deliver with overhead. 50K deposit is actually a liability for 75K.

Re:Deposits are not revenue

[R3d M3rcury]

Depends on how you do it.

A co-worker put down a deposit on a Model 3 and was informed that he should have it early in 2019 (it was pushed back from mid-2018). So while deposits are liabilities, as in it isn't necessarily your money to spend, if you take all those deposits and put them somewhere, you can do pretty well with the interest.

Re:Deposits are not revenue

[Registered Coward v2]

Tesla reported record revenue for 2017, floated by customer deposits

Deposits are liabilities. They only turn into revenue when you deliver whatever it was the deposit was for.

Exactly, cash is not always revenue. Every dollar of deposit must have an offsetting liability until the product is delivered. They can still burn through the cash and ultimately leave the deposit holders in the lurch with a bankruptcy restructuring.

Re:Deposits are not revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

Although the same 75k liability per order also serves as an Asset to the company in expected revenue, and it's much easier to borrow money from banks / bond issues when you have a 10-digit USD large order book to secure or at least prove your company as worth of confidence that you're not a junk bond company despite of periods of cash-burning.

Re:Deposits are not revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

Fake news!

Take your lying, stinking Republicans lies elsewhere, or we'll sick Google on you.

If you can't say something that supports the narrative being sold, then don't say anything at all, you misogynistic fascist.

Re:Deposits are not revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

Deposits are liabilities, but you can record revenue in a different year than the delivery date. That's standard procedure.

High Risk, High Reward

[Roger W Moore]

Agreed. However, that does not mean that there is not a considerable risk attached to this approach too. One serious failure and it could all come crashing down. This is a high risk, high reward strategy with the added benefit that Tesla is producing potentially revolutionary products so even if they fail it will likely have long lasting benefits for society...and today there are sadly very few companies you can say that about.

Re:High Risk, High Reward

[Anonymous Coward]

There's risk to everything, including doing nothing.

Re:High Risk, High Reward

[zifn4b]

There's risk to everything, including doing nothing.

That's actually one of the excuses for Gambler's Fallacy. There is also risk in drinking alcohol, having unprotected sex, smoking cigarettes, etc. That doesn't mean you should do it.

Re:High Risk, High Reward

[zifn4b]

Agreed. However, that does not mean that there is not a considerable risk attached to this approach too. One serious failure and it could all come crashing down.

That's precisely what happened when the dotcom bubble burst. A very low percentage of startups are successful. Information regarding that:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/a...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/n...
https://www.quora.com/What-per...

Re:High Risk, High Reward

[Anonymous Coward]

There's risk to everything, including doing nothing.

That's actually one of the excuses for Gambler's Fallacy. There is also risk in drinking alcohol, having unprotected sex, smoking cigarettes, etc. That doesn't mean you should do it.

There's a big difference between developing a new vehicle and drinking alcohol, having unprotected sex, and smoking cigarettes. Tesla needs the Model 3 to succeed (the auto industry depends on volume), which is why they're betting the whole company on it. And they're making progress. I have faith in them. Internet commentators may whine about the Model 3 right now, but that doesn't stop the company from moving forward. In a year, M3 production will be smooth and the naysayers will move on to something else. We saw this movie with the Roadster, Model S, and Model X.

Re: High Risk, High Reward

[Anonymous Coward]

A large percentage of Dotcom bubble companies did nothing, produced nothing, never really intended to do anything significant. People just thought if a company was tangibly linked to the internet they should invest in it.

The same is happening for block chain. The other day I was reading how the stock exchange threatened to delist a company because they had recently decided to refocus as a block chain company .... theyâ(TM)re a gold mining company. Now thatâ(TM)s bubble behaviour!

Re:High Risk, High Reward

[Anonymous Coward]

There's risk to everything, including doing nothing.

That's actually one of the excuses for Gambler's Fallacy. There is also risk in drinking alcohol, having unprotected sex, smoking cigarettes, etc. That doesn't mean you should do it.

Let me know when you don't have to come up with hysterical emotional reasons to follow a discussion.

Besides? Alcohol used to be SAFER to drink. Sex makes Babies. Cigarettes can be safer than medicines.

Re:High Risk, High Reward

[zifn4b]

Tesla needs the Model 3 to succeed (the auto industry depends on volume), which is why they're betting the whole company on it.

This is the key part.

1) What Tesla needs to succeed, the economic market doesn't care about. Tesla either succeeds or it doesn't. Companies come and go. The strong survive, the weak fade into obscurity
2) Tesla is indeed making a bet, as all companies do. Some more calculated than others. Some make good bets, some make bad bets. See #1

I hope Tesla succeeds because I like their mission but as for whether they will or not is dependent on a lot of factors that have nothing to do with whether Tesla's mission is a noble one or not. Such is the world we live in. Study economic game theory. I don't particularly care for the complete and utter apathy of it all but we're all thrust into this game against our will because all of our livelihoods depend on it. Some people are trying to do these micro-house homesteads in Arizona to live off the grid. Maybe something will pan out with that so we can all live "off the grid". Until then, we're stuck playing this forsaken game.

Re:High Risk, High Reward

[Maritz]

Cigarettes can be safer than medicines.

Probably the most asinine thing I'll read today.

Re:High Risk, High Reward

[david_thornley]

I've read about studies that showed that light drinking was better for your health than no alcohol. There's risks in drinking the stuff, and risks in not drinking it.

It's not

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not obvious that he's doing that. If he were a nation state, instead of a billionaire, it'd be dumping, and an anti-competitive practice. As there is viable competition in the auto industry, it's not a violation of anti-trust law. In this case, however, it's legally stealing from willing investors.

Re:It's not

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that he is actually making money on each car, BUT, losing it all by investing into fix costs, then no, he is NOT dumping. Not even close. All the more so since he is not subsidized by the feds to do so.

Re:How is this not a pyramid scheme?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you go do that then? Get off your butt and go do it yourself instead of complaining about how someone else is running his companies. Also, unless you're a Tesla investor yourself then get off your high horse and stop being outraged on someone else's behalf. They don't need you to white knight for them and nobody else cares about your virtue signalling.

Re:Sick of cars. I want a personal flying machine.

[Bing Tsher E]

I doubt if GP commenter is an experienced (publicity) stunt driver.

Re:I can't wait

[MikeDataLink]

I can't wait for those arrogant idiots to go bankrupt.

That will never happen. They'll continue to exist as a luxury brand.

The Most Expensive Car Commercial

[Anonymous Coward]

And it had to be a used Tesla.

Amazon doesn't make its money on books.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon makes its money on cloud computing.

Who would have thought? Literally nobody.

What is it with these Tesla articles?

[aaarrrgggh]

Meh.

They invest what they have in a measured fashion to realize their plan. If they hit their stride on the Model 3 by the end of Q2, they should generate positive free cash flow at a minimum. At which point, they will likely invest in a ramp-up of the Model Y, which is expected to require an assembly line in China... and consume significant cash.

If I found anything disappointing in their financials, it was the fact that the energy business isn't doing as well as I would hope-- especially on the energy storage side. It looks like the windfarm battery plant in South Australia accounted for 60%+ of that revenue. I guess the other concern is the fact that sales/manufacturing of the S and X will be constrained by availability of the 18650 cells to 100k units.

Re:What is it with these Tesla articles?

[WindBourne]

uh no.
So far, Musk, nor any of the top tesla ppl, have said that they will do a Chinese line for MY. They have said that they will move some work in there, but they have been VERY CAREFUL on how it is phrased.
And it would be foolish and idiotic of them to put ANYTHING in China. Far better to go with Australia and EUrope first and cater to 5/6 of the planet, while ignoring 1/6 whose only interest is in destroying manufacturing in the west.

Re:What is it with these Tesla articles?

[aaarrrgggh]

You might want to double-check the notes from the conference call. They indicate that the Model Y will be targeted primarily at the China market, which will require more automation, lower labor cost, and local production (partially by extension).

Re:What is it with these Tesla articles?

[LynnwoodRooster]

China, India, and SE Asia contain 50% of the world's population. Europe, Australia and North America are about half that...

Re:What is it with these Tesla articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

The shareholder letter stated that revenue from the battery project will not be recognised until the current quarter, but the results include the cost of air freighting it to Australia... that must have cost millions!

Re:What is it with these Tesla articles?

[aaarrrgggh]

Didn’t catch the Aus revenue portion, thanks. Did see the air freight though... wonder what percentage had to be flown!

Re:What is it with these Tesla articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL you're really not that good at numbers are you.

The Union bashing of Tesla seems to have stopped

[seoras]

Last year we saw a steady steam of headlines here on /. which basically said "Tesla is Evil",
That it was because they were keeping out the unions.
The last one was in November:
Tesla Is a 'Hotbed For Racist Behavior,' Worker Claims In Lawsuit
Which followed the en masse firings of October and it's headlines.
I suspect the financial and technological challenges of breaking the traditional moulds of the motor industry are insignificant in comparison to the political challenges.

Re:How is this not a pyramid scheme?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people just can't resist playing "Captain Save-A-Ho" even when they have to play the "Ho" themselves in drag.

Re:Sick of cars. I want a personal flying machine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, if I, say had an incurable disease then I'd have volunteered to be the man in that suit of the Tesla car. Fit it with an add-on trailer to hold as much food/oxygen as possible. Give me some control of steering, my music/video collection for the ride and heck yes, I'd be quite happy to be the first human to take that first ride to whip around the Sun on my way to Mars. Then in a 100 years or so from now future space-workers will find my smiling fossilized face at the wheel.

Captcha: motoring

Tesla is NOT Amazon

[BBF_BBF]

Amazon didn't *LOSE* 2 billion dollars a year. The just didn't make much of a profit for a company that had so much revenue.

No problem for the company

[Trogre]

Tesla is really going places in 2018.

Re:No problem for the company

[complete loony]

Still waiting for someone to photoshop a new button onto the Tesla launch mode UI....

Re:No problem for the company

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there is no button yet, but here's another automated solution that launches additional heroes into space [https://tesla-in-space.gbksoft.com/]

Re:How is this not a pyramid scheme?

[R3d M3rcury]

Cars and rockets have basically nothing to do with each other.

I wouldn't say that...

And, of course, the obligatory movie clip...

MuskBucks: not as valuable as real bucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Shareholders: Hey, Elon, where's our money?

Musk: I blasted it into space.

Shareholders: ...

Re:MuskBucks: not as valuable as real bucks

[Anonymous Coward]

You should do stand up. I mean, blasted the money into space! Because he's also the SpaceX guy! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

How much did GM burn through getting the Volt out

[Anonymous Coward]

the door 3 years late? JUst saying it costs money to get a new car out the door and especially one with advanced technologies.

Re:Sick of cars. I want a personal flying machine.

[hydrodog]

Drive a BFR!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4FY894HyF8&t=1964s

BUT losses were better than WS expected.

[WindBourne]

The fact is, that Tesla lost LESS than what the markets had been expecting for some time.
And as has been pointed out, that once they are somewhere between 4000 to 5000 cars per week, they will be in the GAAP black.

Re:BUT losses were better than WS expected.

[SlaveToTheGrind]

The fact is, that Tesla lost LESS than what the markets had been expecting for some time.

Cite? This graph shows earnings per share consistently more negative than forecasts for at least the past year. As a cross-check, TSLA dropped nearly 9% the day after its earnings call.

Re:BUT losses were better than WS expected.

[WindBourne]

Here is the main one.
Here is BI
Here is CBS
Here is Market Watch.
Here is WSJ
In fact, other than Faux News, BreitBart, and Daily Stormer, they all say the same thing. That yes, Tesla had losses but not as much as forecast some time ago.

Re:BUT losses were better than WS expected.

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Sarcasm doth not become you. Your cut-and-paste spray of links (the ones that aren't paywalled -- did you read them yourself?) all give different supposed EPS forecasts that TLSA "beat," which should have set off a big alarm bell in your head about their subjectivity. I posted a year's worth of statistics from NASDAQ showing they've missed expectations every quarter for the past year, and today's stock performance is utterly consistent with that and utterly inconsistent with your hypothesis. I note you touched neither point.

Re:BUT losses were better than WS expected.

[Anonymous Coward]

> I posted a year's worth of statistics from NASDAQ showing they've missed expectations every quarter for the past year
I'm not sure I completely understand the nasdaq graph you posted, but at least for me it appears to show only four quarterly EPS values, from December 2015 to September 2016. Three below the forecast (and all negative), and one above the forecast (and positive). But none of them cover "the past year".

Re:How is this not a pyramid scheme?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla has nothing to do with SpaceX or the Boring company.
I suspect that Kock bros are calling you back to finish sucking them off.
Then they will be happy to pay for your BJs along with your trolling.

This is why Elon is selling flamethrowers

[SlaveToTheGrind]

I had no need to hear the quarterly results after I saw this video.

It was crystal clear that he's burning through the cash he has hand over fist and is losing the confidence of the investors who could give him more.

Breakdown by division?

[Michael Woodhams]

Tesla makes batteries, cars and solar panels (and roof tiles which act as solar panels.) The cars are the highest profile and highest risk part of the business. Their first big problem is that they are struggling very much to get car production up to the theoretical capabilities of their factory. A second big problem is that they have competitors with very very deep pockets (and who know how to make their factories work well) in the existing car manufacturers.

If they solve their manufacturing problems, and keep some combination of technical and marketing edge over the big car manufacturers, Tesla could hit the big time. However, they might also crash into bankruptcy, or less drastically, they might be forced to abandon car manufacture to stay in batteries and solar panels.

So, how are the battery and solar panel parts of the business doing? Might they emerge (like a smoking detached wheel rolling down the road) from a crash of the car business?

(My take: I am generally very impressed by what Musk has done, and I think the haters who paint him as a con man are either delusional or trolls. However, he is not an angel (he is not morally impeccable) nor a god (he is not omnipotent) so he can fail, and he and his companies can legitimately be criticized. In particular, I'm very dubious about hyperloop, somewhat dubious about tunnels, and cautious about the cars.)

Re:I can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, under Geely or some other larger company but not by themselves. Boutique car companies have never been profitable.

Ignore the loss...

[WindSword]

...look at my car in space! Both launched on the same day. A nice sleight of hand, Elon.

Re:Suck my RUSSIAN BONER!

[Anonymous Coward]

If its Russian I assume that means its covered with moles and a bad hair cut.

Not likely that you could see that unless you inspected it with a microscope. I can think of much better uses for microscopes though...

I know Trump has small hands. I don't know if it was that small

Re:I can't wait

[Barsteward]

not true https://www.morgan-motor.co.uk...

the stupid "burning" term used again

[sxpert]

here we go again, it's called "investing in extremely large factories", not "burning"
burning would be buying useless sports cars for executives
oh wait... tesla actually BUILDS those !

Re:the stupid "burning" term used again

[Anonymous Coward]

The term is burning. I'd have thought somebody with your user ID would be familiar with corporate speak. When speaking of budgets you always talk of the burn rate. Every project I've ever worked on for every company I've ever worked for talked about burn rates and how quickly are you burning through your budgets and cash. If you don't like standard terminology, I recommend you grow up.

It's "burned through" not "burns through"

[Anonymous Coward]

2017 was last year, not this year. Therefore the past tense is required. But of course, the summary writer is AMERICAN, isn't he...

Not solvent yet, but dreamers cling

[Anonymous Coward]

You place this tag of money burn on any other company and people would have already written their obituary. Tesla on the other hand is a snowflake in a storm and its not like their vehicles haven't already been proven unworthy of being practical or of good quality for their price. These are technically advanced vehicles that failed at providing logical transportations focused on basics for reliability. Its another Delorean company circling the drain.

Re:I can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they should maybe start making some luxury cars

only half the rate of Uber's cash burn

[Anonymous Coward]

it's all relative. Uber burns at 2x Tesla, and Uber say's it's "just an app", so WTF??