It's a combination. Tesla locks off the top several percent (depends on the chemistry / pack, but say 5%) permanently, and the owner never sees it (the bottom is also locked off). Beyond this, however, owners generally only charge to 70-80% in their everyday life, because there's no need for more and it's good for longevity. You only charge up to "100%" (which is really ~95%) when you know you're going on a long trip the next day. Some people don't even do that. And almost nobody supercharges to 100%; it's time-inefficient, since charge rates are so much faster at lower SoCs. You just charge up enough to get to the next place you want to stop (plus whatever safety buffer you prefer), unless you're busy doing something while charging (eating a meal or whatnot) and might as well let the vehicle keep charging.
* For a vehicle with a range of, say, 250 miles, where the driver drives, say, 25 miles per day, is only using 1/10th of a cycle per day.
* Few owners charge to 100% daily. Most set a limit in the 60-90% range, with 70% and 80% being common. So not only are they doing shallow cycles, but they're doing shallow cycles in a near-optimal-for-longevity portion of the pack.
* Unlike laptop batteries, which are often just cells in series and thus limited by the weakest cell, Tesla packs have many dozen cells in parallel forming bricks, which are then linked in series (these in turn are linked in parallel). A failure in an individual cell has an insignificant impact on the whole.
In short, you have shallow cycles, in a gentle portion of the charge curve, with a chemistry specifically designed for long life, a failure-resistant architecture, and climate controlled to optimal operating conditions. You get what you design for. A cell phone and a laptop, by contrast, design for low unit cost and high energy density. Tesla packs are only 150-180Wh/kg, whereas you might get over 240Wh/kg in a cell phone battery. But cell phones and laptops are only designing for a couple year lifespan, with deeper cycles every day, no redundancy, no climate control, etc
From a rocket perspective, the next launch is the interesting one: the first launch of Block 5. Designed to be fully reusable without refurbishing for 10 launches. 100+ with refurbishment every 10 launches.
Obviously, I'm sure it'll be a while before they're confident enough to actually do that; early on they'll surely tear it down between every launch and inspect to make sure it's holding up as well as they expect it to. But they've learned from where wear and tear was occurring on past rockets, and Block 5 is designed to prevent it.
Lol, so BMWs are "shit cars" too? What do you consider to not be a "shit car"?
"not well equipped" - Teslas come with tech features found in few to none other cars. "They are not reliable" - Consumer Reports ranks the Model S above average in terms of reliability "they are not well built" - Consumer satisfaction disagrees. "the batteries quickly overheat" - Wrong. The batteries never overheat. You're confusing the motor with the battery pac. And it takes a couple minutes of track duty to overheat a S and X motor; it never happens in real-world driving. And the 3 motor never overheats (PM rather than induction - no rotor heating) - even in track duty.
Someone managed to burn out their brakes on a Model 3 already. Of course, they did that by racing on a track with only mild regen;) Apart from the brakes, the base Model 3 performed like a champ - but the brakes are clearly not intended for heavy use, because you normally don't need them for much. I'm sure they'll put much better cooled brakes on the performance model.
Also, concerning this article: The terms for AP and FSD haven't changed in a year. There is no "news" behind this article. By selling FSD separate from AP, it makes it explicit what you're buying. You cannot choose just AP and think "I'm getting full self driving". Meanwhile, the FSD option is plastered with all sorts of weasel words like "in the future" and "eventually", with no hard dates. You cannot choose FSD and think "I'm getting this immediately, or at least the day after tomorrow!"
Why this article? Why now? Again, literally nothing has changed about the terms or wording in the past year. It's not like there's a lack of news. Just yesterday, we learned that not only was the 2k+/wk Model 3 production rate not a burst rate, not only have they maintained it for three weeks, but that when they're done with the upgrades this week, the line should come back at 3-4k/wk; and Tesla is now targeting not just 5k/wk at the end of this quarter, but 6k/wk (with an expectation that at least one supplier or process won't get it all the way, in order to ensure that they get at least 5k, with the intent to get it up to the full 6k in Q3).
That's actual news. This is concern trolling. And it's full of statements that are just plain wrong, such as that camera-based AP systems "don't work well in low light conditions". Nonsense; AP often works even better in low light conditions than it does in bright conditions. There's no "glare" at night, strong contrast between headlight-illuminated markings and obstacles vs. the road, and the cameras have good low-light sensitivity (better than the human eye). The article also makes it sound like they've not taken any time at all to research how Autopilot works, writing things like "If a sensor fails, Tesla will have to choose between disabling self-driving capability until the customer repairs it or allowing the car to continue operating with a higher risk of a crash." - seriously, virtually any Tesla owner can tell you that if you have a sensor failure, AP is disabled until you get it fixed. Just bloody ask. They then go on to imply that Tesla doesn't have redundant control systems. That's simply not true - go see them with your own eyes. The mechanical systems to control the brakes, steering, etc are all redundant. Concerning the computer, they link to a teardown of a Model S (older model) from last year. Why? Do they think that nothing's changed in the past year? And yes, the computer has on-board redundancy.
What the heck is up with all of these hit pieces of late?
I also could not disagree more with one of their main conclusions - that going straight for "full autonomy" is the safer option. Tesla has had three deaths around a billion miles of AP driving - the exact amount of mileage on AP today is not known, but was 300 million in November 2016, so probably around a billion today. The normal rate of deaths per mile is 1 per 80 million. Meanwhile, Uber had a pedestrian fatality in its first week operating in Arizona. If you try to go straight for full autonomy, you guarantee driver inattentiveness. Vehicles should be locked at no more than Level 2 autonomy (and level 3 should be illegal) until a high degree of safety can be guaranteed without driver involvement in the real world. Tesla and most of their emerging competitors (like the laughably bad Mercedes Drive Pilot - which actually does claim to be self-driving, unlike Autopilot) make you keep your hands on the wheel to try to ensure you're paying attention. With AP, it's not enough to simply touch it - you have to actually apply torque. But honestly,
Autodrive should not be sold until a set of standards has been set, for what it can detect and how it should react to what it can detect and those standards should be set by regulation and followed.
Do you apply this to everything that can control the steering wheel, accelerator and/or brakes? So, say, all TACC needs to go under your rules?
I don't think most people bashing autopilot realize that when you talk to people who own AP, this scenario - stop-and-go traffic - almost always tops the list of things that they like it for. Most people picture it as being just about driving down an open highway. Yes, it does that too, but that's not where it shines best.
And yet, the cash for FSD very much does exist. I think people are stupid for putting down money on FSD, but some people actually are. A nice interest-free loan for Tesla, on an option that has more than enough weasel wording in its description to insulate them from any liability for not delivering in the remotely near future.
If it weren't for the massive injections of credulous investors' cash, Tesla would already be bankrupt
Wow, if investors didn't invest in a company, it would have no money? Imagine that.
BTW, we're going to be having a meeting of the Tautology Club next week, if you want to join us; it will be the first time that the Tautology Club meets.
"can they get it up to capacity in time"
See the post you're replying to.
they are accruing debt
Wrong. Tesla's debt is relatively stable. You're confusing cash with debt.
For Tesla to run out of cash, they have to literally not get the Model 3 profitable and up to significant numbers by next spring, and do nothing else financially to prevent it (e.g. eliminating R&D/capex, more asset-backed securities, etc, etc). And that's simply not going to happen. Even a miss on the Q2 target will put the line up to near its design spec by the end of this quarter.
What if they can't do FSD without expensive upgrades that have been promised for free?
Then they got a $3k interest-free loan, which they have to in part pay back later for the new hardware or refund. With no hard date on when the "loan" needs to be paid back.
And the wording concerning self driving is, and I quote:
"Self-Driving, where permitted by regulatory approval, will ultimately take you from home to work and find a parking space for you on its own."
In the future, Model 3 will be capable of conducting trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.
This feature is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary by jurisdiction
Good luck to whatever lawyer is tasked with arguing that Tesla had actually promised some specific date. Also good luck with arguing that Musk isn't sincerely a massive believer that super-capable AI for things like self-driving is right around the corner.
Why are you mixing together total sales with monthly sales? Here are monthly sales. 3820 Model 3s are estimated sold and delivered in the US in March, vs. 1774 Bolts.
And why are you comparing total production of the Bolt vs. the Model 3 to begin with?
The Bolt concept car was unveiled in January 2015; pre-production vehicles were seen in testing in mid-2015; the first production car shown at the end of 2015; the production line started making vehicles in fall of 2016; and sales were opened to the public in December 2016.
The Model 3 concept car was unveiled in March 2016; final design was completed in mid-2016 and parts ordered for 300 prototypes; the first 30 vehicles off the line were in July of 2017; and the Model 3 hit 345/wk in November 2017 (1060 in December).
You're comparing total numbers of a car that's literally been around for an entire extra year. Also note the above: even with Tesla's delays, they still made the Model 3 faster than GM made the Bolt. With a much more ambitious plant (aka, designed for scaling to far larger volumes, meaning more work to do before even the first vehicle rolls off the line).
* Reservations have remained constant, as confirmed in statements filed with the SEC. The rate of cancellations has been roughly equal to the rate of new orders.
* Only 30% of people who receive their invite are choosing first production vehicles. If you choose first production, you must buy the LR pack and PUP and you can't buy dual motor, performance package, 20" wheels, or air suspension. It's impressive to me that 30% of people are choosing to configure with such a limited option set, when most people have the specific vehicle that they want in mind. Choosing a "not available yet" config is not a cancellation.
The S and X lines were down for one day. For periodic maintenance, because you have to take lines down periodically for maintenance.
S&X are neither production nor demand constrained; they're 18650 cell constrained. Neither Tesla nor Panasonic have an interest in the capital expenditure to increase 18650 production, since Tesla is moving to 2170s.
Oh, and speaking of margins. A majority of buyers get Autopilot ($5k). A minority get FSD ($3k). Software margins are huge, as in over 95%. Let's just say that Tesla made *no* profit at all on a $35k car and someone added AP. The car instantaneously has a 14% profit margin, just from that one option. Let alone premium interiors, dual motor, air suspension, long-range pack, performance package, 18"/20" wheels, paint options, etc, etc - just that one option alone can turn a zero-margin car into a 14% margin car.
I was under the impression that they are plowing tons of money into R&D.
They are. About 1 1/2 billion per year. Versus their Q4 loss of under $600M. Their SG&A is also scaled up in advance of the 3 rollout, since you can't magic that into existence the instant production increases. Tesla has big capex also. Interestingly, there are clear signs that Tesla is increasing (or preparing to increase) capex. They're currently relocating the Gigafactory parking lot (first step to expand the building) and bidding on more property near Fremont, for example.
This is about Tesla consistently failing to hit production targets by orders of magnitude,
They hit 80% of last quarter's target. Is that "off by an order of magnitude" to you?
Which followed the reports that this was done in unsustainable
What BS "reports"? They've maintained the 2k/wk rate since then.
Yes, they're six months late. Big whoop. Reservations are still at half a million, the "competition" is still a joke, and each of the supposed "Tesla killers" so far has turned out to be half-baked. Exceeding in some cases even my pessimism. I totally didn't call that, for example, the 2018 Leaf would only be able to go 200-300km before being throttled to 20-25kW charge rates. I mean, ouch.
Experienced automakers wouldn't be going through that.
Meanwhile, even with the delays, Tesla made their first 10000 Model 3s in less time than it took GM to make their first 1000 Bolts, from the start of tooling. And the first Model 3s were rolling off the line well sooner than the first Bolts (again, relative to the start of tooling).
Also, Tesla is going to have a huge cash shortfall
Bankwupt! Bankwupt, I say!;)
Hey, let's put or skeptic's hat on. Let's say that Musk is wrong about 5-6k/wk at the end of this quarter. Let's say they only do 4k at the end of this quarter. That would still be 80% of the line's initial design spec, aka the point where it's designed to be turning a 25% gross margin. Even a miss this quarter still means that they've pretty much succeeded with line development. Yes, they'll tune it over Q3 to get the rate up as high as they can, and this might mean a couple weeks downtime here and there. Sure, they'll probably take a quarter or two to realize the full margin. But at the end of this quarter, they're probably going to be earning at least 10% margin on at least 4k cars per week with an average sale price in the early run of around $45k (it's worth pointing out that the early cars are option-heavy and likely to have higher margins, so 10% is very pessimistic). That's Model 3 profits of $234M in Q3 (positive-$234M, vs a Model 3 loss in the last quarterly report) if Q3 averages only 4k/wk across all of Q3 (vs. the target of 5k/6k per week at the start of Q3). If Q3 averages 5/wk and 15% margin? That's $438M. Q4, at say 6k and 20%? $702M. I mention these numbers to contrast with the 598M quarterly loss they had in Q4.
Even if we ignore everything else - how the solar gigafactory is finally starting consumer sales, the huge boom in energy orders, the half billion or so they're going to get from deposits on the Y, etc, etc - Tesla's cash burn is all but over in Q3, and they're profitable in Q4. And even in Q2, their burn is heavily slashed from Q4/Q1.
And this is just the start of reasons I could go into as to why this "bankwupcy" thing is nonsense; there's about a dozen more. The shorts, strangely enough, always only develop their hindsight in the rearview mirror. To them, Tesla is always bankrupt in six months. Last summer, Tesla was going bankrupt this winter. Last fall, they were going bankrupt this spring. This winter, the bankruptcy was scheduled for summer. Here we are in the fall sweeps. Well, sorry to rain on the parade, but their predictive ability is worth squat. They keep pointing to reasons that Tesla did better than they expected, and it's always, "Well, of course they could do that, but they can't do it again, so now they're doomed!". Yeah? Well where were you pointing out what they could do? They were just off screaming "Bankrupt!" to their Seeking Alpha echo chamber, only developing their "foresight" after the fact. It's like listening to the Nostradamus crowd insisting that he predicted the 11 September attacks - if the predictions were so great, where were you on 10 September?
Indeed. They're half a year late. Reservations have remained roughly constant at about half a million. And over on the Tesla forums, people are cheering the news about scheduled line downtime. Because you take lines down to upgrade them to be better / faster. Every time Tesla has taken the line down in the past, it's come back up much faster than previously. The last line downtime saw an over 2x increase in production.
I've been hoping to see news that Tesla would be taking the line down, as that would be the next sign of an upcoming production jump, and was very happy when I saw this today.
Interestingly enough, rapid chargers would actually be more reliable in India than "destination chargers" / level 1/2. The higher-end of rapid chargers are starting to use battery packs to buffer from the grid (in order to deliver power faster than the grid can provide at a reasonable price). So random, unannounced power cuts don't phase them, so long as they're not excessively long.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a combination. Tesla locks off the top several percent (depends on the chemistry / pack, but say 5%) permanently, and the owner never sees it (the bottom is also locked off). Beyond this, however, owners generally only charge to 70-80% in their everyday life, because there's no need for more and it's good for longevity. You only charge up to "100%" (which is really ~95%) when you know you're going on a long trip the next day. Some people don't even do that. And almost nobody supercharges to 100%; it's time-inefficient, since charge rates are so much faster at lower SoCs. You just charge up enough to get to the next place you want to stop (plus whatever safety buffer you prefer), unless you're busy doing something while charging (eating a meal or whatnot) and might as well let the vehicle keep charging.
Indeed. A few other things:
* For a vehicle with a range of, say, 250 miles, where the driver drives, say, 25 miles per day, is only using 1/10th of a cycle per day.
* Few owners charge to 100% daily. Most set a limit in the 60-90% range, with 70% and 80% being common. So not only are they doing shallow cycles, but they're doing shallow cycles in a near-optimal-for-longevity portion of the pack.
* Unlike laptop batteries, which are often just cells in series and thus limited by the weakest cell, Tesla packs have many dozen cells in parallel forming bricks, which are then linked in series (these in turn are linked in parallel). A failure in an individual cell has an insignificant impact on the whole.
In short, you have shallow cycles, in a gentle portion of the charge curve, with a chemistry specifically designed for long life, a failure-resistant architecture, and climate controlled to optimal operating conditions. You get what you design for. A cell phone and a laptop, by contrast, design for low unit cost and high energy density. Tesla packs are only 150-180Wh/kg, whereas you might get over 240Wh/kg in a cell phone battery. But cell phones and laptops are only designing for a couple year lifespan, with deeper cycles every day, no redundancy, no climate control, etc
Hint: Tesla owners didn't collect this data for you. They collected it for themselves.
From a rocket perspective, the next launch is the interesting one: the first launch of Block 5. Designed to be fully reusable without refurbishing for 10 launches. 100+ with refurbishment every 10 launches.
Obviously, I'm sure it'll be a while before they're confident enough to actually do that; early on they'll surely tear it down between every launch and inspect to make sure it's holding up as well as they expect it to. But they've learned from where wear and tear was occurring on past rockets, and Block 5 is designed to prevent it.
Slashdot these days...
Lol, so BMWs are "shit cars" too? What do you consider to not be a "shit car"?
"not well equipped" - Teslas come with tech features found in few to none other cars.
"They are not reliable" - Consumer Reports ranks the Model S above average in terms of reliability
"they are not well built" - Consumer satisfaction disagrees.
"the batteries quickly overheat" - Wrong. The batteries never overheat. You're confusing the motor with the battery pac. And it takes a couple minutes of track duty to overheat a S and X motor; it never happens in real-world driving. And the 3 motor never overheats (PM rather than induction - no rotor heating) - even in track duty.
Someone managed to burn out their brakes on a Model 3 already. Of course, they did that by racing on a track with only mild regen ;) Apart from the brakes, the base Model 3 performed like a champ - but the brakes are clearly not intended for heavy use, because you normally don't need them for much. I'm sure they'll put much better cooled brakes on the performance model.
I'll repeat my question: So, say, all TACC needs to go under your rules?
Also, concerning this article: The terms for AP and FSD haven't changed in a year. There is no "news" behind this article. By selling FSD separate from AP, it makes it explicit what you're buying. You cannot choose just AP and think "I'm getting full self driving". Meanwhile, the FSD option is plastered with all sorts of weasel words like "in the future" and "eventually", with no hard dates. You cannot choose FSD and think "I'm getting this immediately, or at least the day after tomorrow!"
Why this article? Why now? Again, literally nothing has changed about the terms or wording in the past year. It's not like there's a lack of news. Just yesterday, we learned that not only was the 2k+/wk Model 3 production rate not a burst rate, not only have they maintained it for three weeks, but that when they're done with the upgrades this week, the line should come back at 3-4k/wk; and Tesla is now targeting not just 5k/wk at the end of this quarter, but 6k/wk (with an expectation that at least one supplier or process won't get it all the way, in order to ensure that they get at least 5k, with the intent to get it up to the full 6k in Q3).
That's actual news. This is concern trolling. And it's full of statements that are just plain wrong, such as that camera-based AP systems "don't work well in low light conditions". Nonsense; AP often works even better in low light conditions than it does in bright conditions. There's no "glare" at night, strong contrast between headlight-illuminated markings and obstacles vs. the road, and the cameras have good low-light sensitivity (better than the human eye). The article also makes it sound like they've not taken any time at all to research how Autopilot works, writing things like "If a sensor fails, Tesla will have to choose between disabling self-driving capability until the customer repairs it or allowing the car to continue operating with a higher risk of a crash." - seriously, virtually any Tesla owner can tell you that if you have a sensor failure, AP is disabled until you get it fixed. Just bloody ask. They then go on to imply that Tesla doesn't have redundant control systems. That's simply not true - go see them with your own eyes. The mechanical systems to control the brakes, steering, etc are all redundant. Concerning the computer, they link to a teardown of a Model S (older model) from last year. Why? Do they think that nothing's changed in the past year? And yes, the computer has on-board redundancy.
What the heck is up with all of these hit pieces of late?
I also could not disagree more with one of their main conclusions - that going straight for "full autonomy" is the safer option. Tesla has had three deaths around a billion miles of AP driving - the exact amount of mileage on AP today is not known, but was 300 million in November 2016, so probably around a billion today. The normal rate of deaths per mile is 1 per 80 million. Meanwhile, Uber had a pedestrian fatality in its first week operating in Arizona. If you try to go straight for full autonomy, you guarantee driver inattentiveness. Vehicles should be locked at no more than Level 2 autonomy (and level 3 should be illegal) until a high degree of safety can be guaranteed without driver involvement in the real world. Tesla and most of their emerging competitors (like the laughably bad Mercedes Drive Pilot - which actually does claim to be self-driving, unlike Autopilot) make you keep your hands on the wheel to try to ensure you're paying attention. With AP, it's not enough to simply touch it - you have to actually apply torque. But honestly,
Only on Slashdot can the car with the highest customer satisfaction in the industry be "universally agreed to be shit cars".
Do you apply this to everything that can control the steering wheel, accelerator and/or brakes? So, say, all TACC needs to go under your rules?
This.
I don't think most people bashing autopilot realize that when you talk to people who own AP, this scenario - stop-and-go traffic - almost always tops the list of things that they like it for. Most people picture it as being just about driving down an open highway. Yes, it does that too, but that's not where it shines best.
And yet, the cash for FSD very much does exist. I think people are stupid for putting down money on FSD, but some people actually are. A nice interest-free loan for Tesla, on an option that has more than enough weasel wording in its description to insulate them from any liability for not delivering in the remotely near future.
Ah, I remember people like you...
Wow, if investors didn't invest in a company, it would have no money? Imagine that.
BTW, we're going to be having a meeting of the Tautology Club next week, if you want to join us; it will be the first time that the Tautology Club meets.
See the post you're replying to.
Wrong. Tesla's debt is relatively stable. You're confusing cash with debt.
For Tesla to run out of cash, they have to literally not get the Model 3 profitable and up to significant numbers by next spring, and do nothing else financially to prevent it (e.g. eliminating R&D/capex, more asset-backed securities, etc, etc). And that's simply not going to happen. Even a miss on the Q2 target will put the line up to near its design spec by the end of this quarter.
Then they got a $3k interest-free loan, which they have to in part pay back later for the new hardware or refund. With no hard date on when the "loan" needs to be paid back.
And the wording concerning self driving is, and I quote:
Good luck to whatever lawyer is tasked with arguing that Tesla had actually promised some specific date. Also good luck with arguing that Musk isn't sincerely a massive believer that super-capable AI for things like self-driving is right around the corner.
Why are you mixing together total sales with monthly sales? Here are monthly sales. 3820 Model 3s are estimated sold and delivered in the US in March, vs. 1774 Bolts.
And why are you comparing total production of the Bolt vs. the Model 3 to begin with?
The Bolt concept car was unveiled in January 2015; pre-production vehicles were seen in testing in mid-2015; the first production car shown at the end of 2015; the production line started making vehicles in fall of 2016; and sales were opened to the public in December 2016.
The Model 3 concept car was unveiled in March 2016; final design was completed in mid-2016 and parts ordered for 300 prototypes; the first 30 vehicles off the line were in July of 2017; and the Model 3 hit 345/wk in November 2017 (1060 in December).
You're comparing total numbers of a car that's literally been around for an entire extra year. Also note the above: even with Tesla's delays, they still made the Model 3 faster than GM made the Bolt. With a much more ambitious plant (aka, designed for scaling to far larger volumes, meaning more work to do before even the first vehicle rolls off the line).
He's too busy citing short nonsense.
* Reservations have remained constant, as confirmed in statements filed with the SEC. The rate of cancellations has been roughly equal to the rate of new orders.
* Only 30% of people who receive their invite are choosing first production vehicles. If you choose first production, you must buy the LR pack and PUP and you can't buy dual motor, performance package, 20" wheels, or air suspension. It's impressive to me that 30% of people are choosing to configure with such a limited option set, when most people have the specific vehicle that they want in mind. Choosing a "not available yet" config is not a cancellation.
The S and X lines were down for one day. For periodic maintenance, because you have to take lines down periodically for maintenance.
S&X are neither production nor demand constrained; they're 18650 cell constrained. Neither Tesla nor Panasonic have an interest in the capital expenditure to increase 18650 production, since Tesla is moving to 2170s.
Oh, and speaking of margins. A majority of buyers get Autopilot ($5k). A minority get FSD ($3k). Software margins are huge, as in over 95%. Let's just say that Tesla made *no* profit at all on a $35k car and someone added AP. The car instantaneously has a 14% profit margin, just from that one option. Let alone premium interiors, dual motor, air suspension, long-range pack, performance package, 18"/20" wheels, paint options, etc, etc - just that one option alone can turn a zero-margin car into a 14% margin car.
They are. About 1 1/2 billion per year. Versus their Q4 loss of under $600M. Their SG&A is also scaled up in advance of the 3 rollout, since you can't magic that into existence the instant production increases. Tesla has big capex also. Interestingly, there are clear signs that Tesla is increasing (or preparing to increase) capex. They're currently relocating the Gigafactory parking lot (first step to expand the building) and bidding on more property near Fremont, for example.
They hit 80% of last quarter's target. Is that "off by an order of magnitude" to you?
What BS "reports"? They've maintained the 2k/wk rate since then.
Yes, they're six months late. Big whoop. Reservations are still at half a million, the "competition" is still a joke, and each of the supposed "Tesla killers" so far has turned out to be half-baked. Exceeding in some cases even my pessimism. I totally didn't call that, for example, the 2018 Leaf would only be able to go 200-300km before being throttled to 20-25kW charge rates. I mean, ouch.
Meanwhile, even with the delays, Tesla made their first 10000 Model 3s in less time than it took GM to make their first 1000 Bolts, from the start of tooling. And the first Model 3s were rolling off the line well sooner than the first Bolts (again, relative to the start of tooling).
Bankwupt! Bankwupt, I say! ;)
Hey, let's put or skeptic's hat on. Let's say that Musk is wrong about 5-6k/wk at the end of this quarter. Let's say they only do 4k at the end of this quarter. That would still be 80% of the line's initial design spec, aka the point where it's designed to be turning a 25% gross margin. Even a miss this quarter still means that they've pretty much succeeded with line development. Yes, they'll tune it over Q3 to get the rate up as high as they can, and this might mean a couple weeks downtime here and there. Sure, they'll probably take a quarter or two to realize the full margin. But at the end of this quarter, they're probably going to be earning at least 10% margin on at least 4k cars per week with an average sale price in the early run of around $45k (it's worth pointing out that the early cars are option-heavy and likely to have higher margins, so 10% is very pessimistic). That's Model 3 profits of $234M in Q3 (positive-$234M, vs a Model 3 loss in the last quarterly report) if Q3 averages only 4k/wk across all of Q3 (vs. the target of 5k/6k per week at the start of Q3). If Q3 averages 5/wk and 15% margin? That's $438M. Q4, at say 6k and 20%? $702M. I mention these numbers to contrast with the 598M quarterly loss they had in Q4.
Even if we ignore everything else - how the solar gigafactory is finally starting consumer sales, the huge boom in energy orders, the half billion or so they're going to get from deposits on the Y, etc, etc - Tesla's cash burn is all but over in Q3, and they're profitable in Q4. And even in Q2, their burn is heavily slashed from Q4/Q1.
And this is just the start of reasons I could go into as to why this "bankwupcy" thing is nonsense; there's about a dozen more. The shorts, strangely enough, always only develop their hindsight in the rearview mirror. To them, Tesla is always bankrupt in six months. Last summer, Tesla was going bankrupt this winter. Last fall, they were going bankrupt this spring. This winter, the bankruptcy was scheduled for summer. Here we are in the fall sweeps. Well, sorry to rain on the parade, but their predictive ability is worth squat. They keep pointing to reasons that Tesla did better than they expected, and it's always, "Well, of course they could do that, but they can't do it again, so now they're doomed!". Yeah? Well where were you pointing out what they could do? They were just off screaming "Bankrupt!" to their Seeking Alpha echo chamber, only developing their "foresight" after the fact. It's like listening to the Nostradamus crowd insisting that he predicted the 11 September attacks - if the predictions were so great, where were you on 10 September?
Not my post, but:
"I know, right! The Model 3 is already the best selling (as in actual deliveries) EV." - Ref
Accura TLX: Pretty close. The TLX had a March sales jump, but with the new 3 production rate, there's no way it'll beat the 3 again.
Mercedes C/CLA: Model 3 sold over 50% more
Audi A4: Closer, but still a solid Model 3 win.
Lexus RC: Over an order of magnitude more Model 3 sales
BMW 2: 3 1/2 times more Model 3s.
BMW 3: Actually the 3-series edged out the Model 3... but it's unlikely to do so again.
BMW 4: Model 3 wins.
Why the incredulity? You've been reading too much doom-and-gloom from the Tesla shorts. Model 3 production has rapidly accelerated.
(Note: the GP was clearly talking about the US, so I used US market figures)
Indeed. They're half a year late. Reservations have remained roughly constant at about half a million. And over on the Tesla forums, people are cheering the news about scheduled line downtime. Because you take lines down to upgrade them to be better / faster. Every time Tesla has taken the line down in the past, it's come back up much faster than previously. The last line downtime saw an over 2x increase in production.
I've been hoping to see news that Tesla would be taking the line down, as that would be the next sign of an upcoming production jump, and was very happy when I saw this today.
Interestingly enough, rapid chargers would actually be more reliable in India than "destination chargers" / level 1/2. The higher-end of rapid chargers are starting to use battery packs to buffer from the grid (in order to deliver power faster than the grid can provide at a reasonable price). So random, unannounced power cuts don't phase them, so long as they're not excessively long.