-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
dennis
Model S Plaid
The next to last row should be labeled 2016 Results.
Hogfighter
Professional Lurker
This is the same number as October although fewer S and more X.
Usually how close are these numbers for the USA?
Kenriko
Former Vendor
So exactly when does this forum become 'Tesla Club'?
Teslaclub.com forwards to Tesla.com
Wow! Right up there with Churchill's more succinct "That is something up with which I will not put."
Last edited:
erthquake
Active Member
IIHS just masssively raised their headlight standards and IIRC nearly all headlights rate Poor now.
Apparently only 7 models on the entire US market have "good" headlights. It sounds like every one of these was redesigned in the last year specifically to meet the new IIHS standards.
Relatively few models even have "acceptable" headlights.
New headlight criteria mean fewer vehicles get highest IIHS safety rating
New IIHS ratings show most headlights are lacking
Tesla is apparently talking with their headlight supplier and redesigning the headlights to be better. Honestly, it's true, they could be a lot better.
The IIHS standards now test the degree to which the road ahead is illuminated -- which isn't just about brightness, it's also about angles. I've had times when the area illuminated by the Tesla headlights is not tracking with the road due to a small dip.
And the new standards test whether the headlights create *glare* for oncoming cars, pedestrians, motorcyclists, etc -- because that makes other people less safe -- and Tesla's headlights can have some bad glare for the oncoming traffic, which is definitely bad.
I expect that within a year Tesla's headlights will be better.
Yeah, looks like they just used new weight standards. This one's effectively bogus (though I'm sure Tesla will strengthen the roof to pass the new standard for advertising reasons). The only way the weight of the battery at the bottom of the car could affect the roof integrity is if the car flipped over, which has proven to be impossible in testing.
I've been thinking about the boldfaced bit there
Sooooo, I figured the diff from Q3 car deliveries to Q4 car deliveries was about 2300 cars. At an ASP of 90K (Wild Ass Guess) and 20% margins (WAG), that's about a $41 million gap.
Tesla Energy delivered 80 MWh at Aliso. If they delivered another 40 Mwh, that's 120 Mwh. At an ASP of $400/kwh and 50% margins (WAG), that's about $24 million.
SolarCity recorded $53 million in GAAP profits in Q3 (although I know the accounting is completely hinky and that doesn't mean much). The way SCTY has been accounted for, every sale looks like a loss now (and a profit years in the future) so a sales slowdown generates accounting profits. Until the accounting changes which should happen soon (not sure sure).
Even with integration costs and R&D possibly rising for Q4, I'm thinking it's very likely that Tesla reports a narrow GAAP profit in Q4. SCTY and batteries should more than offset the miss on the car deliveries.
With just 120MWh to amortize fixed costs, TE margins are likely negative at this point.
The "press" reporting on the IIHS tests are rather aggravating. Multiple sources claim that Tesla "failed" a test that they got an acceptable rating on, others "fall short" or "lose". They did indeed fall short... of a perfect score. It is rather sad to see such biased reporting. BMW got painted by the same brush. The IIHS themselves used a much more correct "Two electric cars miss IIHS awards" and CBC did well with "Tesla Model S scores well in crash safety tests but falls short of top standard". The bias written into headlines and articles even with a direct factual original source is incredible.
There is no way to tell as there is no other monthly data that we can validate against. Moreover InsideEVs seems to report the third month after Tesla releases quarterly figures for global deliveries.
Consensus view here seems to be that InsideEVs number are pretty good guesstimates.
erthquake
Active Member
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
The first rule of Tesla Club is...So exactly when does this forum become 'Tesla Club'?
Incredulocious
LEAF → RAV4EV → Model 3 → Model Y
Oh come on. No. TE has no independent fixed costs; they're all subsumed in Tesla's general fixed costs via economies of scale.
Don't do stupid accounting.
TE has some independent R&D costs which probably got expensed a long time ago.
TE has some independent capital costs (tooling) but those are capitalized.
TE has installation costs (variable, and I'm accounting for them), inverter costs (variable, and I'm accounting for them), and battery pack costs (variable, and I'm accounting for them).
The cells are produced at the same factory as the car batteries on the same production lines. The packs are produced at the same factory on automated production lines. The cases are going to be ordered from a supplier, entirely variable costs. Packing the packs in the boxes is variable costs too.
What fixed costs? One overseer for the pack assembly, maybe $100K/year? A salesman? An engineer?
Any fixed costs specific to Tesla Energy were probably being incurred already in Q3, *and as such are irrelevant to my calculation*. Only an INCREASE in fixed costs would prevent Tesla Energy from generating incremental profits.
Amortization is a useful accounting tool for some purposes. Not this one. Don't abuse it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
