RobStark
Well-Known Member
Nissan will have a 168+ mile EPA rated range 2017 Nissan LEAF.
Even if the MSRP is not significantly lower than Model 3 the transaction price will be.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)
- Thread starter Robert.Boston
- Start date
-
- Tags
- elon is an ass investing TSLA
Nissan will have a 168+ mile EPA rated range 2017 Nissan LEAF.
Even if the MSRP is not significantly lower than Model 3 the transaction price will be.
and availability
what if the model 3 is really popular, many people want the performance AWD version....Tesla will prioritize those.
2016 LEAF is the last of the gen 1
2017 is the gen 2
RobStark
Well-Known Member
I have no doubt Tesla will prioritize fully loaded versions but they won't delay your order for a base model for years or even a year; months at worst.
Let me start out by saying, it looks like sales of Model S are on fire. And end with saying, that from a future Model 3 buyer, the negative posts are in one of a few categories.
Majority: I had a problem, service was awesome. I love my car, and the great service.
Minority: I got exactly what I ordered, but something better came out. My car is still awesome, but I wish I had a heads up.
Minority: everything is awesome, but how will they maintain this?
Everyone: I wish there was more communication, especially on time lines and development status.
The last one is really the only one I would be concerned about, but at least they try to get something done well with the resources they have. That said, I do think they deserve criticism over the P85D and autopilot issues. They have admitted that the P85D was limited, indirectly, and openly admitted that the Autopilot camera has issues in certain conditions. The ludicrous upgrade is another communications failure, and I wish they had put it on the X and called it insane mode, matching the Model S insane mode. Then they could have had a supply of parts ready before announcing ludicrous mode on the S
Would I still buy TSLA, or a product from them? Yes, but I'm a college student. Also, every hit piece I've seen comes off as a desperate attempt to get ad revenue.
Majority: I had a problem, service was awesome. I love my car, and the great service.
Minority: I got exactly what I ordered, but something better came out. My car is still awesome, but I wish I had a heads up.
Minority: everything is awesome, but how will they maintain this?
Everyone: I wish there was more communication, especially on time lines and development status.
The last one is really the only one I would be concerned about, but at least they try to get something done well with the resources they have. That said, I do think they deserve criticism over the P85D and autopilot issues. They have admitted that the P85D was limited, indirectly, and openly admitted that the Autopilot camera has issues in certain conditions. The ludicrous upgrade is another communications failure, and I wish they had put it on the X and called it insane mode, matching the Model S insane mode. Then they could have had a supply of parts ready before announcing ludicrous mode on the S
Would I still buy TSLA, or a product from them? Yes, but I'm a college student. Also, every hit piece I've seen comes off as a desperate attempt to get ad revenue.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
Now some Roadster owners are getting hit with the communication problem: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/40042-Roadster-3-0/page97
Apparently, the Roadster 3.0 (upgraded battery pack) that Elon promised some time ago is currently incompatible with Roadster versions 1.0-1.5. Tesla even refunded the deposits of some 1.0-1.5 owners who put down money on the upgrades. The company has said nothing about the fate of these early adopter vehicles.
I don't know what to say. This feels like Tesla dissing its early customers -- the true believers who helped make everything else at Tesla possible. Hopefully the company will make things right, but broken promises are becoming a disturbing pattern.
Bringing this to the long term thread where it belongs. For context, we are talking about providing shared mobility services through automated driving. I don't think it is controversial to assume these are at least 10, maybe even 20 year out.
First of all there is no guarantee 1) Tesla will achieve the comparative cost advantages it hopes with the GF 2) and if it does, that the GF couldn't be replicated by other parties in that time frame. 3) technological changes won't make having a large investment in one particular battery production process a net negative instead of a net positive
But even if those guarantees hold, batteries are quickly becoming a smaller and smaller part of the total cost of ownership, even without a GF. Having a 30% lower cost base on a $24k battery is significant, but it's less important in 10 years time when that battery costs $12k and it's absolutely futile when that battery costs 6k in 20 years time.
Only if Tesla Motors eats the gross margin when it sells internally to Tesla Shared Mobility. A win for one becomes a loss for the other. Net result for the group however delivers no advantage to stock holders. But there is a negative too : Tesla Shared Mobility has to use Teslas. If one of the competitors invents and patents a breakthrough that makes their car better, Tesla mobility can't use it. As an investor I would much rather have an investment in Tesla, the motor manufacturing company and Uber, the mobility service provider. I simply don't see the huge synergy between the two businesses. If the best we can come up with that Tesla Mobility can buy cars cheaper from Tesla Motors than Uber, why was Hertz not just renting out
Shared mobility will go through a long period of still needing drivers. That's is a winner takes all market : lyft and uber are expanding as rapidly as humanly possible for this particular reason. Drivers will flock to the network that has the users and the users will go to the network where they have the widest choice of cars.
If I am standing on the curb my concern isn't if the service is going to charge me $10.50 or $12.10 for my ride, but what service will pick me up in 3 minutes while the other announces 17 minutes before a car is there. Likewise, when I land at Houston airport, I don't want to go find out if this happens to be an AppleCar city, maybe a GoogleCar city, maybe a TeslaCar city. Finally I can see business accounts being developed if shared mobility takes flight and there again, one partner will rule.
On top of that the transition to fully autonomous driving will be gradually. If not just because there will be regulatory involvement. Maybe California will allow those cars while Illinois blocks. Maybe a Texas road is easier to navigate automatically than a Canadian mountain range. Etc. That's why the importance of the network effect will carry through in my opinion.
Every single market/technological breakthrough that upsets the traditional seller/buyer relationship counts on the network effect. Google, Facebook, AirBnb, AppStores, ... you name it. If have not seen any compelling reason to assume this market to be any different.
Finally I want to make it clear that you can call my point of view 'ridiculous' but you are actually the one who is far out of the mainstream. The famous analyst report that highlighted Teslas future in this space gave a pop of $25. Even if we attribute 100% of this movement to the potential of this business, with 125M shares outstanding that's a good $3B valuation of this future market through Tesla. Uber is valued at $50B...
First of all there is no guarantee 1) Tesla will achieve the comparative cost advantages it hopes with the GF 2) and if it does, that the GF couldn't be replicated by other parties in that time frame. 3) technological changes won't make having a large investment in one particular battery production process a net negative instead of a net positive
But even if those guarantees hold, batteries are quickly becoming a smaller and smaller part of the total cost of ownership, even without a GF. Having a 30% lower cost base on a $24k battery is significant, but it's less important in 10 years time when that battery costs $12k and it's absolutely futile when that battery costs 6k in 20 years time.
Only if Tesla Motors eats the gross margin when it sells internally to Tesla Shared Mobility. A win for one becomes a loss for the other. Net result for the group however delivers no advantage to stock holders. But there is a negative too : Tesla Shared Mobility has to use Teslas. If one of the competitors invents and patents a breakthrough that makes their car better, Tesla mobility can't use it. As an investor I would much rather have an investment in Tesla, the motor manufacturing company and Uber, the mobility service provider. I simply don't see the huge synergy between the two businesses. If the best we can come up with that Tesla Mobility can buy cars cheaper from Tesla Motors than Uber, why was Hertz not just renting out
Shared mobility will go through a long period of still needing drivers. That's is a winner takes all market : lyft and uber are expanding as rapidly as humanly possible for this particular reason. Drivers will flock to the network that has the users and the users will go to the network where they have the widest choice of cars.
If I am standing on the curb my concern isn't if the service is going to charge me $10.50 or $12.10 for my ride, but what service will pick me up in 3 minutes while the other announces 17 minutes before a car is there. Likewise, when I land at Houston airport, I don't want to go find out if this happens to be an AppleCar city, maybe a GoogleCar city, maybe a TeslaCar city. Finally I can see business accounts being developed if shared mobility takes flight and there again, one partner will rule.
On top of that the transition to fully autonomous driving will be gradually. If not just because there will be regulatory involvement. Maybe California will allow those cars while Illinois blocks. Maybe a Texas road is easier to navigate automatically than a Canadian mountain range. Etc. That's why the importance of the network effect will carry through in my opinion.
Every single market/technological breakthrough that upsets the traditional seller/buyer relationship counts on the network effect. Google, Facebook, AirBnb, AppStores, ... you name it. If have not seen any compelling reason to assume this market to be any different.
Finally I want to make it clear that you can call my point of view 'ridiculous' but you are actually the one who is far out of the mainstream. The famous analyst report that highlighted Teslas future in this space gave a pop of $25. Even if we attribute 100% of this movement to the potential of this business, with 125M shares outstanding that's a good $3B valuation of this future market through Tesla. Uber is valued at $50B...
Chickenlittle
Banned
I do not understand why owners of cars that were purchased in 2008 are angry that tesla is not able to increase their range by 50% today. How many other car companies offer such fundamental improvements to cars that are 7 years old or even one year old....none. Tesla continues to support the roadster 1.5 cars to their original capability. Let me repeat they are continuing to support the roadster 1.5 version. That is all they are responsible for. It is great that some of the roadster owners are able to get the increase at teslas cost and that maybe available to the others later. I hope current model S owners are not expecting a 450 mile battery at teslas cost in the future. I am sure that tesla is now regretting decision to do the battery upgrade for previous models of roadster.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
Because Tesla got their hopes up about an upgrade (they NEVER said that 1.0/1.5 owners would be left out), and even took deposits from 1.0/1.5 owners.
If you make promises to customers and don't deliver and don't communicate about problems, there's going to be customer resentment. It's a reality of business.
You misunderstood him. anticitizen was referring to Tesla's communications problems, not any problems with supporting older models. In fact what they're doing for Roadster owners is rather generous IMHO. But Tesla appears to have an inability to improve its rather mediocre-to-bad comms problems. As a long-term investor this concerns me.
ev-enthusiast
Active Member
Just a tiny little thought as a reminder on how much of a game changer Tesla industry leading battery tech is in reality:
Tesla battery tech enables biggest and highest quality propulsion batteries in the industry right now.
BTW this is still valid after more than three years that Model S is on the market and a lot of more years after the Roadster.
To my opinion this works like something like a multiplier in a multi dimensional space to the favor of Tesla and against the so called competition.
A higher battery pack cap (kWh) will induce:
This is non-linear!
And this is the reason that it is getting harder and harder for the so called competition to try to play catch up with the success ot Tesla Motors!
The longer they wait the harder it'll be to catch up!
Tesla battery tech enables biggest and highest quality propulsion batteries in the industry right now.
BTW this is still valid after more than three years that Model S is on the market and a lot of more years after the Roadster.
To my opinion this works like something like a multiplier in a multi dimensional space to the favor of Tesla and against the so called competition.
A higher battery pack cap (kWh) will induce:
- Longer possible driving range
- Less charging stations needed due to longer driving range
- Shorter recharge times due to bigger pack (customer is interested in how many miles can I put in my car in let's say 10 minutes, and the bigger the pack the higher the power that the pack is able to handle during charging)
- Less traffic at charging stations due to higher charge rate and bigger pack
- Higher charge rates induce possibility to make battery pack even bigger as powerfull charging infrastructure already in place to fuel the vehicles
This is non-linear!
And this is the reason that it is getting harder and harder for the so called competition to try to play catch up with the success ot Tesla Motors!
The longer they wait the harder it'll be to catch up!
An EDUCATED customer that is.
An uneducated are still repeating the old BS line of how long from empty to full.
Concerning the question of how much a <50k delivery result would hurt the stock, now I am starting to think it will be negligible. The old reason for the stock to dip down on delivery issues were:
1) This confirms there is a demand problem!
2) This confirms that mainstream buyers aren't ready for EV's!
3) This confirms that TM cannot make cars!
It was never the lack of revenue that was the concern, but rather the *untold story* that was the fear. But if they do 49k cars, then what? No one thinks they have a demand problem when they are just now starting to address their model X backlog. As for EV's in general, the industry is falling over themselves to reveal tesla killers and put plugs on anything that rolls. And TM has been making EV's for a few years now. The shortfall can and will be easily explained as slower-than-hoped rollout of the new capacity.
1) This confirms there is a demand problem!
2) This confirms that mainstream buyers aren't ready for EV's!
3) This confirms that TM cannot make cars!
It was never the lack of revenue that was the concern, but rather the *untold story* that was the fear. But if they do 49k cars, then what? No one thinks they have a demand problem when they are just now starting to address their model X backlog. As for EV's in general, the industry is falling over themselves to reveal tesla killers and put plugs on anything that rolls. And TM has been making EV's for a few years now. The shortfall can and will be easily explained as slower-than-hoped rollout of the new capacity.
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
I don't disagree with most of your reasoning. But I think your conclusion is incorrect. Remember the last ER? EM reduced the guidance from 55k, to 50-55k and the SP plummeted. What do you think has changed?
This might help short-term. Definitely helps long-term IMO:
I argue it USED to do that. Now the situation is far clearer: They have new capacity, largely idle right now waiting for the Model X volume to ramp up. If they miss by 1k (ship say 49k in 2015) They can make up the 1k and more in a subsequent quarter, easily, with the new capacity and demand for the now doubled product lineup. My whole premise is that the old reasons to freak out about a missed delivery number may be obsolete.
ev-enthusiast
Active Member
Read that ZEV alliance currently expanding in Europe and the states.
No covering more than a third of BEV new car sales worldwide.
Does anybody have additional information on the ZEV alliance?
E.g. countries that might join.
No covering more than a third of BEV new car sales worldwide.
Does anybody have additional information on the ZEV alliance?
E.g. countries that might join.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
GM : battery cost $145/kWh now, $100/kWh by 2018
GM made some interesting announcements today (including having autonomous Volts run around their campus next year). But, this, is what I find very interesting.
GM warns the Valley: Prepare to compete over driverless cars | The Seattle Times
GM made some interesting announcements today (including having autonomous Volts run around their campus next year). But, this, is what I find very interesting.
GM warns the Valley: Prepare to compete over driverless cars | The Seattle Times
RobStark
Well-Known Member
So the cells in the 2016 Volt cost GM less than $2700? Plus ~$900 for packaging. So $3600.
But it carries a ~$10k premium over a fully loaded Cruze?
The above numbers are wrong or GM is making money hand over fist on the Volt.
And should be more than a limited market vehicle. I think even Mark Reuss would rather sell 150k Volts at $29k than 25k at $34k.
At at $100 per kWh for cell cost the Bolt EV should be no where near $37,500 before incentives.
GM should be taking over the world at those cost.
But it carries a ~$10k premium over a fully loaded Cruze?
The above numbers are wrong or GM is making money hand over fist on the Volt.
And should be more than a limited market vehicle. I think even Mark Reuss would rather sell 150k Volts at $29k than 25k at $34k.
At at $100 per kWh for cell cost the Bolt EV should be no where near $37,500 before incentives.
GM should be taking over the world at those cost.
Similar threads
- Locked
