-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
hockeythug
Active Member
You must be from pr/marketing.
What they sent was a mere software symptom fix which will not cure a hardware challenge.
Still, it's a step in the right direction. Tesla has been absolutely silent the past two weeks or heck even more, in regards with MX. At least today we saw that they made progress with one of the biggest issues with the MX. I can't believe I'm actually arguing this point with fellow TMC members. I guess it just shows how beaten down in spirit everyone is. And that's all she wrote.
yeah, if there were problems for four years (that's too long) they were obviously not software only problems. What people are worried about (I am not) is manufacturing issues (tolerances, quality checks) and durability/warranty. Aluminum I think is also more prone to deviations with time.
Except you don't know which issues are software ones and which ones are hardware ones. Plus, you don't know when certain hardware fixes made it into the production lines. For all we know, all the current production has the right hardware and the ramp is proceeding with the ramp rate of the new hardware parts availability. So instead of a 6 month ramp of the Model S, and instead of the 3 month hope for the ramp of the Model X, we get a 5 month ramp.
What we didn't count on before all of this was the Model S running at such a clip. That means the Model X production wasn't necessary to achieve these volumes and that's huge for the business. Now Model X is additive to the original projections that Model S + X was necessary to achieve this kind of volume.
jesselivenomore
Member
Q4 gross margin over 22%
Q1 guidance >15k
2016 guidance 80k
Model X ramp "no critical unresolved design issues"
If we get all of those the stock should be above 170 just on a reactionary bounce. Should be a good chance. Anything less and there will be big questions.
Q1 guidance >15k
2016 guidance 80k
Model X ramp "no critical unresolved design issues"
If we get all of those the stock should be above 170 just on a reactionary bounce. Should be a good chance. Anything less and there will be big questions.
Last edited:
Quality is not an issue. Model S was able to create ridiculous buzz with less-than-stellar QC. Model X, from owners themselves in this forum, is leaps and bounds above that. It's a repeated bear argument that has reared its head now that a new model is out and about. These challenges are not new for Tesla, and they have shown time and again that engineering and quality challenges are going to be overcome.
I think what members will also need to keep in mind is that overcoming a manufacturing challenge such as the Model X will give Tesla additional experience and know-how when they start manufacturing the decidedly less-complex Model 3 in two year's time.
My prediction is that by the end of the year, Tesla will be cranking out close to 1k Model X and 1k Model S per week. This will put niche luxury auto-makers in an absolute world of hurt (Jaguar, Land Rover, Porsche, Volvo, etc.) With Model 3 out for the world to see, Tesla Energy bringing in profits, and the Model X and S continuing their dominance, Tesla will be a tour-de-force money making company by the end of the year.
I think what members will also need to keep in mind is that overcoming a manufacturing challenge such as the Model X will give Tesla additional experience and know-how when they start manufacturing the decidedly less-complex Model 3 in two year's time.
My prediction is that by the end of the year, Tesla will be cranking out close to 1k Model X and 1k Model S per week. This will put niche luxury auto-makers in an absolute world of hurt (Jaguar, Land Rover, Porsche, Volvo, etc.) With Model 3 out for the world to see, Tesla Energy bringing in profits, and the Model X and S continuing their dominance, Tesla will be a tour-de-force money making company by the end of the year.
Yeah, but the previous poster made it sound like the fog has cleared because of the OTA update and it hasn't. It is cool stuff is improving. But IF the doors turn out to be a big challenge it is clearly not because they don't know how to program the sensors.
Nathan Weiss again. Another bear cherry picker that has been wrong about Tesla over and over. $12 price target? That's the streetinsider for you.
I don't know if Q4 gross margins are that important, not if they break it down into S and X. Why do you think it could be lower than 22%? Because of discount sales of S? As you know, they shipped few X in Q4.
The other points expect Q1 guidance are heavily dependent on X production which is interesting.
I think they will guide positively but may not word it in a convincing way in Q/A.
Last edited:
jesselivenomore
Member
They've mentioned disappointing GMs, I am wondering if they are talking about what we already know, or something worse than expected. If it is worse than expected, the narrative on the street will be back to - more cars sold = more losses. A steady GM will indicate demand can sustain 17k+ model S a quarter which is positive.
for those of you, who are not aware, WHAT we are facing ATM, here´s a brief reminder again from 2012.
The Model X beta reveal.Dating 2012.
Scroll to 36sec. and then again to the 1.54min. mark.
Remember, this is the "Hoerbiger hinge":
Tesla model-X electric SUV - YouTube
The Model X beta reveal.Dating 2012.
Scroll to 36sec. and then again to the 1.54min. mark.
Remember, this is the "Hoerbiger hinge":
Tesla model-X electric SUV - YouTube
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
thanks Jesse.
CapEx: I expect them to say 2016 CapEx is far less than 2015. This was from prior guidance
FCF: Won't surprise me if they say Q2. But really need them to say on track for FCF in Q1
My Rationale: They're producing Cars at solid pace overall. Sure MX was slower than expected but more MS as offset
sub
Active Member
Stop teasing me.
From the quote that I believe Elon gave regarding GM, it was unclear if he meant that GM is lower than they know they can be or expected to be at this point, or if GM had dropped from where it was previously. A short will of course assume the worst case at all times (and make tons of **** up like the above linked article).
Where did all the shorties go this morning? Nothing like a little green to quiet them down. I'm feeling more confident we are headed up after tomorrow.
jhm
Well-Known Member
That's right. And we also need to keep in mind that the price of oil has huge influence over all commodities. So we should not get too fixated on any price level. If oil stays low, the commodity costs to Tesla will stay low. If oil goes up, then commodity costs go up. So the net impact of low oil prices need not be negative. Indeed, as long as Tesla has sufficiently strong demand, low oil prices will tend to be a net positive for Tesla. So when people remark that gasoline is getting so cheap, a fitting response is "Yes, and batteries are getting so cheap too." Of couse the beauty of a cheaper battery is that it offsets the need for oil for 10 to 15 years, creating economic value long after the cheap oil was consumed.
Last edited:
yeah, but I always assumed it was company wide GM would go down because of TE and X while S would stay high. If that is the case then the market should suck it up. But yeah more ammo for the shorts.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
