Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
  • Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
  • Tesla's Supercharger Team was recently laid off. We discuss what this means for the company on today's TMC Podcast streaming live at 1PM PDT. You can watch on X or on YouTube where you can participate in the live chat.

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I feel there is more info to be had as well. I have not seen a financial model which has TaaS lower than the cost of an actual car in the United States. I mean, other than a loss leader to drive out competition, the cost of the car is the basic price.
Tony Seba's model has TAAS cost at 14 cents a mile. But he ignores ...... well, a lot.

In theory TAAS has four main cost advantages over private car ownership:
  1. Amortize $30k vehicle cost over 500-1000k miles instead of 150k
  2. Electricity instead of gasoline (for society at large, not this audience)
  3. Lower insurance cost due to near-perfect driving
  4. Vastly reduced parking cost
Insurance savings are dubious -- fewer at-fault crashes but much higher deep-pocket liability awards for each crash may end up costing the same overall, or even more. Parking only applies to dense urban, and urban is only a small fraction of Seba's 95% of miles traveled claim.

The most ignored cost is deadheading. Again dense urban scores better with perhaps 25-30% deadhead vs. ~50% outside the city center. And some TAAS fans quote (but never cite) "studies" that say half of all traffic in city XYZ is people driving around looking for a parking spot. If true that would actually exceed the deadhead fraction.

Seba and crew also ignore remote monitoring, customer support, cleaning, etc. Waymo has not found a business model that covers these costs, otherwise they'd scale like crazy. Of course it's possible the business model is right there and Waymo is simply too incompetent to see it. In fact some (ahem) might even call it likely.

From what I have seen of Uber, even after a few years, I don't know that Uber has revolutionized travel and its had plenty of time to do so. That's probably because I live in Los Angeles and at $3 a mile for a cab or Uber after a certain point you might as well have your own car.
Uber has high driver cost. That's a clear advantage for TAAS.
 
Elon stated the Reuters article was lying.

Franz told people not to believe everything you read.

Elon said he was focusing heavily on robotaxi but not betting the company.

No one at Tesla has said the next generation consumer model is canceled

Elon has stated supercharger location expansion will continue.


Those are the facts. Much speculation happening here from people that have allowed FUD to convince them of things Tesla has not said.
 
Precisely! Which is why the OP could've said anything instead of "running profitable businesses". That was my only point. That Musk's strengths might not be running profitable businesses, but taking pie in the sky ideas then making them happen. Which arguably is 10x harder, but not what was said.

What do you mean by "most profitable businesses"? They're not. Not even in their respective fields, not to mention globally.
Most profitable...In their respective industries (Auto and Space are typically very difficult industries to turn a profit):

Tesla Auto is technically #2 behind Ferarri

Tesla Energy is currently enjoying some of the highest margins industrywide...and growing.

ULA only had $80M in profits last year compared to $650M in 2016. Their profits are trending to zero. Space X turned an operating profit of $3B in 2023...and growing.
 
This is....Elon. We always want to "adjust" him to be more...compassionate, or politically correct, or loyal, or eloquent, or cautious, or, or, or. Elon is who he is and YOU or I are not going to adjust him. While you and I think treating his workers like commodities is harsh, it's how he sees his workforce. Elon and his methods are certainly not perfect, but he's been effective. Tesla is still considered one of the most desired companies to work at. I believe that is primarily driven by the desire work for or near Elon Musk and his missions. Elon values drive and motivation above all. He continues to find and hire great people. Most employees know working for Elon is like "dog years" vs elsewhere and working for him and his organizations are fantastic resume builders and make people very desirable because they learn to get 💩done. Companies love to bring a little of that magic into their organization from his "rejects".

I don't care or want to change/adjust Elon anything, but I am not sure if his workers have stayed merely because Tesla went from $16 or so 5 years ago to $400+, and now ~$180. $$ talks for a lot of people and a lot of people made a LOT of money years ago. As I've said before, past performance is not indicative of future returns.

Also, as I mentioned, I know of a family friend who works at Tesla (need to check, maybe laid off now), but they didn't want to leave since the $$ was too much on the table. Maybe ALL these people are dead weight now, but I would assume there are folks who are still/just as dedicated/loyal/hardcore now who were let go.

I looked at Twitter earlier and it has like 100+ openings. A lot of tech openings as well. Was there always that many and are a lot of people jumping at the chance to work for Elon now?

I'm sure some of it is my own internal bias, but I don't see the appeal for anyone ultra hardcore, willing to give up everything for success wants to join Twitter/Tesla when you have no control of your own job/life for questionable returns (my opinion of course). Any great enough person will just start his own company or join a pure AI play. Even at 4x or 8x Tesla valuations (2 trillion or 4 trillion), doesn't seem like much vs. what they can get at other startups. I think Linda Yaccarino only joined because she wanted the CEO title finally.
 
I was outside mowing the grass this morning (on my EGO electric zero turn!) thinking about all the odd Tesla news we've seen the past few weeks, when a thought occurred to me which would be very relevant to TSLA investing IF its accurate:

What if Tesla is pivoting away hard from consumer EV development?

The plan stated by Tesla (regarding EV's) has been to grow Tesla auto production at around 50% CAGR hitting about 20,000,000 EV production in 2030. This includes vehicle and supporting functions like superchargers, insurance, etc.

But lately we've seen a lot of statements by Elon coupled with changes by Tesla which don't seem to support this plan:

- Pausing Giga Mexico and not announcing any other new Giga's, essentially pausing car production growth.
- Sidelining the $25K Tesla (and possibly redesigning it into low end 3 & Y) to instead focus on the robotaxi.
- Redistributing nearly all R&D spending away from auto growth and towards AI & autonomy.
- Laying off 10% of the company currently focused on auto production.
- Firing product development and public relations teams.
- Firing the supercharger team, a consumer EV support product (robotaxis might use a different charging infrastructure, possibly inductive).

Elon seems to be in what the Isaacson biography termed "demon mode", where Elon makes huge changes and shifts plans seemingly without regard for public optics or anyone else's opinions. Its very clear that Elon is changing Tesla's direction as of late. The plan to ramp consumer EV production to 20 million by 2030 does not seem to be on the table anymore, because at this point 20 million by 2030 is nigh impossible.

Note this probably doesn't mean Tesla will stop making consumer EV's, but what's available today might be it. Meaning the Model S, X, 3, Y, CT, and Semi, followed by some cheaper low end variants of the 3 & Y later this year by the sound of it. I think these could possibly be the only consumer EV's Tesla is planning now, and production of all combined might never exceed a couple million cars per year out of the current existing factories. So something like 3-4 million consumer EV's per year out of Fremont, Austin, Berlin, and Shanghai. New factories might be only for robotaxi / Megapack / Optimus production.

At this much slower EV production rate with minimal growth, a slower supercharging deployment schedule could be more prudent. Especially with OEM's also slowing their own EV production too. Like Elon said today, Tesla will continue to build and deploy new SC's, just at a slower pace. It doesn't sound like he's concerned about supporting 20,000,000 EV's per year by 2030 anymore.

So, why would Elon do this?

Well, in my own Tesla Excel model, I predict the company financials going all the way out to 2035. Now of course my model is wrong, nobody's model going out that far is accurate. But I do believe my model shows the trends of Tesla's businesses fairly well, and a few things stick out to me:

4) Even at 20 million EV's per year, Tesla's EV business will eventually be the smallest segment they have.
3) Tesla Energy will very likely make more money than Tesla EV's in time.
2) Tesla Robotaxis have enormous revenue potential, like several times more than EV sales, and I model it very conservatively!
1) Tesla Optimus will likely one day make more revenue than everything else Tesla does combined, and that includes RT's.

Now I believe most Tesla investors who really study the company thoroughly would agree with the rankings of Tesla's future businesses a decade from now. Sure the valuations of the sectors are subjective, but the order of their relative sizes is probably spot on.

Given that, and knowing that Elon sees this too, Maybe Elon is simply ending R&D of the smallest sector (consumer EVs) as it mostly is today? Maybe Elon has decided to move the company forward onto bigger things now instead of spending lots of time and money on a sector which relatively won't matter much ten years from now? Many people believe (I know Elon does) full fledged Robotaxis will eventually dwindle car ownership down over time anyway, is it possible Elon just doesn't want to spend any more time or money on a dwindling business? If auto ownership does decrease over time then anyone in the business of making consumer autos will be in for a world of hurt. Much like blacksmiths, or typewriter manufacturers, or film developers, or flip phone companies...


These are just Deep Thoughts I had on a very quiet tractor, none of us knows for certain, less of all myself of course. If accurate though it would explain Elon's statements and behavior as of late. And honestly it might be a great decision in the long run if this is what he's thinking.

Of course it hinges on FSD getting solved and Robotaxi services becoming a very big thing, which they aren't yet. But then Tesla could easily survive on the current EV business scaled up to around 4 million EV's per year too, so even if the bet failed Tesla would likely survive it just fine.

Anyway I thought it was an interesting theory. 😎
Hard disagree. You're extrapolating short term negatives to the extreme and ignoring all else. Fsd, rideshare, and robotaxi are right around the corner and there will be significant demand for every vehicle Tesla can produce.
 
From what I have seen of Uber, even after a few years, I don't know that Uber has revolutionized travel and its had plenty of time to do so. That's probably because I live in Los Angeles and at $3 a mile for a cab or Uber after a certain point you might as well have your own car.

Anyway, it will be almost impossible to not make money off a a system which allows a car to drive itself and which has relatively small hardware costs. I just don't know if modelling robot taxis is the most profitable way. It would seem to me, as when it is perfected its software, the value is in licensing to other car manufacturers.

I also don't think that having the only software which can drive the car is some sort of US anti-trust violation, so I see no reason why Tesla would run into a problem there. It does not seem the software would be easy to reverse engineer.

The reason we are all posting is that we all know Elon is the type of guy who will make RT's just because he can.
Are Uber drivers so expensive or what is the advantage of RT over Uber?
 
I feel there is more info to be had as well. I have not seen a financial model which has TaaS lower than the cost of an actual car in the United States. I mean, other than a loss leader to drive out competition, the cost of the car is the basic price.

From what I have seen of Uber, even after a few years, I don't know that Uber has revolutionized travel and its had plenty of time to do so. That's probably because I live in Los Angeles and at $3 a mile for a cab or Uber after a certain point you might as well have your own car.

Anyway, it will be almost impossible to not make money off a a system which allows a car to drive itself and which has relatively small hardware costs. I just don't know if modelling robot taxis is the most profitable way. It would seem to me, as when it is perfected its software, the value is in licensing to other car manufacturers.

I also don't think that having the only software which can drive the car is some sort of US anti-trust violation, so I see no reason why Tesla would run into a problem there. It does not seem the software would be easy to reverse engineer.

The reason we are all posting is that we all know Elon is the type of guy who will make RT's just because he can.
Agree with all of that, I don't see RT solving sustainability. Apparently this comment shocks people. I would suggest to them that they do any basic search on the impact of Uber and Lyft on transportation networks. it's not positive. I agree EM will do it anyway.
 
For starlink spacex have one set of regulators they have to satisfy.
Spacex staff directly make, test and deploy the satellites.

...
This is grossly incorrect. Starlink requires approvals from national, regional and local governments to provide Starlink. They must have functional permits from agencies such as government telecommunications, electrical standards, including installations of dishes requiring entirely different regulatory agencies, spending on art.

In order to establish service, provide statements and billing they must meet tax authority rules in multiple jurisdictions...and the list goes on.

Starlink has, in fact, more regulatory agencies to cope with in most countries than do auto sales.
 
Are Uber drivers so expensive or what is the advantage of RT over Uber?
Uber is expensive. The use case to date, globally, is to use it on travel and when moving around in a city where parking is restricted and to use it when you might be driving and drinking & just want to have fun so a group takes an uber. Thats when Uber rates shoot up and that's the profit in the system. Also because all 3 of those factors coincide with certain large metro regions Uber makes a big chunk of its revenues and profit in 10 cities. Waymo is targeting the top 25 metro regions if I had to guess and that would probably capture all the profit in the USA market.

Waymo imported the first Greely robotaxis into the USA last month I think. I believe there is some chance these contain a prismatic 4680 developed by CATL ....the irony is huge ...just huge. It apparently has the extra energy density Tesla said was possible. Much more range than alternatives. This is speculation on my part but the platform is a platform that supports the CATL pack. Waymo has order 50k of those and that's enough for 10 cities I think. I could see them really scaling in Phoenix, LA, San Fran, Austin and maybe 1 cold weather city by the end of 2025. Greely is hiring support people in CA for this vehicle and Waymo is the only buyer.
 
You ask which intra city routes are not served by Superchargers? Well there are too many for me to itemize. If you are interested, go over to the supercharger threads and look for the one that is titled longest distances between superchargers. Hint, I believe the longest is a bit more than 1000 miles! Floored me.
Intercity.

Hello. Longest distance thread guy here.
There's plenty of A to Bs in the USA without Superchargers directly on the fastest route, especially if you're going North-South in the Midwest or Rockies or E.g.
Bonner's Ferry, ID to Baudette, MN is 1183.3 miles. (Kalispell, MT (Construction) would reduce that a bit.)
Following current Superchargers would be 1430.6 miles and add 24 minutes of travel time.
For a company that didn't allow waypoints for years and doesn't have "avoid highways" in its navigation, saying "take extra time" isn't really reasonable.

A south to north route, from Beverley, KS to Bismarck, ND is 695.4 miles.

Biggest current gap on an Interstate in the lower 48 is is the well known "Oklahoma Gap" east of OKC that needs the long-desired and now NEVI-awarded Henryetta, OK, but thereare still 46 gaps over 100 miles (some with planned, permitted or under construction) and 75 gaps between V3+ that may include a few of the 45 other gaps. Plus there are some additional transitions between interstates that are longer.
The NEVI target is 50 miles or less between locations with good reason: resiliency, capacity, seasonality and round trips to points between.

If you are optimistic and could really take Musk at his word on Superchargers (he has, more than once, talked about doubling stalls without it every happening) then you could take the comments as saying that the approach would avoid adding high density and instead have fewer, larger locations, including upgrading V2 to V4, and focus on filling in the larger gaps. That would be more NEVI-friendly.
 
The most ignored cost is deadheading. Again dense urban scores better with perhaps 25-30% deadhead vs. ~50% outside the city center. And some TAAS fans quote (but never cite) "studies" that say half of all traffic in city XYZ is people driving around looking for a parking spot. If true that would actually exceed the deadhead fraction.
Deadheading might be reduced with sharing. Get commuters sharing and you reduce the fleet significantly. I think in an AV world sharing would be very large. In-your-face, calculated savings in $/hour in your app.

Seba and crew also ignore remote monitoring, customer support, cleaning, etc. Waymo has not found a business model that covers these costs, otherwise they'd scale like crazy. Of course it's possible the business model is right there and Waymo is simply too incompetent to see it. In fact some (ahem) might even call it likely.
Or it's the fact that Waymo's AV just aren't good enough yet _really_ to operate at scale.
Real, proper, flexible AV doesn't need a lot of supervision.
It's all behind the curtain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nativewolf
Tony Seba's model has TAAS cost at 14 cents a mile. But he ignores ...... well, a lot.

In theory TAAS has four main cost advantages over private car ownership:
  1. Amortize $30k vehicle cost over 500-1000k miles instead of 150k
  2. Electricity instead of gasoline (for society at large, not this audience)
  3. Lower insurance cost due to near-perfect driving
  4. Vastly reduced parking cost
Insurance savings are dubious -- fewer at-fault crashes but much higher deep-pocket liability awards for each crash may end up costing the same overall, or even more. Parking only applies to dense urban, and urban is only a small fraction of Seba's 95% of miles traveled claim.

The most ignored cost is deadheading. Again dense urban scores better with perhaps 25-30% deadhead vs. ~50% outside the city center. And some TAAS fans quote (but never cite) "studies" that say half of all traffic in city XYZ is people driving around looking for a parking spot. If true that would actually exceed the deadhead fraction.

Seba and crew also ignore remote monitoring, customer support, cleaning, etc. Waymo has not found a business model that covers these costs, otherwise they'd scale like crazy. Of course it's possible the business model is right there and Waymo is simply too incompetent to see it. In fact some (ahem) might even call it likely.


Uber has high driver cost. That's a clear advantage for TAAS.
Yes Tony is grossly optimistic. But I will defend him a bit. He's a futurist. His job is to make predictions on the future. It is by definition going to be ...imprecise. He can be off by decades and still be happy. As @Knightshade says being off by decades might mater to an investor. I don't think it really does to Tony.

I would disagree on Waymo. Just like with Steve jobs trying to get to the smart phone before the technology was ready to deliver or the GM EV1...sometimes you have to wait for technology to catchup to vision. I believe Waymo has only felt comfortable saying technology was there in 2021/2 when they ordered the first large fleet of purpose built robotaxis. They have, currently, an experimental fleet designed to collect data and improve the system. It's doing what the Tesla FSD beta fleet is doing. Thats all. They are even charging sometimes to test the ability to charge and WTP. There is no attempt to scale. The first Greely robotaxi has just arrived in CA. We'll see how testing goes. I expect Greely and Waymo will be very cautious in deployement. Waymo is still making mistakes, not many but some. Much less than FSD but some and basically it can't have mistakes. The Greely robotaxi is a good design, easy entry and egress.

So, I would say rather that Waymo has not attempted to scale because the technology does not yet support it. If it did, they will. That's why they have ordered 50k robotaxis. They have billions in the bank and I understand that their valuation has increased. They are selling slices in the private markets but have not in a while. They don't need to. Google still owns close to 90% and thats a 2T company with a pretty darn big ad moat. They generate cash like ...I dont know. $60 billion a year in free cash. If Waymo says go capital won't stop them.

I also see strong ad revenue opportunities with Google and Waymo. I don't see the synergies with Tesla and say food or dry cleaning or flowers. I believe Google could significantly benefit from creating synergies between a RT fleet and Ads in a manner that nobody else in the USA could touch. I don't see that in China. Not sure regulators in Europe will allow that either...maybe but regulated. I do see that in Japan & Korea. In Latin America too.

Apologies for the long reply.
 
Deadheading might be reduced with sharing. Get commuters sharing and you reduce the fleet significantly. I think in an AV world sharing would be very large. In-your-face, calculated savings in $/hour in your app.


Or it's the fact that Waymo's AV just aren't good enough yet _really_ to operate at scale.
Real, proper, flexible AV doesn't need a lot of supervision.
It's all behind the curtain.
Sharing is the only way to get to sustainability but then you are sharing a vehicle with a stranger. Not great and post covid...not really welcome I think.