TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[bhtooefr]

@KarenRei: I replied over in the truck thread, but six-seater-capable (some higher trims are sold as five-seaters with a large center console in place of the middle front seat) is the norm for American-market full-size pickups, nowadays.

F-150:

Silverado (5-seat):

Ram (5-seat, but you can see how the 6-seat can work):

Of course you can't park them in European cities and they're a pain in the rear in the cores of American cities (but are still used there), but it's still a colossal market in the US.

 

[gora321]

Cyclists perception

 

[printf42]

Haven't caught up with all of this thread, so not sure if it has been posted yet. Over at Reddit someone linked the amended civil suit against Musk/Tesla on 2017 production targets. It looks like they will have dozens of former employees (including some high ranking ones) going on the record saying they told Elon his deadlines are impossible for several reasons and that cars were built by hand when he said they can be at 5k in a few months.

Document attached to this post.

Not a legal expert and have only gotten through the first 7 FEs (former employees) but in my opinion all such reasoning may "prove" is that Musk is a bad manager. He fired people who told him it can't be done and than those people turned out to be right. Maybe not even for the reasons they thought were problematic, just overall. So the company may have a bad manager but that is the sharholders' decision whether he should be fired for that or not - and they clearly think he shouldn't be.

So two additional points may be, whether he tried to conceal the difficulties and whether had made some personal gain.

On concealing difficulties, he was practically talking about "production hell" 24/7 so it is absurd to say investors had no clue.

On personal gain, I think he never sold shares in any significant quantity.

Any legal kinds care to share their opinion?

Of course fired employees will say “I told you so”, probably they were fired for that attitude in the first place.

Easy way to debunk is getting some other employees to testify they proposed a solution for those problems at that time. Presumably they’re promoted by now.

To us mere mortals everything Elon’s companies are doing is impossible, let alone do it in Elon time.

 

[Lessmog]

Yup, @Papafox called it last night. And this AP 'hitpiece' also conflates 'Securities Regulators' (SEC) with last week's WSU* 'hitpiece' with the FBI boo scare.

Don't these guys know that Halloween's over?

---
* WSU - Wall Street Urinal

Can't help reading that as something else beginning with AP- and ending in -hitpiece. Maybe I'm just turred.

 

[printf42]

Wasted opportunity to make a product that could be a huge seller. Guess it's up to that bollinger guy to make an electric truck that will compete with the real truck market. Shame. Also boosts FUD ammo when they get to blast elon's movie-prop truck that no one wants.

I am surprised too that the pickup will not be a direct competitor of F-150/250.
But it's very possible that the physics of making a compact and cheap workhorse truck is not read yet.
So the first play is to make a Pickup Roadster to grab attention and take the halo effect.
Then work the way down to get S and 3 of Pickups from there.

 

[KarenRei]

not that, but here is an actuality, a 1949 Mercury coupe w/tesla 85kW battery
https://www.carscoops.com/2018/10/i...-batteries-freight-train-torque/#lg=1&slide=3

The gas cap hiding the charge port is a nice touch That car would be an eternal hoot pulling up at full-service gas stations and watching the attendants' faces as they try to reconcile what they're seeing.

 

[davecolene0606]

Wasted opportunity to make a product that could be a huge seller. Guess it's up to that bollinger guy to make an electric truck that will compete with the real truck market. Shame. Also boosts FUD ammo when they get to blast elon's movie-prop truck that no one wants.

Guess that if it doesn’t look like a carriage nobodies gonna want it?

Fire Away!

 

[dmckinstry]

Mom! MOOOOOMMM!!! Uncle Elon's tweeting weird s**t again!

I like the line at the bottom. "Although it was in the precambrian era".
I knew it. Elon has a time machine. He's seen the past and the future and knows Tesla can become a $650 T company. Of course there will be a lot of inflation by then.

 

[MartinAustin]

"Who do you wanna sell that to? People that buy F- whatever?

You know, I actually don’t know if a lot of people will buy this pickup truck or not, but I don’t care."

I enjoyed the Kara Swisher interview overall... but I have to admit this part seemed a bit strange. Why is he not going for the F-150 jugular right out of the gate? Then I realised what Tesla's M.O. is. They nail the aspirational vehicle in any segment first... then work their way down to take over the entire segment.

So the Tesla pickup will be a larger-than-life pickup that regular pickup drivers will want. If you've ever seen people driving F-250 for personal transportation... they know they're overdoing things. They're the target market for the first Tesla pickup.

 

[winfield100]

The gas cap hiding the charge port is a nice touch That car would be an eternal hoot pulling up at full-service gas stations and watching the attendants' faces as they try to reconcile what they're seeing.

@KarenRei
weirdly enough, that is almost the exact same spot that the gas tank filler was on our 1949 powder blue Cadillac and the chassis is eerily similar, as is the interior, and 2 doors

 

[mongo]

IMO a standard truck shaped Tesla is a waste, so much more one can do starting from the base requirements.

Concider:
Truck series (150, 2500, one ton)are delineated by hauling capacity. Hauling capacity is based on the engine/transmission/axle, suspension, brakes, and frame.
The Model X can pull a full sized aircraft or 250k lb muck carts.
The semi is 80k lbs of hauling power with 4 Model 3 motors.
Tesla has air suspension systems on cars and semi.
Is there any reason (beyond weight savings) to not make the base truck a one ton equivalent?

Truck form factor is driven by the big engine in front. Tesla does not have that.
Truck frame is partly driven by dealing with transmission torque, Tesla does not have that (in either semi or IRS configuration). Base requirement is getting the hitch/ fifth wheel/ gooseneck/ bed load transferred to the wheels.

Truck ground clearance is limited by the bottom of the rear differential, the IRS is high mounted, and the semi axle doesn't have a dif. So that can be better.

Truck cab design is driven by transmission/ transfer case/ and drive shaft clearance. Tesla does not have that. The cabin floor can also align with one pack thickness above the lowest point on the suspension without negatively impacting ground clearance.

Result?
Throwing out all the normal constraints can leave you with something just as functional (or more so) as a current truck that looks nothing like a normal truck.
I mean, you could have a cubic yard frunk, but why?

 

[bdy0627]

Haven't caught up with all of this thread, so not sure if it has been posted yet. Over at Reddit someone linked the amended civil suit against Musk/Tesla on 2017 production targets. It looks like they will have dozens of former employees (including some high ranking ones) going on the record saying they told Elon his deadlines are impossible for several reasons and that cars were built by hand when he said they can be at 5k in a few months.

Document attached to this post.

Not a legal expert and have only gotten through the first 7 FEs (former employees) but in my opinion all such reasoning may "prove" is that Musk is a bad manager. He fired people who told him it can't be done and than those people turned out to be right. Maybe not even for the reasons they thought were problematic, just overall. So the company may have a bad manager but that is the sharholders' decision whether he should be fired for that or not - and they clearly think he shouldn't be.

So two additional points may be, whether he tried to conceal the difficulties and whether had made some personal gain.

On concealing difficulties, he was practically talking about "production hell" 24/7 so it is absurd to say investors had no clue.

On personal gain, I think he never sold shares in any significant quantity.

Any legal kinds care to share their opinion?

I read the first several pages. Here's a key paragraph from it:

"In May 2017, when Defendants stated that the Company was “on track” to meet its mass production goal, as production on a fully automated production line was supposed to be ready to begin, and in August 2017, when production on a fully automated production line was supposed to have already begun a month earlier and Model 3s were supposed to be coming off the line, according to a number of former employees the Company had not yet finished building its automated production lines in either Fremont or Nevada. Tesla was neither ramping up mass production, nor “on track” to mass produce Model 3s at any time on or around the end of 2017. 15. In fact, all of Defendants’ statements regarding progress that the Company had achieved in both Fremont and at the Gigafactory, and the statements they based on these affirmative declarations of actual progress in Model 3 mass production, were false."

IMO, there are some stretch arguments made by the attorneys. However, it does seem at least possible they can prove that Elon and management were not truthful in May and August 2017 when they stated that Tesla was "on track" for mass producing the model 3 by the end of 2017. The lines had not been installed when they were supposed to be, and were not up and running even by July. They appeared to be well behind schedule and did not appear to be "on track." It seems to me it was quite a stretch for Elon to say that they were in fact "on track" at those points. IMO, that was misleading for investors. Of course, he may have felt that they still had a slight chance of getting things rolling by the end of 2017, even if that wasn't actually possible, as is obvious in hindsight.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how difficult it will be to prove those charges or what that would mean if they were able to prove those things. I do know that I felt confused during that period. Elon was very clear about being in production hell, but that's also different than being behind with installing manufacturing equipment. In hindsight, knowing what we know, Elon could have been more transparent about being behind schedule, rather than continuing to confirm guidance of 5,000 model 3 by the end of 2017. I'm also not a manufacturing expert, so I don't know when it becomes obvious that a stated goal is totally unrealistic. It seems that's an important consideration. Given the weight of the entities seriously investigating this stuff, as well as the lawsuits, I think it's a mistake not to assign some significant risk to this. I don't know what the risk is, but it's not zero. If the SEC or DOJ do initiate lawsuits over it, the SP will suffer greatly.

 

[traxila]

I read the first several pages. Here's a key paragraph from it:

"In May 2017, when Defendants stated that the Company was “on track” to meet its mass production goal, as production on a fully automated production line was supposed to be ready to begin, and in August 2017, when production on a fully automated production line was supposed to have already begun a month earlier and Model 3s were supposed to be coming off the line, according to a number of former employees the Company had not yet finished building its automated production lines in either Fremont or Nevada. Tesla was neither ramping up mass production, nor “on track” to mass produce Model 3s at any time on or around the end of 2017. 15. In fact, all of Defendants’ statements regarding progress that the Company had achieved in both Fremont and at the Gigafactory, and the statements they based on these affirmative declarations of actual progress in Model 3 mass production, were false."

IMO, there are some stretch arguments made by the attorneys. However, it does seem at least possible they can prove that Elon and management were not truthful in May and August 2017 when they stated that Tesla was "on track" for mass producing the model 3 by the end of 2017. The lines had not been installed when they were supposed to be, and were not up and running even by July. They appeared to be well behind schedule and did not appear to be "on track." It seems to me it was quite a stretch for Elon to say that they were in fact "on track" at those points. IMO, that was misleading for investors. Of course, he may have felt that they still had a slight chance of getting things rolling by the end of 2017, even if that wasn't actually possible.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how difficult it will be to prove those charges or what that would mean if they were able to prove those things. I do know that I felt confused during that period. Elon was very clear about being in production hell, but that's also different than being behind with installing manufacturing equipment. In hindsight, knowing what we know, Elon could have been a more transparent about being behind schedule, rather than continuing to confirm guidance of 5,000 model 3 by the end of 2017. I'm also not a manufacturing expert, so I don't know when it becomes obvious that a stated goal is totally unrealistic. It seems that's an important consideration. Given the weight of the entities seriously investigating this stuff, as well as the lawsuits, I think it's a mistake not to assign some significant risk to this. I don't know what the risk is, but it's not zero. If the SEC or DOJ do initiate lawsuits over it, the SP will suffer greatly.

So the standard boilerplate about forward looking statements means nothing? The fact the Musk sets unreasonable targets to inspire and force people to produce beyond what people think is possible is criminal? If this actually gets any traction then just grab the guns and run for the hills. Problem is I have no guns....

Yeah, getting the feeling we are all done. The entire globe. Not because of the possible failure of Tesla, but because of the failure of our species, which in the end seems to just be a virus that will sputter out of its own accord. Parasites that kill their hosts don’t do well long term.

 

[mongo]

I read the first several pages. Here's a key paragraph from it:

"In May 2017, when Defendants stated that the Company was “on track” to meet its mass production goal, as production on a fully automated production line was supposed to be ready to begin, and in August 2017, when production on a fully automated production line was supposed to have already begun a month earlier and Model 3s were supposed to be coming off the line, according to a number of former employees the Company had not yet finished building its automated production lines in either Fremont or Nevada. Tesla was neither ramping up mass production, nor “on track” to mass produce Model 3s at any time on or around the end of 2017. 15. In fact, all of Defendants’ statements regarding progress that the Company had achieved in both Fremont and at the Gigafactory, and the statements they based on these affirmative declarations of actual progress in Model 3 mass production, were false."

IMO, there are some stretch arguments made by the attorneys. However, it does seem at least possible they can prove that Elon and management were not truthful in May and August 2017 when they stated that Tesla was "on track" for mass producing the model 3 by the end of 2017. The lines had not been installed when they were supposed to be, and were not up and running even by July. They appeared to be well behind schedule and did not appear to be "on track." It seems to me it was quite a stretch for Elon to say that they were in fact "on track" at those points. IMO, that was misleading for investors. Of course, he may have felt that they still had a slight chance of getting things rolling by the end of 2017, even if that wasn't actually possible, as is obvious in hindsight.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how difficult it will be to prove those charges or what that would mean if they were able to prove those things. I do know that I felt confused during that period. Elon was very clear about being in production hell, but that's also different than being behind with installing manufacturing equipment. In hindsight, knowing what we know, Elon could have been more transparent about being behind schedule, rather than continuing to confirm guidance of 5,000 model 3 by the end of 2017. I'm also not a manufacturing expert, so I don't know when it becomes obvious that a stated goal is totally unrealistic. It seems that's an important consideration. Given the weight of the entities seriously investigating this stuff, as well as the lawsuits, I think it's a mistake not to assign some significant risk to this. I don't know what the risk is, but it's not zero. If the SEC or DOJ do initiate lawsuits over it, the SP will suffer greatly.

May: 5th month of the year
August: 8th month of the year
End of 2017: 12th month of the year
You can get a lot done in the last 4 months of a project.
October (2 months after August) Q3 update letter provided revised guidance

End of Q1 was 2k+ per week. So less than 3 months off target (I'd call exceeding combined S+X production a good metric of mass production)

 

[bhtooefr]

Is there any reason (beyond weight savings) to not make the base truck a one ton equivalent?

Legal requirements.

Registration costs for a pickup at 10,001+ lbs gross vehicle weight rating (the 1 ton class in the US in practice is the 10,001-14,000 GVWR class) are vastly higher in many jurisdictions, and there are some roads that a 10,001 lbs GVWR truck can't legally access. (For that matter, there's some roads, largely in neighborhoods that even 8,501+ lbs GVWR - where 3/4 ton trucks sit - can't legally access.)

Additionally, DOT commercial vehicle regulations start kicking in at 10,001 lbs gross combined weight rating, CDL requirements kick in at 26,001 lbs GCWR. So, if you're towing a 16,000 lbs GVWR trailer behind that 10,001 lbs GVWR truck, you need a CDL (due to 26,001 lbs GCWR, so a Class B CDL is needed)... but if the truck's 10,000 lbs GVWR, you don't.

However, in practice, the automakers get around this by derating things. So, you can get, for example, an F-350 that's rated at 10,000 lbs GVWR, that's otherwise identical to a "heavier" version, but legally cannot carry the full load in the bed. (That's a common thing for people who need to tow heavy loads, but don't need the bed capacity, to pay lower registration costs on the truck.) So, Tesla could offer "full GVWR" as a zero-cost option, and derate as far as needed otherwise.

 

[AudubonB]

To Mr Musk:

For quite a few years now, I have been sitting with my typing-fingers firmly locked, not commenting publicly about the long hours other pickup trucks users and I have spent arguing about the drawbacks of the many erstwhile very popular vehicles currently on the market, and detailing the vast improvements possible were a non-legacy manufacturer to create one using an EV platform. These improvements encompass but are not limited to suspension, handling, capacity, flexibility of platform use, efficiency and longevity.

We unanimously and with not even a shred of doubt believe a well-designed, appealing, durable and truly functional electric pickup would so overwhelmingly capture that sector of the North American, Australian and parts of the Latin American, African, Asian and European markets that it would firmly cement the fortunes of its manufacturer, enabling it ever thereafter to enter any other manufacturing endeavors as an incontrovertibly colossal presence.

We also well understood the tenuousness of Tesla's early years, and the appropriateness of bringing to market other vehicles first, and patiently have been experiencing - either vicariously as genuinely disinterested observers or absolutely for those of us with significant amounts of our wealth tied up in Tesla stock - those years.

With that, it was with the utmost shock - sand poured into our stators - to learn you recently said

"You know, I actually don’t know if a lot of people will buy this pickup truck or not, but I don’t care."

A lot of us, sir, DO care, and we have entrusted you to guide through design and production one that will meet and exceed the exigencies of the market. We care as truck users, we care as investors, and we care as shepherds of the earth. Please assure us your extemporaneous comment occurred as the result of a poorly-reflected quip rather than as a representation of your role as Chief Product Architect.

Thank you.

 

[EinSV]

To Mr Musk:

For quite a few years now, I have been sitting with my typing-fingers firmly locked, not commenting publicly about the long hours other pickup trucks users and I have spent arguing about the drawbacks of the many erstwhile very popular vehicles currently on the market, and detailing the vast improvements possible were a non-legacy manufacturer to create one using an EV platform. These improvements encompass but are not limited to suspension, handling, capacity, flexibility of platform use, efficiency and longevity.

We unanimously and with not even a shred of doubt believe a well-designed, appealing, durable and truly functional electric pickup would so overwhelmingly capture that sector of the North American, Australian and parts of the Latin American, African, Asian and European markets that it would firmly cement the fortunes of its manufacturer, enabling it ever thereafter to enter any other manufacturing endeavors as an incontrovertibly colossal presence.

We also well understood the tenuousness of Tesla's early years, and the appropriateness of bringing to market other vehicles first, and patiently have been experiencing - either vicariously as genuinely disinterested observers or absolutely for those of us with significant amounts of our wealth tied up in Tesla stock - those years.

With that, it was with the utmost shock - sand poured into our stators - to learn you recently said

"You know, I actually don’t know if a lot of people will buy this pickup truck or not, but I don’t care."

A lot of us, sir, DO care, and we have entrusted you to shepherd through design and production one that will meet and exceed the exigencies of the market. We care as truck users, we care as investors, and we care as shepherds of the earth. Please assure us your extemporaneous comment occurred as the result of a poorly-reflected quip rather than as a representation of your role as Chief Product Architect.

Thank you.

Full-size pickups are extremely popular in the U.S. (and some other parts of the world). They are also extremely inefficient, with an out-sized contribution to climate change.

IMO, Tesla's goal should be to dominate this market, like it has with Model S and Model 3. It is extremely important to its mission of accelerating the advent of sustainable energy, and would obviously be good for shareholders. It also should be achievable.

The real "hard-core smackdown to ICE" would not be just developing a killer halo car like the Roadster, but taking a big chunk of the market in the most heavily polluting segments, starting with the pickup.

 

[KarenRei]

I enjoyed the Kara Swisher interview overall... but I have to admit this part seemed a bit strange. Why is he not going for the F-150 jugular right out of the gate? Then I realised what Tesla's M.O. is. They nail the aspirational vehicle in any segment first... then work their way down to take over the entire segment.

So the Tesla pickup will be a larger-than-life pickup that regular pickup drivers will want. If you've ever seen people driving F-250 for personal transportation... they know they're overdoing things. They're the target market for the first Tesla pickup.

An impractical vehicle is not aspirational.

The Model X can pull a full sized aircraft or 250k lb muck carts.

Well... sort of. It would never get rated for 250k lb. The limiting factor is tongue weight - the force the trailer will transfer to the rear suspension. 9-15% of the towed weight should be tongue weight. The rear suspension is their main constraint on what they can tow.

Throwing out all the normal constraints can leave you with something just as functional (or more so) as a current truck that looks nothing like a normal truck.

I do agree that the ideal shape is very different from a traditional pickup - namely, the front end should be expected to look like a Model X / Model Y, since it faces basically the same design constraints as them. It's more of a question as to what they'll do with the rear. Tesla likes low (Cd < ~0,25) vehicles, for very obvious reasons, but you won't get that with a traditional bed; with pickups, a Cd of ~0,35 is generally considered quite good! It's a big open question as to what sort of shrouding options Tesla might provide, or how they might try to reduce the drag when/if there's no shroud over it.

 

[bhtooefr]

Oh, also, another reason to be careful with which variants of a pickup get produced, rather than just making everything the heaviest variant: dual rear wheels are something extremely common on the larger variants to improve carrying capacity, but they also reduce traction in mud and snow, they make the vehicle significantly wider (worsening aerodynamics), and they increase maintenance costs significantly.

Of course, I'm sure Tesla's aware of these issues - the Semi's been shown in both a dual rear wheel configuration with unfaired rear wheels, and a faired super single configuration. But, in the pickup space, they'll likely need a true single rear wheel configuration in addition to a dual rear wheel configuration. (Vans go for a narrower axle to fit dual rear wheels in the same body width as a single rear wheel configuration, but the wheelhouses are wider, and you can't even get a 4 foot wide sheet of plywood between the wheelhouses on a DRW Transit.)

If I were Tesla, I'd consider two base configurations: a 14,000 lb GVWR dual rear wheel model that can be derated to 10,000, and a single rear wheel model between 10,001 and 14,000 lbs (whatever works best for their needs) that can be derated to 10,000 and to 8500.

 

[traxila]

To Mr Musk:

For quite a few years now, I have been sitting with my typing-fingers firmly locked, not commenting publicly about the long hours other pickup trucks users and I have spent arguing about the drawbacks of the many erstwhile very popular vehicles currently on the market, and detailing the vast improvements possible were a non-legacy manufacturer to create one using an EV platform. These improvements encompass but are not limited to suspension, handling, capacity, flexibility of platform use, efficiency and longevity.

We unanimously and with not even a shred of doubt believe a well-designed, appealing, durable and truly functional electric pickup would so overwhelmingly capture that sector of the North American, Australian and parts of the Latin American, African, Asian and European markets that it would firmly cement the fortunes of its manufacturer, enabling it ever thereafter to enter any other manufacturing endeavors as an incontrovertibly colossal presence.

We also well understood the tenuousness of Tesla's early years, and the appropriateness of bringing to market other vehicles first, and patiently have been experiencing - either vicariously as genuinely disinterested observers or absolutely for those of us with significant amounts of our wealth tied up in Tesla stock - those years.

With that, it was with the utmost shock - sand poured into our stators - to learn you recently said

"You know, I actually don’t know if a lot of people will buy this pickup truck or not, but I don’t care."

A lot of us, sir, DO care, and we have entrusted you to guide through design and production one that will meet and exceed the exigencies of the market. We care as truck users, we care as investors, and we care as shepherds of the earth. Please assure us your extemporaneous comment occurred as the result of a poorly-reflected quip rather than as a representation of your role as Chief Product Architect.

Thank you.

He was referring to his heart stopping ‘Blade Runner’ pickup truck. Remains to be seen if this is the model that goes to market. As in, ‘I am so personally excited by this Blade Runner truck that I do not even care if anyone buys it’. Musk is still human and is allowed to have emotions like this.

The idea that he would purposely be developing a truck for mass production that he does not care in the least about selling...well, this would be more appropriate as a short meme as supposed evidence of his insanity and arrogance.