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

[WarpedOne]

Yes

 

[JusRelax]

Yes

I'd like to nominate this as a post of merit.

 

[Buckminster]

19th April - ER
20th April - Twitter legacy blue checks deleted deadline
May the Fourth...
17-19th April - Starship orbital test flight
16th May - Annual Shareholders meeting

Prediction:

20th April, Tesla will announce date for Cybertruck launch event
May, CT launch (including Cyberquad and accessories)
"One more thing" will be the Highland M3

Both with H/W 4.0
Neither will employ the unboxed manufacturing methodology
Could they include Tesla Home Wireless Charger capability?

 

[2daMoon]

This is literally by definition. Nobody cuts prices when there is more demand than supply. Anyone arguing against this is not worth listening to. I'm with you that the dollars would be more wisely spent on educational marketing than on price cuts. I do subscribe to Elon's philosophy of building a superior product that sells itself, and this strategy worked well in the past before Tesla got to this scale. To sell several million vehicles per year, they need to inform people about their superior product. There's a whole business discipline for this called marketing.

So, you believe Elon is not worth listening to?
Here is the strategy he presented in the Tesla Secret Master Plan of 2006.

"The strategy of Tesla is to enter at the high end of the market, where customers are prepared to pay a premium, and then drive down market as fast as possible to higher unit volume and lower prices with each successive model."​

​

If this strategy is still working, that is, there is no surplus of cars being stored on lots for long periods of time as with other OEMs, then, what possible advantage could there be in changing the formula to copy what those other OEMs are doing (advertising)?

Regardless of unit volume there is no unexpected effect upon the ability to put the full capacity of production into the hands of the buyers at essentially the rate they are being produced. (taking into account an increasing number in shipment on par with increasing production, which is presented as "inventory")

The very fact that Tesla does what "nobody" else does, i.e.: "cuts prices when there is more demand than supply" is the very basis of the strategy defined for Tesla to achieve the Mission.

The mission isn't to make more money, it is to accelerate the transition.

As for educational material, there has been an increase in YouTube videos from Tesla over the past year or two doing precisely that.

 

[mongo]

So, I see lots of people calling for advertising vs price cuts. I see people calling for a $25k car. Some call for both.
Some say: look at Company ABC (usually tech), they introduce down market products while keeping prices high on legacy products.

But here's the thing: vehicles are application limited.
Computers get faster, they run more complicated software faster, that improves utility/ functionality/ value per dollar.
Cars? Not so much.
EVs in general, and Teslas in particular, 'suffer' from the reality that power, and especially torque, in an electric powertrain is way easier to achieve than in an ICE. The Model 3 drive units propelled the Semi prototypes. The Plaid motors push the limits of road usable tires.

Speed: limited by regulations
Acceleration: has practical limits in normal driving
Passenger capacity: most hold 5, some 6-7, then you're in the passenger van category
Cargo: car, SUV, truck
Features: Tesla FSD is the same regardless of model

With only 2 mass produced models, Tesla has covered a vast percentage of use cases. Performance of the base versions is already more than the years of previous ICE vehicles. There are body styles that are not represented, but other than that, where lies product differentiation?

Tesla optimized the heck out of the 3/Y. What content can they remove at this point? There are no removable subsystems, cross platform commonality runs rampant. The only options are to scale back performance or range, neither of which are huge cost savers; especially if one still wants a useful end product. Nerf for nerfs sake?

The Tesla version of a four seater econobox would be a down market step (other than FSD only) that has both purpose (low passenger count commuter) and engineering advantage (lighter, lower crossection) and enough delta size to matter. This is possibly what Mexico will produce.

A lower cost model will still have more performance than an ICE, be safer than a typical ICE, hold approximately as many people as a 3, have FSD and related safety features. That car is still so dang practical, it could turn the 3 into a "Why?".

Putting this together: Tesla would rather not introduce a down market car in current 3/Y regions because there is so much overlap on the specs that, while it would increase TAM, it would also take market share from 3 and, to a lesser extent, Y. Net result: less production efficiency, higher COGS on existing lines, and higher price for same margin. Instead, they push 3/Y costs and price down. They do develop and produce a further cost reduced, materials reduced, but similarly useful vehicle to sell into new markets.

tl;dr; no ads, product line expansion in new markets, price reductions to increase accessibility

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

 

[JRP3]

This is literally by definition. Nobody cuts prices when there is more demand than supply. Anyone arguing against this is not worth listening to.

Why has every new technology followed the exact same pattern of constant improvements and lowered costs? First cell phones vs current ones, first PCs vs current ones, etc. As many others have pointed out Tesla has reduced production costs in many ways and will continue to do so. That will be reflected in the price of the product, it's part of the plan.

 

[Tony73]

So, I see lots of people calling for advertising vs price cuts. I see people calling for a $25k car. Some call for both.
Some say: look at Company ABC (usually tech), they introduce down market products while keeping prices high on legacy products.

But here's the thing: vehicles are application limited.
Computers get faster, they run more complicated software faster, that improves utility/ functionality/ value per dollar.
Cars? Not so much.
EVs in general, and Teslas in particular, 'suffer' from the reality that power, and especially torque, in an electric powertrain is way easier to achieve than in an ICE. The Model 3 drive units propelled the Semi prototypes. The Plaid motors push the limits of road usable tires.

Speed: limited by regulations
Acceleration: has practical limits in normal driving
Passenger capacity: most hold 5, some 6-7, then you're in the passenger van category
Cargo: car, SUV, truck
Features: Tesla FSD is the same regardless of model

With only 2 mass produced models, Tesla has covered a vast percentage of use cases. Performance of the base versions is already more than the years of previous ICE vehicles. There are body styles that are not represented, but other than that, where lies product differentiation?

Tesla optimized the heck out of the 3/Y. What content can they remove at this point? There are no removable subsystems, cross platform commonality runs rampant. The only options are to scale back performance or range, neither of which are huge cost savers; especially if one still wants a useful end product. Nerf for nerfs sake?

The Tesla version of a four seater econobox would be a down market step (other than FSD only) that has both purpose (low passenger count commuter) and engineering advantage (lighter, lower crossection) and enough delta size to matter. This is possibly what Mexico will produce.

A lower cost model will still have more performance than an ICE, be safer than a typical ICE, hold approximately as many people as a 3, have FSD and related safety features. That car is still so dang practical, it could turn the 3 into a "Why?".

Putting this together: Tesla would rather not introduce a down market car in current 3/Y regions because there is so much overlap on the specs that, while it would increase TAM, it would also take market share from 3 and, to a lesser extent, Y. Net result: less production efficiency, higher COGS on existing lines, and higher price for same margin. Instead, they push 3/Y costs and price down. They do develop and produce a further cost reduced, materials reduced, but similarly useful vehicle to sell into new markets.

tl;dr; no ads, product line expansion in new markets, price reductions to increase accessibility

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

It doesn’t have to be an either-or situation. Tesla can continue to drive down 3/Y costs and introduce a lower cost model. If they don’t, someone else will.
There are not many large car markets outside of current 3/Y regions. Tesla can not get to 4 million gen3 vehicles without selling in Europe and China.

 

[SO16]

So, I see lots of people calling for advertising vs price cuts. I see people calling for a $25k car. Some call for both.
Some say: look at Company ABC (usually tech), they introduce down market products while keeping prices high on legacy products.

But here's the thing: vehicles are application limited.
Computers get faster, they run more complicated software faster, that improves utility/ functionality/ value per dollar.
Cars? Not so much.
EVs in general, and Teslas in particular, 'suffer' from the reality that power, and especially torque, in an electric powertrain is way easier to achieve than in an ICE. The Model 3 drive units propelled the Semi prototypes. The Plaid motors push the limits of road usable tires.

Speed: limited by regulations
Acceleration: has practical limits in normal driving
Passenger capacity: most hold 5, some 6-7, then you're in the passenger van category
Cargo: car, SUV, truck
Features: Tesla FSD is the same regardless of model

With only 2 mass produced models, Tesla has covered a vast percentage of use cases. Performance of the base versions is already more than the years of previous ICE vehicles. There are body styles that are not represented, but other than that, where lies product differentiation?

Tesla optimized the heck out of the 3/Y. What content can they remove at this point? There are no removable subsystems, cross platform commonality runs rampant. The only options are to scale back performance or range, neither of which are huge cost savers; especially if one still wants a useful end product. Nerf for nerfs sake?

The Tesla version of a four seater econobox would be a down market step (other than FSD only) that has both purpose (low passenger count commuter) and engineering advantage (lighter, lower crossection) and enough delta size to matter. This is possibly what Mexico will produce.

A lower cost model will still have more performance than an ICE, be safer than a typical ICE, hold approximately as many people as a 3, have FSD and related safety features. That car is still so dang practical, it could turn the 3 into a "Why?".

Putting this together: Tesla would rather not introduce a down market car in current 3/Y regions because there is so much overlap on the specs that, while it would increase TAM, it would also take market share from 3 and, to a lesser extent, Y. Net result: less production efficiency, higher COGS on existing lines, and higher price for same margin. Instead, they push 3/Y costs and price down. They do develop and produce a further cost reduced, materials reduced, but similarly useful vehicle to sell into new markets.

tl;dr; no ads, product line expansion in new markets, price reductions to increase accessibility

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

I’m hoping Tesla can improve the CAN bus and low voltage systems.

 

[WarpedOne]

If they don’t, someone else will.

Competition is coming!
This time for real!
I prosime!

 

[traxila]

“I think moats are lame. They are like nice in a sort of quaint, vestigial way. If your only defense against invading armies is a moat, you will not last long. What matters is the pace of innovation, that is the fundamental determinant of competitiveness.”

I don’t see how this is incompatible with relentless price cuts backed by COGs decreases.

Tesla can sell every car it makes right now but it plans to increase sales by an order of magnitude. Point is to never idle the factories, to always have more demand than it can immediately fill. Price increases only when wait times are too long, otherwise obliterate the competition that refused to change and show them the outcome of their rent strategies.

 

[unk45]

I just posted this in the appropriate thread:

BYD ‘promising’ a US$2 billion investment in Brazil​

The opportunities for Tesla in all areas seem likely to become significant quite quickly if BYD etc do succeed in negotiating BEV, storage and solar panel incentives. It seems probable that wind and grid services will also be coming following President Lula’s China visit right now.
Those seem unrelated to Tesla, a U.S. Corporation, but the very success of Tesla in China may help.

As the largest fairly open market not yet served by Tesla the Mercosur market is now beginning to open. One key, IMHO, is offering a rapid national Supercharging network open to all.Another is developing Brazilian industrial projects and employment.

 

[2daMoon]

I’m hoping Tesla can improve the CAN bus and low voltage systems.

Um, yeah, they don't use CANBUS, and, have recently announced at Investor Day a 48v architecture being implemented into new models.

 

[SO16]

Um, yeah, they don't use CANBUS, and, have recently announced at Investor Day a 48v architecture being implemented into new models.

I meant on existing models.., for improvements to reduce costs further.

Exploring the Tesla Model S CAN Bus

Exploring the Tesla Model S CAN Bus: Recently I thought it might be fun to try poking around the Model S CAN bus, since the car is basically one big computer with almost all of the controls accessed from the large centrally placed 17" touch screen. As I once heard someone say, "The onl…

www.instructables.com

 

[unk45]

“I think moats are lame. They are like nice in a sort of quaint, vestigial way. If your only defense against invading armies is a moat, you will not last long. What matters is the pace of innovation, that is the fundamental determinant of competitiveness.”

Yes, the 21st century ‘most’ is rapid innovation with continuously reduced costs, improved efficiency and effectiveness, regardless of the product category.
See Zara for the Tesla of fashion. Continuous innovation, constant cost reductions, have customers doing your promotion and Voila!
I add Zara because only they change production and inventory turns even faster than Tesla.

 

[mongo]

It doesn’t have to be an either-or situation. Tesla can continue to drive down 3/Y costs and introduce a lower cost model. If they don’t, someone else will.
There are not many large car markets outside of current 3/Y regions. Tesla can not get to 4 million gen3 vehicles without selling in Europe and China.

Indeed, Europe does prefer smaller form factors and currently does not have a Model 3 plant.
China demand and diversity can absorb a lot more production (wait time as a differentiator?). My post was definitely US-biased.

I’m hoping Tesla can improve the CAN bus and low voltage systems.

Yes, and then all cars will get those improvements, which would be a cost reduction, but not a user visible feature differentiation (other than dead '12V' issues).

 

[Dikkie Dik]

Tesla is re-introducing the M3 RWD long range in the Netherlands, don’t know about rest of Europe. One caveat: for now only for business clients.

Range is about 630 km and price €46K.

Model 3 Long Range RWD | Alle specificaties en prijzen | MisterGreen

Dit paaseitje heb je misschien nog niet gevonden: de Tesla Model 3 Long Range Rear Wheel Drive (RWD).

www.mistergreen.nl

This is going to sell like hot cakes.
Delivery for june.

 

[2daMoon]

I meant on existing models.

Exploring the Tesla Model S CAN Bus

Exploring the Tesla Model S CAN Bus: Recently I thought it might be fun to try poking around the Model S CAN bus, since the car is basically one big computer with almost all of the controls accessed from the large centrally placed 17" touch screen. As I once heard someone say, "The onl…

www.instructables.com

From the linked article:

"As I found out the hard way, when you're build a paradigm shifting electric car from the ground up, you decided to take the hidden diagnostic connector route. My initial tests using a Beaglebone Black and TI's SN65HVD Series CAN transceivers ended in lots of colorful language and much head scratching, in short Tesla ain't putting out, at least on this connector. Onward and upward!"​

The author was unable to find a CANBUS signal on the Model S at the expected pins of the OBD connector.


The most likely way to achieve sweeping improvements on existing models would be to retire their production and replace them with a product designed from the ground up with those improvements. This, rather than make those changes to an existing production line and disrupt the production rate. Remember the revamp of S and X?

I'd like to see new models and factory come on line with fresh replacements for the high end vehicles, then retire the existing ones. This isn't likely to happen as the focus is now on higher production of lower cost models, as well as new models for other market segments Tesla hasn't addressed (Vans, Pickups, Semis, Robotaxis).

 

[Buckminster]

I think at least the first section of this is required listening on Artificial Intelligence:

The impact on investing in tech is going to be huge. Made me think 2 things:
1) We are invested in tech that cannot so easily be disrupted
2) I should be buying NVDA / TSMC again maybe - discuss here What other tech stock to consider?
Hopefully others are thinking the same!

 

[UncaNed]

Congrats to Rob!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1646821532310593536

Perhaps Elon should be HIRING Rob Maurer.

 

[wtlloyd]

Congrats to Rob!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1646821532310593536

Maybe he'll finally get the interview. I would watch that.