Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....

[Buddy]

Tesla (the GROUP) needs a COO.  Hiring a president for the automotive piece is fine (I assume they already had either a president or general manager) ..... but you still have the Powerwall business that I expect to be growing by leaps and bounds and the solar roof business.  And Musk is still spending time with SpaceEx and his boring company. 

Tesla (the group) needs someone steeped in manufacturing processes (and processes in general)  that can take an “execution load” off of Musk.  Musks time is too valuable.... and there is not enough of it.... and he is burning out.  We’re in the early innings of the transportation and energy transition, but the ballgame is being played at warp speed and strategic errors could be lethal. 

[Neven]

I'm unsubscribing from this thread for a while (can't keep up). Please, don't turn it into a Tesla Nuclear War thread. But when you do, let me know. 

[Sigmetnow]

Well said!  We need to remember that the EV industry is still in its infancy.

Marques Brownlee (@MKBHD).  9/7/18, 2:19 PM

So the more manufacturers (finally) dive into electric cars, the more little advantages you see that Tesla has. They may be babies in the car business, but turns out 10 years building electric cars is waaaaay different than 100 years building gas cars.

Jaguar, Porsche, Mercedes, etc are coming for Tesla and I love it. They have the experience building quality cars and top notch fit/finish.
But they still have to catch up on: Battery tech (range), motors, self-driving, and the whole supercharging network.

Mercedes could release that EQC, or Porsche could drop Mission E TODAY… and it’s a Merc, so the interior and build will be amazing… but it’s still missing all those other things!

So I LOVE that these car companies are finally diving into electric cars. It’s pretty clear that’s the future
but to call any of them a “Tesla killer” right now is silly. There’s room for way more in the market, and it’s all just getting started

https://twitter.com/mkbhd/status/1038129613388632066

[Sigmetnow]

Jaguar, batteries

TeslaBill (@Tesla_Bill).  9/7/18, 3:33 PM
Jag getting serious about their battery supply. Let’s hope they also copy Tesla’s battery management. This is testament to how far ahead of the game Tesla are. Tesla were at this point in 2014.
https://insideevs.com/jaguar-inks-deals-with-samsung-sdi-for-cylindrical-battery-cells/
         https://twitter.com/tesla_bill/status/1038148359301869570

Elon Musk (@elonmusk). 9/8/18, 5:34 AM
@Tesla_Bill @InsideEVs  2170 is about the right cell size, but I don’t recommend copying our current module design. Far too difficult to manufacture.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1038359955781218304

Tesla Bill:  So there you have it @Jaguar. You know all of those tear downs you’ve been doing of @Tesla cars; copy that and you’ll automatically be even further behind @Tesla than you already are, but kudos to you are least you are near the front of the following pack.

<< Some battery engineer just threw a Tesla battery off the wall and headed back to the drawing board.

[Zythryn]

Tesla (the GROUP) needs a COO.  Hiring a president for the automotive piece is fine (I assume they already had either a president or general manager) .....

I believe Musk was filling those roles.
Regardless of what acronyms, I believe this move was to do exactly what you wanted.  Take workload off of Musk.
And I agree with you, Musk was running himself into the ground.  I hope that this will help aleviate that.
Is it enough?  Who knows, but I think it was a good move.

[oren]

Carl Anka (@Ankaman616). 9/7/18, 7:08 AM
Elon Musk didn't even inhale smh...
https://twitter.com/ankaman616/status/1038021176084373506
(8-second video clip at the link. )

Ross Gerber (@GerberKawasaki)9/7/18, 9:51 AM
By the way. The podcast was amazing. Smoking pot and drinking is quite common in California and it’s legal. Stop being so lame. Listen to it. Very very fun and interesting. @joerogan is great and funny. And Elon is brilliant. I loved it.
https://twitter.com/gerberkawasaki/status/1038062302635876354

The Video: [https://www.youtube.com/embed/ycPr5-27vSI

No comments from Oren about the above being Off-Topic and unrelated to  Cars, cars and more cars.  And trucks, and.... ? (big smile)

No, I thought not.

Actually I agree, it's completely off-topic here. Maybe someone wants to starts a thread somewhere "Elon Musk's personality"? Probably in "The Rest", where I can mostly ignore it along with all the other political / polarized stuff.
If Elon manages to destroy himself Tesla will be affected, but until then, it's clutter here IMHO.

Note: I didn't post this opinion until your sarcastic jab as I believe in self-moderation. I already posted a couple of comments about this both here and in the Boring thread, and preferred not to repeat myself.

[Archimid]

In Vino Veritas.

Changing the state of the mind has distinct advantages when done with control and moderation. The war on drugs is one of the worst self inflicted wounds of our society. I believe that all drugs and alcohol should be regulated like cigarettes are regulated in the in the US.

Imprisoning someone for changing their state of mind is a grotesque practice that goes against the most basic democratic and human right principles.  If we somehow survive climate change, in a few generations the war on drugs will be regarded like slavery.

[NeilT]

No comments from Oren about the above being Off-Topic and unrelated to  Cars, cars and more cars.  And trucks, and.... ? (big smile)

No, I thought not.

When a poster who posts extensive and very relevant information in 90% of posts, a bit of off topic levity is a welcome addition.

Contrast 90% of posts light on actual content and strong on personal bias.  When that is followed by a dig at off topic then the poster needs to wear it.

[GoSouthYoungins]

Tesla (the GROUP) needs a COO.  Hiring a president for the automotive piece is fine (I assume they already had either a president or general manager) ..... but you still have the Powerwall business that I expect to be growing by leaps and bounds and the solar roof business.  And Musk is still spending time with SpaceEx and his boring company. 

Tesla (the group) needs someone steeped in manufacturing processes (and processes in general)  that can take an “execution load” off of Musk.  Musks time is too valuable.... and there is not enough of it.... and he is burning out.  We’re in the early innings of the transportation and energy transition, but the ballgame is being played at warp speed and strategic errors could be lethal.

WHAT? WHAT? HOW? What is it that you believe this guy actually does? All I see are tweets (which are frequently catastrophic) and earning calls (which are abnormally overly optimistic verging on fraudulent) and official media announcement (which are so full of holes that every sane person is left scratching their heads) and interviews ranging from podcasts to the NYT (which appear more like public relations efforts for him personally and not any company, and only make sense if he is positioning for a serious legal battle).

[oren]

All I see 

I guess seeing is in the eyes of the beholder. I see Tesla as highly innovative, implying a very strong drive to "thinking out of the box". Small example- when everyone thought the Tesla Semi was impossible due to range/battery weight, Tesla designed it with the drag coefficient of a sports car, changing the problem parameters significantly
Though OT for this thread, I do see the same in SpaceX (rockets landing back, very low launch costs), and maybe in the Boring company as well. I believe the common denominator of these companies is Musk, and that his approach to innovation can find solutions to problems previously considered impossible. Hence my belief that he makes very important contributions to Tesla, though he also seems to make quite a few errors as well.
But to only see the tweets and the interviews, to see nothing of the output of the companies he founded and has been leading, and to assume that the rest of his unseen time is spent being totally useless, that takes a very strong filter.

[NeilT]

But to only see the tweets and the interviews, to see nothing of the output of the companies he founded and has been leading, and to assume that the rest of his unseen time is spent being totally useless, that takes a very strong filter.

+1

[GoSouthYoungins]

But to only see the tweets and the interviews, to see nothing of the output of the companies he founded and has been leading, and to assume that the rest of his unseen time is spent being totally useless, that takes a very strong filter.

+1

So why not answer the question: what is it that you think he does? He clearly does the things that I stated. What are the other actions y'all presume he is taking that make his time so valuable?

[Archimid]

First look inside the Electric Mercedes! - Should Tesla Be Worried?



Many details and views of the interior and batteries. Nice car for sure.

[NeilT]

But to only see the tweets and the interviews, to see nothing of the output of the companies he founded and has been leading, and to assume that the rest of his unseen time is spent being totally useless, that takes a very strong filter.

+1

So why not answer the question: what is it that you think he does? He clearly does the things that I stated. What are the other actions y'all presume he is taking that make his time so valuable?

Why?  So that you can point to the actions of shorts and say "see he's a liability and does nothing"?

It takes 25 to 30 years to start up a new manufacturing company and compete on an even footing with the major incumbents.  Most companies don't make it.

You think this happens with money and good intentions?  It happens with hard work, problem solving and sheer determination.

It also requires a culture of inventiveness and risk taking.

This is evident in all Musk run companies.  Tell me how many have failed!

You clearly have no concept as to how this works so why should I waste time trying to explain a blood sunset to a blind person??

[Sigmetnow]

First look inside the Electric Mercedes! - Should Tesla Be Worried?
...
Many details and views of the interior and batteries. Nice car for sure.

Nice advert for Mercedes. Brand loyalists who are avoiding Tesla will like it.
But not announcing range, or price, at a reveal event is very strange.

After the cameraman gets his 250+ mph, 600-mile Tesla Roadster, he sure as heck won’t want this 110 mph max, ~220-mile entry, even if it is a Mercedes.  Props to him for giving it a thumbs up, anyway, though. 

[GoSouthYoungins]

But to only see the tweets and the interviews, to see nothing of the output of the companies he founded and has been leading, and to assume that the rest of his unseen time is spent being totally useless, that takes a very strong filter.

+1

So why not answer the question: what is it that you think he does? He clearly does the things that I stated. What are the other actions y'all presume he is taking that make his time so valuable?

Why?  So that you can point to the actions of shorts and say "see he's a liability and does nothing"?

It takes 25 to 30 years to start up a new manufacturing company and compete on an even footing with the major incumbents.  Most companies don't make it.

You think this happens with money and good intentions?  It happens with hard work, problem solving and sheer determination.

It also requires a culture of inventiveness and risk taking.

This is evident in all Musk run companies.  Tell me how many have failed!

You clearly have no concept as to how this works so why should I waste time trying to explain a blood sunset to a blind person??

So you seriously can't come up with what it is you think Musk DOES? Why? The things he does publicly have always been a bit outlandish, but now they have clearly crossed the threshold into "more harm than good". So what is it the happens privately that outweighs this?

"It takes 25 to 30 years to start up a new manufacturing company and compete on an even footing with the major incumbents.  Most companies don't make it."

Ding, ding, ding. Correct.

[oren]

GSY, why not follow up on my suggestion and start a new thread in The Rest dealing with Elon Musk's personality, rather than with cars, cars and more cars more cars? Here your post is off-topic, there it will be on-topic.

[Archimid]

This has nothing to do with the THREAD TOPIC nor AGW issues:

The real time implementation of emissions free transportation is certainly on-topic.

If you have a problem with the "bias" of this thread then I suggest you start posting about the wondrous things other people are doing in the domain of cars and trucks that are part of the solution to climate change. I'm sure there are plenty. I would certainly welcome them.

Instead, all you do is whine. I mean, you complain about threads not existing instead of opening them yourself. Stop whining. Post something useful.

[Archimid]

Seems to me you have not heard a word I said or given it any genuine thought.

Correct. I ruled you out as a troll a long time a go. I take everything you say as words produced with malice. You are very useful when new propaganda emerges, but utterly tiresome when repeated ad nauseum.

[GoSouthYoungins]

Seems to me you have not heard a word I said or given it any genuine thought.

Correct. I ruled you out as a troll a long time a go. I take everything you say as words produced with malice. You are very useful when new propaganda emerges, but utterly tiresome when repeated ad nauseum.

WOW. WOW. WOW. It is an infantile mentality displayed here: "those who disagree with my position are trolls, full of propaganda and malice!" It degrades the potentials for a reasonable and balanced discussion on this forum, and it infuriates me.

Thus, I will be filled with a certain sense of satisfaction when Tesla files...


It appears as though the one thing that Tesla apparently had going for it (extensive demand backlog) was also a mirage which has now evaporated.

https://electrek.co/2018/09/09/tesla-model-3-immediate-deliveries-first-come-first-served-basis/

For anyone who wants an extensive and objective analysis of Tesla's current situation, the following is the best I have seen:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4205144-tesla-endgame

For those who continue to take Musk at his word and believe in the Tesla-Tall-Tale, below is a list of many of Musk's broken promises/lies. A cursory skim will help lessen the blow when the fraud is exposed.

https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/1017993-bill-maurer/4998156-teslas-growing-failure-list-125-counting

[Archimid]

GoSouth, what useful information can you possibly extract from that table?. That may break my record of the most useless graph on ASIF

[GoSouthYoungins]

GoSouth, what useful information can you possibly extract from that table?. That may break my record of the most useless graph on ASIF

It is just a to give some reference to help figure out Tesla's bankruptcy options, relative to some other companies who have filed. My guess is the brand has enough hardcore followers that they emerge from bankruptcy, but there man be quality issues in the recent ramp up that undermine it all.

Since you like my graphs, I put together another one for you.

[gerontocrat]

It appears as though the one thing that Tesla apparently had going for it (extensive demand backlog) was also a mirage which has now evaporated.

https://electrek.co/2018/09/09/tesla-model-3-immediate-deliveries-first-come-first-served-basis/

For anyone who wants an extensive and objective analysis of Tesla's current situation, the following is the best I have seen:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4205144-tesla-endgame

I suggest your conclusions are not justified from the data you present

"EXTENSIVE DEMAND BACKLOG EVAPORATED"
The electrek article:-

... Tesla started sending out emails to day-one Model 3 reservation holders about similar opportunities in order markets. Tesla writes in the email:

“We have a limited number of Model 3 Rear-Wheel Drive vehicles on display that are available for immediate delivery....As a first day reservation holder, you’re invited to take advantage of this opportunity on a first-com, first-served basis. We will be extending this invitation to addition Model 3 reservation holders on Monday, September 10.”

As we reported last month, Tesla has been building a new delivery organization to support the insane workload of Model 3 deliveries.

In other words, the invitation is to reservation holders. i.e. does not reflect a drop in demand. From what electrek writes, it is more about TESLA having problems with its delivery system for getting autos off the lot to the reservation holders, i.e increase in deliveries lagging behind increase in production.

"objective analysis of Tesla's current situation" from Alpha.com

You have to be joking. I quote:-

Summary
- Financial metrics remain perilous.
- Operating leverage fails to materialise.
- Production is mired in growing chaos.
- Product and service quality deteriorate.
- Regulatory credit sale windfall required.

There is not one piece of data to back up this analysis. "You can't be serious!" (John McEnroe)

Alpha then reveals his real agenda. Again I quote.

Second, surprisingly, many investors purchase this story-stock believing that the much-needed paradigm shift towards sustainability is actually under way, where, in fact, quite the contrary is the case, particularly as more consumers in emerging nations rise to the middle class and post-recession consumers in the West keenly open their wallets, consuming and wasting to their heart’s content: More flights. More packaging waste. More fast food and red meat consumption. More online shopping city delivery traffic. More fast-fashion items discarded soon after purchase. More electronic gadgets thrown away within two years of use. More McHomes built to be abandoned and torn down in ever-shorter time frames. The facts speak for themselves; despite claims to the contrary, living sustainably is hardly on most citizens’ agendas. One cannot consume oneself into a cyclic sustainable future. One cannot empty the ocean with a teaspoon.

This, in my opinion is the basis for Alpha's (and your?) antipathy to Elon Musk and all his works, especially TESLA. And I can agree with much of what he says in that paragraph. Sustainable ever increasing consumption is a mirage. BUT that has nothing to do with imminent bankruptcy of TESLA.

"And that's all I'm going to say about that" (Forrest Gump)
"Goodbye and thanks for all the fish" (the dolphins -  Douglas Adams)

[Neven]

Guys, stop going in circles. Everyone has staked out their territory. Have some patience and see how things evolve.

PS Car thread has been removed from Recent Posts list.

[Archimid]

particularly as more consumers in emerging nations rise to the middle class and post-recession consumers in the West keenly open their wallets, consuming and wasting to their heart’s content: More flights. More packaging waste. More fast food and red meat consumption. More online shopping city delivery traffic. More fast-fashion items discarded soon after purchase. More electronic gadgets thrown away within two years of use. More McHomes built to be abandoned and torn down in ever-shorter time frames.

I agree that everything you mentioned is a big problem. How do you solve it? Give me an example of real world solutions to some of the problems you mention. Don't worry if the solutions are not perfect, they can be improved over time. I just want to see examples of the solutions to those problems.

The facts speak for themselves; despite claims to the contrary, living sustainably is hardly on most citizens’ agendas.

Correct. Sustainability isn't in most people agenda, but if a sustainable product is created that is better than unsustainable products then it wouldn't have to be on people's agenda. They would just adopt the better technology that just happens to be sustainable.

One cannot consume oneself into a cyclic sustainable future. One cannot empty the ocean with a teaspoon.

Nonsense. The only way there is a future is if we consume food and water to manipulate the world around us. While you may take food and water for granted, it takes work to produce food and water, lots of work, and work requieres energy. There are 7 billion of us, all consuming all the time.

Consumption is inevitable. Consumption can be both sustainable or unsustainable. In the case of cars and trucks ICEs are unsustainable in two ways.

1. CO2 will end civilization.
2. There is not enough oil to expand the global economy fast enough.

EV however are sustainable in terms of CO2. In terms of raw materials it has the same limitations as oil, unless heavy recycling and asteroid mining takes off.

[oren]

For anyone who wants an extensive and objective analysis of Tesla's current situation, the following is the best I have seen:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4205144-tesla-endgame

23 pages of this "objective-looking" analysis but the main hidden trap was obvious. After spending tons of words on every subject possible, page 9 had this very short piece to say on Automotive gross margins:

Gross margins
Total gross margin rose from 13.4% in Q1 to 15.5% in Q2, but saw a 9% reduction YoY. Automotive gross profit margin, including leased cars, rose from 19.7% in Q1 to 20.6% in Q2, but saw a 7% reduction YoY. Automotive gross profit margin increased a mere 0.9% QoQ, despite growing total production by 55% from 34,494 to 53,339 units and growing Model 3 production by 193% from 9,766 to 28,578 units. In other words, fixed and variable costs are now spread over a far higher production quantity, yet there is no sign of operating leverage at all.

It can be inferred that according to the author's biased estimate, gross margin is steady at around 20%, instead of improving.
Yet on page 10, the author says:

Concluding from the above, based on 23,500 Model S and X @ ASP $102,000 (3,892 in transit); 55,000 Model 3 @ ASP $63,000 (11,166 in transit); I am offering an estimate of Q3 results:

And in the table, we have the following numbers ($B):
* Q2 automotive sales 3.118, automotive sales cost of revenues 2.530
* Estimated Q3 automotive sales 5.862 (growth of 2.744), automotive sales cost of revenues 5.100 (growth of 2.570)
* Bottom line after a whole lot of other estimates: Q2 loss of 0.718, Q3 loss of 0.253
And so the esteemed author, with no other support but "Source: author’s own calculations", implies a gross margin of 6-7% to the added Q over Q sales, without batting an eye and giving zero explanation. Objective? No. Biased? You bet.
With a flick of one number, should the added sales provide a 17% gross margin instead of 7%, Tesla hits a Q3 profit. Will it happen? Can't say. Can it happen? Sure.

As a side-note, this quote made me chuckle:

At this rate, global fleet rotation from ICEVs to EVs will take decades, not years.

Duh! Read the first post on this thread by the esteemed JimD, and many subsequent posts thereafter (recently by Shared Humanity, for example) saying the same thing. But this doesn't mean that Tesla is going bankrupt or is a failure.

[Sigmetnow]

Tesla Gigafactory 3 [in China] seems to be preparing for the Model Y production ramp

A reporter from Beijing Business Daily noted that with the revised capital, around 30% of the funds are now ready for Tesla’s Shanghai Gigafactory. Perhaps even more notable were reports that the Shanghai government is assisting Tesla to obtain loans from Chinese banks to fund the construction of the facility.

It should be noted that Gigafactory 3 does not need to be fully completed before the facility could start building battery packs and electric cars. Gigafactory 1, for example, is less than 30% complete, but it is already supporting the demand for battery packs and powertrains from the Model 3 production ramp. The Model 3’s current production pace is no joke, either, as the company is reportedly on track to building at least 50,000 Model 3 this quarter.
...
Tesla only needs to get critical portions of Gigafactory 3 working before the facility could start producing vehicles. Such a strategy actually taps into a particularly impressive expertise of the country’s workforce, considering that China’s builders are proficient in quickly constructing modular structures. This type of construction was showcased by the country’s workforce when it completed the construction of a 57-story skyscraper in just 19 days back in 2015. If Tesla opts to adopt a similar construction method for Gigafactory 3, the facility could come alive well in time for the production of the company’s next big vehicle — the Tesla Model Y. ...

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-gigafactory-3-developments-model-y-production-ramp/

Note: the China factory’s main purpose is to make products for the Asian(/Australian?) market — the idea is to cut transportation costs/headaches.  Still waiting for the announcement of additional European and (eastern?-) US gigafactories!

[GoSouthYoungins]

And in the table, we have the following numbers ($B):
* Q2 automotive sales 3.118, automotive sales cost of revenues 2.530
* Estimated Q3 automotive sales 5.862 (growth of 2.744), automotive sales cost of revenues 5.100 (growth of 2.570)
* Bottom line after a whole lot of other estimates: Q2 loss of 0.718, Q3 loss of 0.253
And so the esteemed author, with no other support but "Source: author’s own calculations", implies a gross margin of 6-7% to the added Q over Q sales, without batting an eye and giving zero explanation. Objective? No. Biased? You bet.
With a flick of one number, should the added sales provide a 17% gross margin instead of 7%,

I think the answer to this is pretty simple. In Q2 most of the cars Tesla sold were Models X and S, but in Q3 they are looking to sell to 2.5 times more Model 3s than X and S combined. Everyone agrees that the Model 3 has much lower margins than the X and S (as much as half). The numbers work out to Q2 margin of 19% and Q3 margin of 13%. This seems exactly like what would be expected given the ratio of models sold and their respective margins. Nice try though.

[GoSouthYoungins]

Alpha then reveals his real agenda. Again I quote.

Second, surprisingly, many investors purchase this story-stock believing that the much-needed paradigm shift towards sustainability is actually under way, where, in fact, quite the contrary is the case, particularly as more consumers in emerging nations rise to the middle class and post-recession consumers in the West keenly open their wallets, consuming and wasting to their heart’s content: More flights. More packaging waste. More fast food and red meat consumption. More online shopping city delivery traffic. More fast-fashion items discarded soon after purchase. More electronic gadgets thrown away within two years of use. More McHomes built to be abandoned and torn down in ever-shorter time frames. The facts speak for themselves; despite claims to the contrary, living sustainably is hardly on most citizens’ agendas. One cannot consume oneself into a cyclic sustainable future. One cannot empty the ocean with a teaspoon.

This, in my opinion is the basis for Alpha's (and your?) antipathy to Elon Musk and all his works, especially TESLA. And I can agree with much of what he says in that paragraph. Sustainable ever increasing consumption is a mirage. BUT that has nothing to do with imminent bankruptcy of TESLA.

YES! YES! YES! That is 90% the basis of my antipathy to Musk and all his works. All his companies are faux-green solution that only seek to further ingrain a destructive way of life for the rich while theoretically providing a small reduction in the ruination caused by given activities (and most importantly giving the rich sacrifice-less faux-sustainable-solutions so they can sleep at night). And weak-minded (however well meaning) naive people fall for it.

And to top it all off, Musk has a company promising to bring humans to Mars so that we don't actually have to save this planet. Inhabiting Mars is an absolute fools errand and the idea that it is possible in the next few decades is the most dangerous idea in the world (with the 2nd place most dangerous idea light years away). Despicable.

[magnamentis]

like so many time there is much more to it but i think Tesla has to bee seen from two main angles:

a) financial & business performance and outlook

b) what it did to show people that electric cars don't have to be ugly, slow, extremely short range .
    and dangerous as such due to being lightly built.

to be positive a start with (b)

here Tesla and/or Musk did a great and important job/contribution which outweighs any
shortcomings and mistakes IMO, it brings major manufacturers ultimately up to speed which
is 100% good, nothing negative can be said about that effect and the way it was done


as to (a)

as a business, and i mentioned that earlier already, tesla will go the way of borgwards, edsels and other great machines from the early days of automobiles.

it will not survive due to several obvious reasons, at least not indipendently.

i predict that tesla will either be taken over by a major brand if elon is able to let go soon enough.

if he is too proud to see that his job is done and others who are more privy with the business
and all the traps on the path should take over as long as it's time, tesla will sooner or later file
for bankruptcy and at best will survive as a name to make use of nostalgic feelings.

so both is possible, what is not possible is that the company as what it is now and how it's doing things now and where it stands now is surviving.

i don't even say IMO because there are known and proven parameters / indicators that have always lead to the same outcome. only exception would be if a government had a major interest in a business to survive and either supported it openly or indirectly via state-orders and/or via subsidies or via paving the way and take obstacles away to give it a head start and/or favoured conditions.

[Sigmetnow]

VW:
The Zwickau plant is to be 100% electric vehicles by “mid-2020s.”  Sixteen production locations worldwide will begin the transformation “towards e-mobility” within three years.

VW is planning a capacity of 100,000 electric cars per year by 2020 as part of the production from its first plant to start transitioning to electric.
https://electrek.co/2018/09/10/vw-electric-cars-production-capacity-first-plant-go-electric/

For the inevitable comparison:
Tesla with its one factory first delivered 25k electric cars/quarter in 2016, and this year will deliver over 250,000.  Even more in 2019 and 2020.

[crandles]

to be positive a start with (b)

here Tesla and/or Musk did a great and important job/contribution which outweighs any
shortcomings and mistakes IMO, it brings major manufacturers ultimately up to speed which
is 100% good, nothing negative can be said about that effect and the way it was done

...

so both is possible, what is not possible is that the company as what it is now and how it's doing things now and where it stands now is surviving.

Largely, yes, I agree. (Re expectations of electric vehicles, of course people will try to say negative things, but it won't change the truth of this Musk success.)

Re 'both possible': Yes it won't survive as it is now, but you seem to be ruling out possibility of company evolving from what it is now through hiring appropriate personnel rather than by a takeover. Care to explain a little more as to why this is unlikely?

[oren]

I think the answer to this is pretty simple. In Q2 most of the cars Tesla sold were Models X and S, but in Q3 they are looking to sell to 2.5 times more Model 3s than X and S combined. Everyone agrees that the Model 3 has much lower margins than the X and S (as much as half). The numbers work out to Q2 margin of 19% and Q3 margin of 13%. This seems exactly like what would be expected given the ratio of models sold and their respective margins. Nice try though.

And yet what you describe as "an extensive and objective analysis" failed to discuss even one word about this, the most important factor that affects Tesla's Q3 profitability. What are the assumed margins per model, per quarter? Nada. Just a plug number to fit a predetermined conclusion. Extensive? Not. Objective? Not.

BTW, your explanation doesn't fit the actual numbers IMHO.
* During Q2 Tesla delivered 18,440 Model 3 cars, and 22,300 Model S/X.
* The "extensive analysis" assumes for Q3 deliveries 23,500 Model S/X, and 55,000 Model 3 (ASP $63,000).
* Note the high price, which translates to higher margins. Note also that the Model 3 margin is expected to improve from Q2 to Q3 due to higher volumes.
* Note that Q2 already had a mix of 45% Model 3 out of the total, and yet had a 18.9% automotive gross margin. So what are the assumptions that could get Q3 to 13%?

Personally I would actually expect a 15% margin for the Model 3 in Q3, but we shall see.

[GoSouthYoungins]

So what are the assumptions that could get Q3 to 13%?

It's middle school level math...Models X/S=30%, Model 3=6%.

Not saying I believe either of those numbers...I'm just answering the question to make sure I can test into high school still.


It IS extensive. It is pretty darn objective. Very little of it is dedicated to projecting Q3 results. You don't like it because it goes against what you hope for Tesla.

[GoSouthYoungins]

Re 'both possible': Yes it won't survive as it is now, but you seem to be ruling out possibility of company evolving from what it is now through hiring appropriate personnel rather than by a takeover. Care to explain a little more as to why this is unlikely?

There just isn't time to turn the operation around. The bills are coming due very soon, and no change in personnel will effect what is already baked into the cake. That's why Tesla is searching for their 3rd chief accountant this year. The last guy lasted literally one day before he put in his two weeks (and left 10 million dollars on the table)...the most reasonable explanation is that on his first official work day, he got access to go through all the numbers, and within a few hours he understood that Tesla was a sinking ship with a lot of questionable numbers floating up as the ship was going down.

Tesla owes as much money in the next 6 months than they have on hand. So if they are not highly profitable now, they have no operating liquidity. And that is without being able to make major investments in future models which will be necessary to pay off their debt. They are almost certainly too far down the whirlpool to be able to swim out. The only option is a really big fish who is willing to take the risk, and that seems unlikely because the prices on all assets would be better after bankruptcy rather than purchasing the entire company with all their obligations.

[magnamentis]

to be positive a start with (b)

here Tesla and/or Musk did a great and important job/contribution which outweighs any
shortcomings and mistakes IMO, it brings major manufacturers ultimately up to speed which
is 100% good, nothing negative can be said about that effect and the way it was done

...

so both is possible, what is not possible is that the company as what it is now and how it's doing things now and where it stands now is surviving.

Largely, yes, I agree. (Re expectations of electric vehicles, of course people will try to say negative things, but it won't change the truth of this Musk success.)

Re 'both possible': Yes it won't survive as it is now, but you seem to be ruling out possibility of company evolving from what it is now through hiring appropriate personnel rather than by a takeover. Care to explain a little more as to why this is unlikely?

agree and no, i don't rule it out, there are simply too many possibilities within the 2 or 3 main outcomes to be mentioned and explained here.

however i fully agree that things don't have to be and mostly are not black or white, there are solutions in between but either way they will generally fall under one of the main scenarios.

i.e. general motors went bankrupt but survived thanks to government intervention and with some changes and there are many enough other examples where something new emerged from a given entity while in fact the main process of product/production survived.

i thought to cover this idea by mentioning a take over but there are other possibilities indeed..

no disagreement at all on that point, thanks for mentioning it and giving the chance to clarify.

also the precise terminology differs by jurisdiction. each country has it's own terms and procedures.
i.e. what the U.S. know as chapter 11 does not exist in the same form or under the same terms.

some countries have similar procedures like "auffanggesellschaften" etc. and again others do not have such procedures and if no solutions are found an enterprise disappears for good. i.e. swissair that was sold in pieces to various existing companies and today's swiss was formerly "Crossair" and is now owned by Lufthansa.

so somehow there is a "felt" successor which in fact is not. it exists because the swiss wanted to have their own national airline of some kind and looking at todays facts the project failed. only since Lufthansa took over is the company stable which was the main reason for that takeover in the first place.

the only thing that survived is the flag on the tail and half of the name together with the core staff.

now one could discuss whether the company survived or not but legally it went bankrupt and ceased to exist. even the SR shortcut went for good, LX as it is now is the Crossair-ID.

[oren]

I really don't get your comments about Q2 vs Q3 comparisons though. Q2 shows 81.14% Cost of Automotive revenues (right?) And Q3 shows an 87.00% number (right?) Doesn't that suggest that Gross margins have gone down by about 6% one quarter to the next while Revenue has skyrocketed by 88% (right?)

If my numbers had shifted like that for my Division one quarter to the next they would have sent in the Auditors and maybe even the Fraud Squad. That a massive erosion of economies at scale that should have been moving in the opposite direction. So given many issues that article raised (again I have no idea if it is accurate or not per se) the information is certainly self-referencing coherent. A lot of things don;t appear to be going well on the surface - assuming he was using genuine numbers and words produced from Tesla itself as a Public Corporation as required.

Q2 numbers are based on Tesla results. However, Q3 numbers are his own estimates, which I am suggesting are extremely unreasonable given the mix of models in both quarters, and the expected improvement in Model 3 margins Q over Q. Moreover, his estimates are completely unexplained in the text, despite spending long paragraphs on anything at all related to other numbers, to Tesla and the EV business in general.
As you say, numbers shifting like that Q over Q when economies of scale move in the opposite direction need some serious explanation. As I can't write the author - a SA registration is required - I am left with the logical (though unconfirmed) conclusion that the numbers are biased.

[Martin Gisser]

I haven't followed this thread and the batteries thread much, and now perhaps I should regret it:

A non-stupid friend of mine insists that the lifecycle carbon footprint of a Tesla XY is worse than a Porsche Cayenne. I don't buy it. Sounds like classical climate denier and/or German car industry propaganda. But I couldn't find any source. Can you drop me some links? Preferably in German

The best thing I found and can easily translate him is this:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/news/a27039/tesla-battery-emissions-study-fake-news/

[Archimid]

Hello martin. Your non-stupid friend is a victim of the propaganda:

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

Attached an image from that link that puts to rest your non-stupid friend's argument.

[oren]

Note this study is from almost 3 years ago and is based on the Model S. Rest assured that with the cheaper, lighter, longer range Model 3 with an improved battery chemistry the results will be even better. And hopefully the grid is slightly cleaner today than in 2015.

[GoSouthYoungins]

Hello martin. Your non-stupid friend is a victim of the propaganda:

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

Attached an image from that link that puts to rest your non-stupid friend's argument.

Since this study keeps getting brought up, I'll address it. IT IS NOT ROBUST.

There is an explanation of the methodology used to calculate the emission from vehicle use, however there is NOT an explanation of the methodology used to calculate the emission from vehicle manufacturing. Instead this is stated...

"Given the difficulty in obtaining specific information about a company’s supply chain, energy use, and specific component manufacturing processes, we made assumptions applicable to the industry as a whole and included vehicle specific attributes when possible."

Later on in Appendix B, they explain they use a model where the material composition of the vehicle is determined and a emissions value for each material is used to create an overall emissions estimate for manufacturing.  The problem with this model is glaring: There is no importance placed of the component manufacturing emissions. If 2 suppliers make an widget for a car that use the materials and amount of those materials, they are considered to have the same emissions value. In reality however, weight is something that is a negative for a vehicle, and a lot of energy actually goes into making things lighter. So Widget A weighs 10 kilos and cost $2000 while widget B weighs 15 kilos and cost $1000. The model used in this study would say that Widget A creates less emissions because it is lighter, when in reality it is the other way around. An extreme example of this is a vehicle like the Pagani Huayra Roadster. This supercar costs about a million dollars because an incredible amount of effort is put into every component to make it as light and functional and beautiful as possible. The study being referenced here would claim that it doesn't take very much energy to create the vehicle, even though that is obviously absurd. It takes about a million dollars worth of energy (and emissions). PRICE is one of the best indicators of emissions.

Does the Model X create more emissions than a Cayenne? Nobody really knows. It does not really matter. What matters is that they are DEFINITELY not orders of magnitude different, and thus it is pointless to try to solve our GHG problems by champion one over the other. The only answer is to not use either or more practically, drastically limit the use. There are those, like Archimid, who believe this is equivalent to advocating genocide. I suggest those who espouse this view should get together on a giant mound of lithium and light a match.

[magnamentis]

I suggest those who espouse this view should get together on a giant mound of lithium and light a match.

hey,

to make it very clear, i second 99% of your points and am basically glad that someone with
more specific know-how on the matter is explaining things that, if i would try to do that, i would
probably get lnto devils kitchen like so often LOL.

i as well understand the frustration with certain facts of life, i put this diplomatically and hope the point is understood.

what i do recommend however, and that's from my field of expertise, one is providing one's opponents a very welcome kind of "ammunition" by getting personal or ending a nice speech the quoted way.

the result often is that the discussion diverts from topic to some kind of duelling on a personal level while each side can make use of the flaws in the opponent's approach and if that only flaw is anger, frustration and the likes it will be that and not much or much less will be achieve about the original question/problem/topic at hand.

nevertheless it's a pleasure to read here, there is a lot of knowledge shared that a laymen would otherwise have problems to find and make a proper assessment.

[Archimid]

Since this study keeps getting brought up, I'll address it. IT IS NOT ROBUST.

You lie.

  The problem with this model is glaring: There is no importance placed of the component manufacturing emissions. If 2 suppliers make an widget for a car that use the materials and amount of those materials, they are considered to have the same emissions value.

And that error goes both ways. In some cases the materials will be underestimated and in others overestimated.

For example, Audi is producing their e-tron series in a carbon neutral factory. The only emissions of their vehicled will be those emitted by the power plant that generate their electricity, if the power plant emits. Even in the dirtiest of grids, these EV's will beat lifetime emissions of ICE's.
Another example, once Gigafactry is fully equipped with Solar/wind/batteries, then the only emissions from battery production will be mining and transportation. When transportation is done by Tesla Semi the only emissions will be mining (and sea/air freight).


Again you are misleading people with lies.

PRICE is one of the best indicators of emissions.

That is a big fat lie when it comes to cars and in a general sense. I wouldn't be surprised if within some markets there is a correlation between price and emissions, but that's all it is, a correlation.

[Sigmetnow]

In late August, Tesla invited us to visit the Gigafactory located outside Reno, Nevada.

Behind the Scenes at Tesla’s Gigafactory: Field Notes From Our Recent Visit — Worm Capital

Some high-level observations:

●  As of mid-2018, the Gigafactory is now the highest-volume battery plant in the world, according to Tesla. It currently produces batteries at about 200 million per quarter, closing in on a one-billion per year production rate. Tesla now produces more battery capacity than all other car manufacturers combined, including China, with a run rate of approximately 20 gigawatt-hours.

●  Tesla will likely achieve a battery cell cost of $100 per kWh by the end of the year, so long as commodity prices remain stable.

●  In the first ~45 days of offering Model 3 test-drives, the company reportedly received 60,000 sign-ups, according to Viecha.

●  Grohmann Engineering will help module production become three times faster, and three times cheaper, according to Viecha. Their new system will be sent to the Gigafactory by the end of Q3 or beginning of Q4. The Grohmann machine will be in Zones 1, 2, 3, and Tesla will be receiving three machines. The process was designed to alleviate the previous bottleneck in module production which delayed Model 3 production significantly. The machine is already built, and points to the advantage Tesla will have in building future Gigafactories. They have learned many painful lessons, but have a solid blueprint for porting the factory across the world.

●  Preliminary estimates for Q3 production rates will be around 50,000 to 55,000 Model 3s, but deliveries may be higher.

●  The Gigafactory is ~90% automated, according to Viecha. Eventually, battery cell production, energy pack assembly, and drive train unit production will strive for full automation.

●  Tesla will likely start producing the shorter-range Model 3 in the next eight months. Right now, they are focused on selling higher-margin cars where demand continues to exceed what is being produced.

●  We believe Tesla is creating a best-in-class self-driving technology. According to Tesla, the company believes it can gather 1 billion miles of data per year from current drivers.

●  According to Tesla, by next year they will start exporting Model 3s to other countries. They will also begin to earnestly produce Semis by 2020.

During our visit, we were also offered a firsthand look at the levels of automation Tesla is now using to construct and integrate battery modules into Model 3 packs. It’s a fascinating and futuristic system. ...

https://www.wormcapital.com/insights/tesla-gigafactory-visit

[Sigmetnow]

Mercedes customers have expectations that warrant a cautious ramp-up of the company’s first EV.  Plus, new suppliers are a big unknown.  So many reasons their transition will be s-l-o-w. 

Mercedes-Benz Already Concerned About All-Electric EQC Warranty Costs

  And here's why this is a good thing.

The Mercedes-Benz EQC all-electric crossover has just had its official online debut and yet the automaker is already expressing some concerns regarding its eventual warranty costs. According to Automotive News Europe, the German automaker plans to gradually increase EQC production beginning next year in order to keep projected warranty costs in check.

“We want to be sure we deliver Mercedes quality from day one in all aspects, and we have to watch the warranty side for customers as well,” Schaefer told reporters on the sidelines of the vehicle’s official debut in Sweden on Wednesday. “We don’t want customers ending up at the mechanic later.”

Furthermore, “Slowing down the ramp-up is a tool to make sure we do it right, to address all the unknowns that an electric car brings.” Remember, this is somewhat new territory for the automaker, aside from the electrified version of the previous generation B-Class. The EQC was designed and engineered from the get-go to be an EV

Fortunately, Mercedes has not reported any issues at its battery-pack plant in Kamenz, Germany, so take this is an early good sign. Clearly Mercedes does not want to take any chances that could potentially damage its electric vehicle reputation. Building an EV at a large scale for the first time is a challenging task.

For example, Schaefer is already worried about potential battery problems. “This is the heart of the electric vehicle, which is very much in charge of safety and performance of the vehicle as well as long life and costs,” he said. But what really concerns him most (and likely Mercedes as a whole, too) is supply chain issues.

“There are hundreds of components that have to come together from various new suppliers, Tier 2 and Tier 3, which are in the background, and we have to see their performance.” But what once all of this has hopefully been worked out, Schaefer is not particularly concerned about achieving higher production rates in order to meet demand.

And remember, the EQC is only the automaker’s first EV, so it’s also a test case that can iron out any number of issues that could later interfere with mass EV production. 

https://carbuzz.com/news/mercedes-benz-already-concerned-about-all-electric-eqc-warranty-costs

[NeilT]

Tesla will produce Q3 results in a month or so.  When that happens someone will be happy and others won't.  That is the rule with polar opposite opinions.

As Neven stated, let's have a bit of patience, arguing the toss when the figures are not available is nothing more than shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

However let us look at two clear facts.

1. Tesla set a goal of 50,000 to 55,000 Model 3 cars manufactured by the end of Q3
2. The Bloomberg tracker shows a Q2 end figure of 41,000 cars and a current build number of 90,000.

Bloomberg has also tracked a reduction in Model 3 production down to around 3,500 cars per week.

We have 3 weeks to go.  at 3,500 per week that is 10,500 more cars in Q3.  Which comfortably exceeds the target set.

So, to reiterate, let us, as Neven says, have a bit of patience and just wait for the figures.  Trading ever escalating statements, given the very short time until we actually know, seems to be a very unproductive use of the few bytes of data we are consuming.  Not to mention the valuable time.

[GoSouthYoungins]

Since this study keeps getting brought up, I'll address it. IT IS NOT ROBUST.

You lie.

  The problem with this model is glaring: There is no importance placed of the component manufacturing emissions. If 2 suppliers make an widget for a car that use the materials and amount of those materials, they are considered to have the same emissions value.

And that error goes both ways. In some cases the materials will be underestimated and in others overestimated.

For example, Audi is producing their e-tron series in a carbon neutral factory. The only emissions of their vehicled will be those emitted by the power plant that generate their electricity, if the power plant emits. Even in the dirtiest of grids, these EV's will beat lifetime emissions of ICE's.
Another example, once Gigafactry is fully equipped with Solar/wind/batteries, then the only emissions from battery production will be mining and transportation. When transportation is done by Tesla Semi the only emissions will be mining (and sea/air freight).


Again you are misleading people with lies.

PRICE is one of the best indicators of emissions.

That is a big fat lie when it comes to cars and in a general sense. I wouldn't be surprised if within some markets there is a correlation between price and emissions, but that's all it is, a correlation.

You can't just respond with a generic "you lie" and expect it to hold any weight. At least say WHY! Otherwise you are just blabbling drivel.

"And that error goes both ways. In some cases the materials will be underestimated and in others overestimated."


Sure. That is why it is NOT a robust way to figure out the emissions involved. Can you agree that a $10,000 widget made of a kilo of a given material will have more emissions correlated with it than a $1,000 widget of the same material? (If so, my analysis and criticism is exactly correct.) Do you actually have anything to add, or are you just a simpleton who crows "you lie" when you don't like what someone is saying?

[GoSouthYoungins]

I suggest those who espouse this view should get together on a giant mound of lithium and light a match.

what i do recommend however, and that's from my field of expertise, one is providing one's opponents a very welcome kind of "ammunition" by getting personal or ending a nice speech the quoted way.

you are probably right. it just really boils my blood when people act like they are fighting the good fight, BUT are actually opposed to solutions that would genuinely put humanity on the right track (and meanwhile cheer feverishly and self-righteously for solutions that are not solutions).

maybe I should instead suggest they load themselves on one of Musk's rockets to Mars. same result.

(I appreciate the support)

[Archimid]

Can you agree that a $10,000 widget made of a kilo of a given material will have more emissions correlated with it than a $1,000 widget of the same material?

If the $10,000 is produced with renewable energy and the $1,000 is produced with diesel then the 10,000 item will have less emissions. If the 10,000 item weighs 1 kilo but the 1,000 item weighs 2 kilos then the 2 kilo one has more emissions, unless the manufacturing process is really low emission. So no.

Do you actually have anything to add, or are you just a simpleton who crows "you lie" when you don't like what someone is saying?

Yeah. You lie. I'm stating that as an objective fact as a warning to others.  No doubt many will fall to your words. Those who decide to read the link and think about it will know you as a liar.

[GoSouthYoungins]

Can you agree that a $10,000 widget made of a kilo of a given material will have more emissions correlated with it than a $1,000 widget of the same material?

If the $10,000 is produced with renewable energy and the $1,000 is produced with diesel then the 10,000 item will have less emissions. If the 10,000 item weighs 1 kilo but the 1,000 item weighs 2 kilos then the 2 kilo one has more emissions, unless the manufacturing process is really low emission. So no.

Do you actually have anything to add, or are you just a simpleton who crows "you lie" when you don't like what someone is saying?

Yeah. You lie. I'm stating that as an objective fact as a warning to others.  No doubt many will fall to your words. Those who decide to read the link and think about it will know you as a liar.

In theory, that is kinda true. However, in reality 95%+ of manufacturing does not come from renewable energy. And even energy in general, for which renewable energy is not as untenable to use, globally comes 85% from fossil fuels. AND the 15% that does come from renewables is mostly hydro power, which can not really be expanded much since effectively every good river site for damning has already been utilized. Whats remaining of the renewable make up is mostly nuclear which comes with its own problems and I believe is parasitically risky in an increasingly less stable world. So vast majority of energy is fossil fuel energy, and the fast majority of renewable energy cannot/should not be expanded. AND wind and solar are incredibly unsuitable for manufacturing. For example, aluminum manufacturing is abnormally reliant on electricity, and yet there is not a single aluminum factory in the world that primarily uses wind and solar. AND even wind and solar production requires a lot of fossil fuel use up front. Yes, they produce significantly more energy over their life cycle than are used to create them, but most of that energy goes un-utilized and is wasted. AND the quality of the energy is significantly lower (intermittent electricity is effectively very low density and effectively un-store-able whereas fossil fuel energy is dense, transportable, and dispatch-able).


But what do I know. All I do is lie. I'm just here to depress everyone with my propaganda about how drastically we need to change our lives. Whereas you take the much more difficult stance of tell everyone "we just need to choose green, and we can basically keep doing everything the same as we are now...it will actually be cheaper. skip a dee doo, skip a dee day!" (SARCASM)