Tesla Q1 2018 Vehicle Production and Deliveries | Hacker News Reader

Tesla Q1 2018 Vehicle Production and Deliveries

ir.tesla.com

141 pointsbeltex186 comments

I used to be one of the people who poked fun at Musk and suggested people short Tesla stock (as the valuation is crazy compared to the production and penetration numbers).

But I am no longer that person. I read his biography (Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future) and this is a guy who genuinely wants to change things on a macro scale: opening up space, changing transportation. He is also a genuine risk taker, who will bet his own money and risk everything for something he believes in. I now root for Musk and his companies to succeed. I wouldn't take short positions on Tesla now.

Plus the deletion of the SpaceX and Tesla facebook pages, when told over Twitter they existed was pretty funny.

That biography was mind blowing. Shows all sides of Elon good or bad. But showed how hard he really worked to build companies to scale.

Reading a book doesn't change fundamentals. Tesla is heading for a rough time, I sincerely hope they make it through and hope that Musk will not come to regret making that stupid joke.

Very astute comment. And lets remember that Musk himself is a big fan of "first principles". By the first principles (fundamentals) of business and finance, it doesn't look very good. But I too sincerely hope that Tesla does succeed.

How are they headed for hard times? I'm genuinely uneducated on the matter and want to know more.

Tesla is attempting to change too much at once. New model, new (highly automated) production line and adding a degree of self driving over and beyond what is currently present in other cars, probably will run out of cash somewhere this year.

Any one of those would be a major challenge and a major achievement to lick. While I totally admire Elon Musk for challenging all these things at once you have to wonder about the wisdom of it all, especially when taking into account that he has another major project (SpaceX) that would normally be enough to tax any CEO.

Furthermore they decided to roll Solar City into Tesla which makes Tesla even more encumbered with debt. I get why he did it but I firmly believe that cross-tying losing businesses and winning businesses at that level is a failure prone strategy, it is gambling rather than managing.

I don't think any of it is too much for Elon to handle. I think the problem is that he over-hypes the potential output of his companies, leading to constant "delays" and "setbacks". If he just kept his numeric predictions to himself and said "we will perform an exponential ramp over the first few years on par with the Model T", he wouldn't see so much flak for not hitting Model 3 production claims.

Agreed, but that's the problem with going public. Once you do that you have to show numbers.

Losing money. Almost out of cash. Model 3 numbers less that predicted. Bonds down. I'm just summarising the issues - they may well do fine.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16612805 for example.

On the scale of Tesla's own history how would you rate that rough time? E.g. is it more rough vs 1st year of Tesla 2nd year? 3rd Year? How rough is it for people who actually pulled through all the challenges they faced from the founding till now. I think people are overestimating the "rough times" part. Musk and Tesla have a ton of good will that no other automaker has and they can leverage that in a rough situation.

There are a lot of things coming together that each individually would have been a serious challenge, to have them all at once and within 6 months of each other is pretty rough. Even so, I would not bet against Musk, he has a habit of making it through somehow. There is a book with a character in it called Reid Malenfant, Musk reminds me of that character.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(Baxter_novel)

You get to chose: you're part of the bulldozer or you'll end up part of the highway. Even so, it will not be easy to do right by Tesla and not to ignore SpaceX, and that's before going into the fact that Tesla is now effectively subsidizing Solar City.

I'll give you a hypothetical about what I tried to convey. Qatar is spending 200 billion in relation to world cup 2022 in large part as a part of PR effort. Now imaging 2 hypothetical news stories VW AG is opening and innovation center in Doha, Qatar. Tesla Inc. is opening an innovation center in Doha, Qatar. What would be a PR value for each of them be for Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani just ballpark a figure that he would be willing to put up for each one.

Oh sure, but then you're in rescue territory. But that's not what we are talking about here, we are evaluating - or at least, I am trying to evaluate - how serious the problems are in isolation. That there will be some white knight is beyond a doubt for me even if things do go very wrong.

This. When the first Model X came off the line and it was full of quality issues, that was a rough time. When NYT wrote a tough piece on the early Model S, that was a tough time. When the early Model S caught on fire that was a rough time. This is definitely NOT even close to rough time. 2000 Model 3 per week is close to Model S numbers.

It does not matter that the numbers are 'close to model S numbers', the Model 3 is far less profitable than the S ever was and you'd need to crank out a multiple of them on that line anyway to be in the black in the long term.

It surprises me that people think that making a budget car is easier than a luxury sedan. Make no mistake: successfully launching a budget vehicle is much harder than making a luxury vehicle.

The problem with your comment is the book addresses the history of the company and puts those fundamentals into perspective. I'd argue Tesla has been in rough times for most if not all of its existence. Do you think having 200 problem Roadsters in a warehouse in their first year was great? They had colossal issues with the conversion of Lotus Elise chasses to Tesla Roadsters, they were hand-building and customizing every single vehicle.

Then, when they wanted to build the Model S, they wasted a lot of time on luxury features like having flush door handles. Their output was delayed, despite having numerous pre-orders waiting.

Again, with Model X, they faced substantial delays with the falcon wing doors and the single-pylon-seat in the 2nd row. They received a lot of flak for that, and got past it in time.

Now with Model 3, they've had problems mainly at the Gigafactory with battery-pack assembly, as well as with the costly up-front labor that goes into automation of assembly lines.

And yet, here they are. They have substantial debt yes, and their credit rating is B- which isn't great, but compared to other automakers their financials are somewhat middle of the road. Look at Ford, they have a massive debt problem, or look at Chevy's electrification program, which has faced much weaker demand than Tesla will ever face with its legions of fans.

If you ask me, the "fundamentals" have never been great, but the simple fact is Tesla has hundreds of thousands of die-hard fans who have put up their own money in pre-orders and equity to keep the company going. No other car brand has this amount of loyalty and fandom, and that "fundamental" has been enough to get Tesla where they are now.

Tough times? Yes. But hoards of Muskivites will throw in cash to ensure this ship keeps sailing.

There is a problem that comes with operating at scale: yes, there are economies of scale, but they only work to your advantage when everything is running smoothly. When things are not running smoothly and you are for instance losing on every product sold those losses mount extremely rapidly. Car manufacturing is a scary undertaking for exactly that reason, especially in the Model 3 segment (where a certain amount of luxury is expected and fit and finish matter but the budget is much lower than for a luxury vehicle). There is not enough margin for error to fuck up your production, it will eat all the profits and then some.

That is why the problem of having 200 roadsters in a warehouse pales in comparison with the problem of having an assembly line that is supposed to crank out 5000 vehicles crank out 2500 (if that) instead. It means that you are losing money hand over fist, your capital expenditures and wages are identical but your income (if properly recognized) is half. This will totally wipe out your margins for quite a while to come. Car manufacturers have consolidated for a reason, even a small hickup can kill an otherwise healthy company.

tesla does not lose money on model S or X.

I did not say that.

It does.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4075701-tesla-closer-look-m...

That's including R&D, which for a company that is relatively young is to be expected. GM1 is net positive though, and when people say 'X loses money on each item sold' they are typically talking about GM1, not about margins including R&D. This is important because the second depends very much on the number of items sold which one can not know until the run is over or a substantial number of years have passed. It's safe to say the VW beetle had it's R&D paid back fairly early on and that Tesla will take a bit longer (especially for their niche products) because there are simply fewer units to do the pay-back on. Even so, there is a fairly good reason to believe they will be OK on the Model S in the long run, will be about break even on the X and hopefully will end up making money on the Model 3 if they can deliver it in large enough numbers. Also important: the Model 3 R&D was to some extent paid for by the gross margins of the Model S, if not for that they would have had to receive even more outside capital.

> when people say 'X loses money on each item sold' they are typically talking about GM1, not about margins including R&D

It depends on the industry.

> Plus the deletion of the SpaceX and Tesla facebook pages, when told over Twitter they existed was pretty funny.

Wait, did Elon not know about them and then just got them deleted upon finding out?

Yes!

edit: I should say "apparently!" since I wasn't there myself

- as part of the whole "Delete Facebook" movement.

I think there is a high probability that some of his risk-taking initiatives backfire at some point in time, but I cannot deny that this guy is moving several industries forward at much faster pace than said industries would move on their own.

This observation is not going to affect my investment decisions though. I will not go as far as shorting TSLA ('the market can stay irrational longer than any investor can stay solvent'), but I would not buy TSLA either.

You think the author of the biography would’ve been given “exclusive access to Musk, his family and friends” if the book didn’t portray him in a positive way?

It’s marketing and (among other things) Elon Musk is an excellent marketer.

Did you read the biography? This point is specifically addressed by the author and the author also refused Musk the control he wanted e.g. in terms of a right of reply to all points in the book. Some of the book is very vivid in its portrayal of Musk’a flaws and others’ opinions of him.

> the author also refused Musk the control he wanted

You can believe this if you want. But to me the author saying this isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Did you read it?

Valuation isn't everything, people compare Tesla to other car makers and say "hey, they are way smaller and getting valued higher, what a sham!", what people should be looking at is Enterprise Value. GM has 10x the debt as Tesla, and 2x the Enterprise Value. People are worried about Tesla burning billions of dollars, if they were to solve this problem with level of debt GM has, they would have another $85B to spend.

Tesla has done the hard things, they've made a great product, they've created a ton of demand and they found an entry point into a really tough market to enter. If the biggest worry right now is their need for cash to scale, I'm very bullish on their future.

The "leaks" on email this last week have changed the narrative a lot. The leak last week (probably not planned) of "prove the haters wrong" resulted in a sell off, while the leak over the weekend cushioned the final numbers.

That said, TSLA, just like SpaceX plays really close to the edge with equity and risk in pursuit of a vision. What most Tesla shorts fail to recognize is that Tesla has already gotten to the point that if something really really bad where to happen, any number of well capitalized tech firms would scoop them up in a instant (looking at Apple in particular). The cars are really a minimal amount of hardware, with software wrapped around them. They have loyalty like the iPhone had loyalty and Alexa has loyalty.

The big bottleneck to this point has been battery assembly lines at the Gigafactory. They just installed a new line for the battery packing line that they yanked back from Panasonic. Now they need to prove they can start scaling more linearly.

The press reaction to all of this is a good example of the media not knowing what they are talking about. The press has issued breathless reports about there being too much skilled labor and parts by hand, then too much robotic automation. They point at the low uptake of reservation holders (30%) without noting that the reservations are holding constant, and that this is mostly a effect of only the most premium of the premium going on sale right now.

Tesla's barb on the Model T is interesting as well. "This is the fastest growth of any automotive company in the modern era. If this rate of growth continues, it will exceed even that of Ford and the Model T. "

What Tesla is trying to do is hard. There is a reason no one has been successful in doing it in more then 50+ years. Watching the people who are opposed to what Tesla is doing is just as interesting.

> The big bottleneck to this point has been battery assembly lines at the Gigafactory. They just installed a new line for the battery packing line that they yanked back from Panasonic.

I like Tesla, but it doesn't give me a good vibe if they're blaming partners at this point.

This was a couple of quarters ago. To the best of my knowledge, Tesla never stated this explicitly, but it was in the press.

> What most Tesla shorts fail to recognize is that Tesla has already gotten to the point that if something really really bad where to happen, any number of well capitalized tech firms would scoop them up in a instant (looking at Apple in particular).

Maybe -- or they could wait to buy their assets in bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy is precisely when a well-capitalized buyer might buy Tesla.

If TSLA fell that far, the shorts would get paid.

Yes, or even if they bought Tesla before that because it was in "trouble", the shorts would have paid out.

No potential suitor in their right mind would buy a car company whose main factory is in one of the most heavily regulated areas in regard to air pollution.

> The cars are really a minimal amount of hardware, with software wrapped around them.

It is a car... An electric car at that, where battery tech and costs have pretty much been the cornerstone of Tesla's success. Claiming hardware doesn't matter to a car company is like claiming foundation doesn't matter for a house.

Plus there's nothing particularly minimalist about any of Tesla's cars. They take relatively simple mechanical parts and replace them with complex electrical parts. Look at the door handles in the Model 3 for a perfect example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIADZHLHGL0

I don't know enough about all the parts of the car, but generally speaking, many people have argued that an electric car is much simpler than a mechanical car. (Something to do with the complexity of the engine, gear, drive train etc).

If I recall, one study indicated that maintenance costs on an ev are a fraction of the current costs for that reason.

I mean, we really haven't had enough EVs (not mixed, like a Prius) on the road for long enough to make that call. It's possible, but 10+ year battery fail rates, water issues, or other unanticipated issues may over-ride simplicity.

For example: On early Priuses, the regenerative braking would be used so much that the 'real' brakes would calcify/glaze over. When an hard stop was needed (emergency, got cut off, etc) then the 'real' brakes would not work as intended. Many of the early Priuses have front-end damage as a result. It took them about 4 years to fix it.

An electric drive train has far fewer parts than a typical piston engine in a car. From that perspective, it's simpler.

But Tesla insists on putting in all sorts of clever electric doodads like electronic door handles and side mirrors and power windows that have to pop down 1 cm to open. Watch the youtube clip above, it's hilarious.

Even if a GM or Ford gas car has more parts than a Tesla, GM and Ford have, what, almost 100 years of experience each engineering cars.

CNN this morning: "Tesla will soon report whether it met its target to make 2,500 Model 3s a week. It is on pace to make about half that number, according to Bloomberg." [1]

From the statement: "In the past seven days, Tesla produced 2,020 Model 3 vehicles."

A pretty big improvement, still some hard work to do, but they really are ramping up.

I'm relieved at the announcement they won't need another debt/equity raise this year. Let's see where we are in 3 months.

[1] http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/02/news/companies/tesla-stock-a...

Depends on what made these numbers. Late night burn or proper automation ?

Indeed. They say last week and next week will be ballpark 2K Model 3s, and that's good, but is that their new sustainable number or just an artificially inflated figure for this report? Their carefully chosen wording leans me more towards the latter.

But I hope they succeed in general and I guess we'll know one way or the other by next quarter.

After they did their big push end of last year, they immediately down-ramped, and caught a lot of flack (rightfully so) for it.

I assume this is their way of saying, we have a sustainable rate here.

That said, the VIN numbers are rolling off at a massive rate. It's pretty easy to see if Tesla does that again.

They won't reach proper automation until they're getting 5,000 to 8,000 Model 3s per week. But, of course, nobody really does automation to the level that Tesla is trying to do, so their current mix between labor and automation (as they continue to build up their automation line) is approximately what other car makers do.

Getting full automation to work is really hard, takes a lot of labor and time. I think they'll do it, but the task should not be under-estimated. In the meantime, they've already achieved a production rate per factory line similar to what a typical automaker like VW would do (on the order of 100,000 per year for a factory).

Like SpaceX around 2015 or so. Respectable, but not yet Earth-shattering (i.e. 2017).

I wonder how much Tesla lives on SpaceX atmospheric results...

Musk probably knows a thing or two about technical limits since that, although people say that SpaceX needs are more high grade craft than large scale throughput but he might believe that this is peanuts.

I wonder how many lines run in parallel. thousands of cars per week is a few minute per car. That's not much :)

Someone please slip a drone inside.

> nobody really does automation to the level that Tesla is trying to do

Have you ever looked at production line videos from Mercedes Benz on youtube? You'll see that what Tesla wants to do is actually already being done, only with dead-tree engines instead.

Tesla wishes to do full automation of basically everything, even final assembly. According to this recent Bernstein report (by a Tesla critic), this hasn't ever been successfully done before: https://twitter.com/valleyhack/status/979434674144423936

The point of the report is that Tesla is trying to automate too much, beyond what everyone else does today and where others have tried and failed spectacularly. The report uses that history as proof it cannot be done and therefore Tesla will fail.

Are you disputing that by saying Benz does full automation of even final assembly?

bmw x2 is impressively devoid of humans

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TubOzvqOCmI

if you look closely in the background at 10:14 you can catch a wild homo sapiens wandering between an army of robocop arm prototypes

Your video makes my point very nicely.

From 12:00 onward, though, humans are used for many tasks, including multiple assembly steps and especially final assembly. These are things that Tesla wishes to fully automate and which industry experts think they're crazy for trying. And honestly, looking at that video (especially the wire harness installation at 17:00), it sure looks like an incredibly hard problem to solve and the industry experts certainly have a good point.

I think it would be hard if approached as a human technique automation, but there might be other ways to connect power and signal lines in a car in more mechanical ways. Depending on how much thought and desire has been spent by experienced factory designers...

You're absolutely right, and there's a lot of innovation that comes not from automating existing human technique but from changing how things are made so that the technique can be easily automated. For example: from through-hole components in PCBs to surface mount components in PCBs. Or even the PCB itself, which replaced wire wrapping (which, granted, can be automated) and soldering components together with free wires.

The design and the technique are critical variables that must be tweaked to make automation feasible.

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of shift I was thinking about. Now that said, I don't think Tesla is ready to do this, which would somehow prove old timers right. If Tesla managed to this bmw level of automation they'd be pushing enough cars to fulfill demands and keep investors. Later they'll make that 20% jump if Musk really wants to make a SpaceX kind of leap.

They are pushing enough cars, I think. One factory producing about 4000 cars per week is a very large factory, indeed!

I think Tesla is continually thinking of ways to improve the design, develop new techniques that can be automated easier. And I don't think these are all making it into the Model 3. Some will need to wait until the Model Y or even later. For instance, apparently the Model Y will ditch the 12 volt battery and feature a MUCH shorter/simpler wiring harness (which is one thing that's incredibly hard to automate, so making it simpler should help a lot): https://insideevs.com/tesla-model-y-ditch-12-volt-battery-95...

(with the caveat that Model Y plans seem to change each quarter)

from 1500m to 100m seems exciting

What industry experts were saying about Falcon?

What matters is not how many they made, what matters is if they cut corners just to boost that number. Ideally those would be better quality cars but it looks very much like they were doing everything they could to just increase that one number without qualifying it in any way.

How do you know that?

> The Model 3 output increased exponentially, representing a fourfold increase over last quarter. This is the fastest growth of any automotive company in the modern era. If this rate of growth continues, it will exceed even that of Ford and the Model T.

Way to spin all the production issues and delay of the previous quarter into a positive.

They're way behind the goals they set for themselves, but instead of measuring by those goals, they measure themselves by their weakest performance, and suddenly their performance becomes historic.

Musk is a good salesman.

Musk is a genius, but still not everything that a company does is done by the CEO.

> Musk is a genius,

Apparently, Musk is a good salesman, especially of himself.

Come on, he can be a salesman and a genius. At least he is a very extreme determined and hard working person, if not an actual "genius" (whose brains are wired differently). People don't generally make a mid career change into rocket science and then have the most successful private rocket launch company.

> People don't generally make a mid career change into rocket science and then have the most successful private rocket launch company

... except for the other successful entrepreneurs who made mid-career changes to fund private rocket launch companies:

- Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin)

- Robert Bigelow (Bigelow Aerospace)

- Jim Benson (SpaceDev)

- Richard Branson (Virgin Galactic)

I'll grant that Musk appears to be a successful businessman, and an effective leader, but his real strength appears to be selling his ideas so hard that even his most Boring (tm) projects get covered in giant piles of hype.

You forgot Carmack and Armadillo Aerospace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_Aerospace

Musk's standard operating procedure is to

1. Find a market where most or all of the fundamental R&D has already been done and paid for by someone else, and is publicly available to use

2. Enter that market, evolve/iterate the state of the art a bit

3. Promise immense economies of scale, and slather everything with glittery marketing and PR stunts

This is what SpaceX is doing. This is what Tesla is doing. It is not a sign of "genius", and in both cases the promises Musk is making are... ambitious.

There have been multiple attempts to bring down the cost of launching stuff into space, and with the smartest people in the world working on the problem we've seen only modest gains. Musk barged into the market and promised at least an order-of-magnitude reduction. So far that has not, to my knowledge, materialized, and I know of nothing in the pipeline which would magically cause it to do so (and economies of scale with things as expensive as space launches are uncharted waters).

And with Tesla, Musk seems to have overpromised on production. But, amusingly, building a factory that cranks out cars -- even slightly-exotic cars! -- is kind of a well-understood problem. I strongly suspect the thing holding Tesla back is Musk's Silicon Valley "not invented here" mindset leading him to disdain the accumulated knowledge of the existing industry. Which is not a "genius" move, by the way.

Their critics are very loudly proclaiming Tesla is an immense failure, that the Model 3 is a failure, and that they're going bankrupt in a matter of months. The FUD being broadly directed at Tesla is astounding and reeks of bias of one sort or another.

The other major automakers are running years behind where Tesla is at today. That's where the embarrassment should be today: those automakers are still gleefully selling tens of millions of fossil-fuel-only vehicles.

Producing 20,000 Model 3 vehicles per quarter this year will be an accomplishment (even in spite of Musk's absurd prior goal). It implies they can push well over 100,000 units in 2019. These days they're being given little credit for what they are accomplishing. When they hit that 20,000 quarterly marker, the Model 3 becomes one of the best selling mid-priced luxury vehicles on the planet in its first year.

they are given a ton of credit. their stock value was a good proof of how much credit they were given but you can't keep being late and not delivering on promises to hundreds of thousands of customers who made deposits while the CEO is busy building flamethrowers amd hats to sell them on twitter

In case there is any confusion, Musk is not actually building flamethrowers and hats in person. His time is as wasted as saying "yes" to this ideas. Which is to say that not much at all.

I'm pretty sure those are his ideas ;)

How are the other makers "years behind" Tesla? The Model S is the best-selling EV but not by an order of magnitude. GM was pretty close last year in sales and I don't think it's a bad bet to bet that GM will beat Tesla in getting self-driving tech (GM Cruise is only second to Waymo in testing self-driving, at least in California).

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/30/the-5-best-selling...

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/31/16956902/california-dmv-s...

Tesla deserves credit for getting other automakers to take the EV market seriously, but they are by no means years behind Tesla in terms of production and sales.

Using one example to represent the industry is the issue in your premise. This list nicely proves my point:

How many EVs is Volkswagen selling per year?

How many EVs is Subaru selling per year?

How many EVs is Fiat selling per year?

How many EVs is Ferrari selling per year?

How many EVs is Daimler selling per year?

How many EVs is Ford selling per year?

How many EVs is PSA selling per year?

How many EVs is Hyundai Kia selling per year?

How many EVs is Mazda selling per year?

How many EVs is Suzuki selling per year?

Tesla is in fact still embarrassing the auto industry and selling EVs by an order of magnitude beyond what nearly all of the major auto companies are. The above listed companies are selling millions of fossil-fuel vehicles and should be heckled aggressively for it.

The fact that so few major automakers are selling EVs at all, demonstrates that what I've said is correct.

But hey, all these fossil-fuel makers have great plans for the future. One day soon.

The question is: how come those companies aren't being bankrupted for the horrific products they're producing by the millions? Where's the FUD attack on those corporations (which would actually be useful in dramatically improving the world)? Priorities are entirely screwed up when its the EV maker getting smacked around for not selling enough EVs.

And how many EVs would Tesla be selling without heavy subsidies and a Musk effect?

Besides, selling a car of Tesla's quality would be embarassing to every company on your list. Well, maybe not Suzuki, but probably to them, too.

All automakers receive EV subsidies. Why are non-Tesla automakers so bad at building EVs if they receive the same subsidy Tesla does?

Tesla's are the largest, though, since they have largest batteries.

Tesla builds EVs, that's the only thing they sort of can do (of course they can't actually build them at profit, but that's a problem for Tesla's shareholders). Others will build EVs when they can be profitably sold, because it isn't their only business.

> Others will build EVs when they can be profitably sold, because it isn't their only business.

Tesla's margins are the highest in the industry for their vehicles. Legacy automakers don't want to innovate and cannablize their own business, which is why they cannot succeed.

If you want to sell like Tesla does, and get the level of subsidies they do, sell vehicles that people want and will pay for. There's a reason people would rather wait years for a Model 3 then buy a Bolt, i3, or other half-attempt at an EV by a legacy automaker.

If their margins are so high, why are they losing money hand over fist?

People want to buy a Tesla for the same reason many want to buy an Apple or Bose product -- great marketing, not any kind of intrinsic value. And besides, "legacy" automakers (you know, those guys who actually were first to make an electric vehicle, hybrid, fuel cell, hydrogen etc., ones who have driver assistance systems that do not try to actively kill their users, etc. etc.)already have cars people want to buy. Unless you're talking about some edge cases (doesn't Norway tax regular cars so much that Tesla is actually a good value?) making EVs for them isn't currently a very profitable strategy. Not that it were profitable for Tesla either, of course.

It would also be interesting to learn what is it that Tesla actually innovated, apart from marketing (and even there, Apple or Bose has been selling flash over substance for years and years before Tesla)? Batteries? No, they are completely off the shelf. Do they have some magical mystery motors? No... Some exotic body construction maybe? Nope, aluminum cars have been around for quite a while, too. Some incredible self-driving software? No, better not even go there.

It will be interesting to see what happens in a couple of years when VWs electric factory comes online.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability-owner-satisf...

Tesla in fact ranks with Acura on quality, above Volvo, and just below Volkswagen and Ford.

The low rating on Mercedes should be pretty embarrassing for them, they're merely one quality notch above Tesla and comparable to Ford.

Those rankings are pretty fishy. Acura is just a rebadged Honda and they rate completely different. Also Kia and Hyundai rate higher than Mercedes, Porsche and Volkswagen, which is completely against my experience with those brands.

FWIW it has Tesla scoring near the bottom of the pack with 37 points out of a possible 100, with the lowest entrant scoring 26 points.

Volvo is surprisingly low on that ranking, I know they are now owned by Geely but their brand still has 'super reliable' as an image here in Europe which again contradicts the ratings.

I'm not sure what the inputs were and what definition of reliability they have but I'm definitely interested in finding out more.

The FAQ is here:

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability-owner-satisf...

And I suspect that one reason more expensive vehicles drop like a stone on the report is because they are more complex and so there is simply more that can break, on top of that a person that pays $100K for their car is more likely to be dissatisfied when something isn't working perfectly.

You'll never hear a Kia owner complain about some detailing, but if you paid $85K for a Tesla then you would expect a certain level of quality and you'd be more likely to go back to the dealer for that reason alone if what was delivered wasn't perfect. So this report is as much about expectations and brands as it is about actual reliability.

My own - super simple - method of determining vehicle reliability is to look at second hand car website and to sort by descending mileage in yearly cohorts. That very quickly shows which cars are solid and which aren't. Yes, it is 'survivorship bias', but you can discount for that by weighing by the original number of vehicles sold of a particular model.

So to put it another words, every large automotive conglomerate has multiple brands that are greatly more reliable than Tesla.

Not sure about Kia, but their parents at Hyundai definitely do have better build quality than Tesla. I would imagine that someone buying a new one would complain to the dealership if they tried to shove a car with body gaps as bad as Tesla's ton them... And on a Hyundai less than half the price of Model S you get stuff like cooled seats that Tesla doesn't even offer currently (luxury car, right!) and that didn't work worth crap when they did offer them...

That is owner satisfaction, which means nothing. It is common for that list to have a car to have a significantly different rating depending on what the logo on the hood it. If the car has the GM brand it will be rated lower than if it has the Toyota brand, even though the car is EXACTLY the some other than the brand.

That explains the Honda/Acura difference. I could not make sense of that.

>Tesla is in fact still embarrassing the auto industry and >selling EVs by an order of magnitude beyond what nearly >all of the major auto companies are.

Um, no.

"November was another good month for GM’s Chevy Bolt EV US sales. The electric vehicle hit a new record with almost 3,000 units sold in one month – bringing the total to over 20,000 units to date". [0]

Of course total Tesla sales are higher than 20K units, but if we are talking about EV cars in mass segment, Tesla is being outsold at this moment.

[0] https://electrek.co/2017/12/01/chevy-bolt-ev-us-sales-record...

VW: 350 e-Golfs / week

Nissan has delivered 300K leafs (why did you leave them out?).

Chevvy sells about 20K volts / year.

Lots more data here: https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

The companies you list are selling millions of fossil-fuel vehicles because that's their business: selling cars. And as long as they can continue to do so profitably they will do so.

And whether or not Ferrari makes fossil fuel cars or not is immaterial, the numbers aren't there.

Fiat has an electric car but they are not turning a profit on it (it is priced very low, and they still can't sell them).

So does Renault, they too make electric cars, and have been doing so for quite a while.

Multiple automakers have good enough electric drivetrains to really shorten the time Tesla has to fix their production volume and fit & finish issues. If they don't execute this year their decade of brand building is not going to amount to a whole lot (maybe they have until midway through next year?).

The other automakers aren't pairing the drivetrains with big expensive batteries, so they aren't selling them with big expensive batteries, but there's also only so much consumer demand for $45,000+ electric vehicles.

Nah, I think the other EV manufacturers ARE years behind Tesla. They shouldn't be, either. The Leaf could be charging at >100kW with 250 mile range and selling like hot cakes, too, but they marketed it as a long range golf cart and were way too incremental and conservative with the battery (although they did seem to address their early problems that stemmed from not properly cooling the battery like Tesla & GM do). And they never built out their charging network like Tesla has.

For self-driving, though, Waymo seems to have the edge right now for near-full-autonomy. Tesla's system is really much more like a really-fancy adaptive cruise control right now. But if Tesla gave them LIDARs (currently expensive, but may become cheap enough for Tesla to just add-on) and made them drive like grandmas (like Waymo) around well-mapped, dry locations, then they likely would be in the same ballpark. Which isn't to demean Waymo's impressive efforts at all.

> Their critics are very loudly proclaiming Tesla is an immense failure, that the Model 3 is a failure, and that they're going bankrupt in a matter of months.

This is a classic straw man. You've created a fictional persona which you then describe as:

> The FUD being broadly directed at Tesla is astounding and reeks of bias of one sort or another.

How about we stick to what other posters you're replying to are actually saying rather than creating fictional personas in order to then attack them.

I wasn't attacking the parent or implying that was their bias.

I intentionally structured the response as a point about the extremely wide-spread criticism being directed at Tesla.

This: "The FUD being broadly directed at Tesla"

I inserted "broadly" for exactly that reason. I also intentionally avoided using "you" or similar (re-read what i actually wrote, you should instantly notice my reply is clearly not targeting the parent just based on what words I use), so as to hopefully avoid leading anyone to think I was claiming the parent was the source of that FUD.

I don't know what you are talking about re:FUD.

I'm neutral on Tesla both emotionally and financially and have no skin in this game, but I can say that TSLA bears have a very compelling case on their hands, with numbers, future projections, industry comparisons, etc. It's not often bear position is so well reasoned. In fact, TSLA bulls are much more often "selling the dream".

I would agree with the parent, as a laymen casually observing HN and the major news outlets this is really what it feels like, a complete shift in news/commentator opinions of Tesla.

I tend to think Tesla benefits far more from hype and Elon charisma than is being hurt by FUD. There are still many real risks to their success, from outright failure to middling future sales. It wouldn't be shocking to see them eventually exit sales and license their tech / batteries to major automakers down the road as the major revenue stream.

All that said, their fanciful production plans can't hold much weight with institutional investors after so many misses, so it should be priced into the market.

Calling Model 3 a luxury vehicle is rather a stretch. Even Model S lacks things Hyundai one third the price has.

While no other company can come close to Tesla in selling half-baked (or altogether nonexistent) stuff to the gullible, packaging Panasonic batteries in an overpriced golf cart isn't something that any company that knows how to actually build cars would be particularly concerned about.

Lol, I have a Hyundai and a Model S. What you wrote makes zero sense

So... your model S has cooled seats? Tesla doesn't offer them now (and apparently they didn't work when they did). My wife's Sonata has them, and they work.

Not even talking about stuff that is to be expected in a $70K+ car, Tesla doesn't quite compete with a $30K econobrand when it comes to creature comforts.

Let's see. My Hyundai doesn't offer any kind of Autopilot features or advanced safety features. My Hyundai doesn't get monthly software updates that improves the car every month. My Hyundai doesn't have a world wide supercharger network to take long trips for free. My Hyundai doesn't have advanced voice features that are constantly improving. Doesn't have natively integrated streaming and podcasts app that can be controlled with voice. Doesn't have integrated Google search with voice command. Doesn't have an AI driven climate preconditioning. Doesn't have a simple UI to maintain separate driver profiles. Doesnt have an interface to customize a myriad of settings. This is just a start. I can keep going

Let me guess... it is a 10 years old Elantra?

Let's see... my wife's Hyundai does have adaptive cruise control that actually works and does not try to kill her, it has line assist that works as well, it does not get some buggy and unexpected changes in behavior that make it work worse than before. It can actually drive from San Jose to Vegas non-stop without sitting for a couple of hours in the exciting world of Kettleman City's Supercharger station. It integrates with whatever podcast/streaming app she has on the phone, got integrated Google search with voice control, has a perfectly working AC system (and what the hell is an AI driven climate control anyway? Does that come with little Elon's waving fans around your head or something?).

Oh, did I mention that it does not try to kill her? And cools our butts when it is hot outside? And that the body panels actually fit? All of that in a cheap brand for $40K less than a Tesla. For the kind of money you paid, I expect massaging seats, rear seat recliners, maybe even safety better than that of an old Kia.

Sorry. Not being very impressed here.

Why shouldn’t they be judged according to the performance of their competitors? If you aim high but your “failure” is better than the rest, it’s still something positive.

The Model T is not a competitor.

> If this rate of growth continues, it will exceed even that of Ford and the Model T.

https://xkcd.com/605/

I never expected Tesla to deliver the Model 3 on time. I just "delayed" my order to AWD because my Leaf lease is up before I'll get the 2WD Tesla. (Also, because my wife wants a minivan and Chrysler now offers a plugin minivan.)

Remember, no car in history ever had 500,000 pre-orders. No car even came close. If anyone expected Tesla to ramp up to that kind of production overnight, they are delusional.

Besides, when I ordered my model 3, I assumed that it would be very late... So late, that I assumed I'd just wait for the AWD one to replace our AWD car.

>Remember, no car in history ever had 500,000 pre-orders. No car even came close. If anyone expected Tesla to ramp up to that kind of production overnight, they are delusional.

At the same time this is an admission that Musk is/was selling a delusion to people when Tesla set it's production goals.

Optimism isn’t delusional. They’re already making ~192k vehicles a year at their current 3/S/X production rate (which will only increase).

You would have to be malicious or ignorant to think that can’t be scaled up to NUMMIs previous 350k/year run rate in the next 3-12 months.

Disclosure: TSLA shareholder

2017 was its best year, and it produced ~101,000 vehicles: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/3/16846860/tesla-2017-delive...

I believe he was referring to the NUMMI factory pre-Tesla, which produced about 6000 cars and trucks per week at its peak.

It does seem like Tesla will soon (3-12 months) eclipse that record.

Correct! And that NUMMI run rate Toyota achieved was (supposedly) only 60% of the facility's total manufacturing capacity. It appears to be entirely realistic for Tesla to meet their 500k/year vehicle production rate at NUMMI.

Indeed. They originally planned to make 500,000 Teslas (including the Model 3) per year by 2020, and they'll almost certainly meet that.

Aim for the Moon, and if you miss, you may still reach Mars.

2020? Just last year they said they'd do it by 2018.

Right, they ramped up expectations ridiculously high with the Model 3 unveiling, but before that and when Gigafactory was just being talked about (before official construction), they were talking about 500,000 cars per year by 2020.

> Remember, no car in history ever had 500,000 pre-orders.

That's true, Citroen had a pretty good run with their record of 80,000 pre-orders (it stood for 60 years). But that was before the internet, all of the orders were made in person, they were non-refundable orders and there never was any doubt that Citroen would deliver the cars.

Weren't all (many?) of these Tesla preorders made in person too? I remember lots of news footage of long lines of people standing out in front of Tesla dealerships?

https://www.tesla.com/nl_NL/model3/reserve

> Remember, no car in history ever had 500,000 pre-orders. No car even came close. If anyone expected Tesla to ramp up to that kind of production overnight, they are delusional.

Although you could be pedantic about what consitutes a pre-order, this isn't strictly true. Demand for the Mustang is truly unprecedented, even by the Model 3. Have a look at the Mustang production from that timeframe: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/19...

The pre-orders are such a silly point.

Ford builds more pickups than that a year, with basically 0 pre-orders. They simply don't bother with pre-orders, they don't need the money, they don't need the promotion, etc.

Is the lack of pre-orders for the F-150 a sign of weakness? NO!, even though the thing is super popular they are able to produce enough to meet ongoing demand.

You don't need to pre-order if you expect the thing you want to buy to be readily available in enough volume to meet demand. There's millions of fleet trucks out there on a fixed age/mileage replacement schedule. Nobody is rushing to pre-order F150s because they know they'll be available when they want them.

>they measure themselves by their weakest performance, and suddenly their performance becomes historic.

Yeah, is called PR. Shitty, but everyone does it.

Yeah, and you need more than 2 data points to claim it is exponentially. This is bullshitty PR.

TO: 10 vehicles

T1: 40 vehicles

Is production growing 4x per T, or 30 vehicles per T?

But there WERE more than two points; surely you know that. Q4 was not the first quarter that Model 3s were produced. Q3 of 2017 is. So that's three points.

To use your example:

T-1: 2 vehicles

T0: 10 vehicles

T1: 40 vehicles

That is exponential. If it was only a linear ramp-up, that'd imply negative 20 Model 3s were produced in Quarter 3 of 2017.

You might think this is being pedantic, or that "exponential" is just a buzzword, but it's not: the point about exponential ramp-up is that if you're off by a factor of, say, 4x in production, that may mean you're only behind a few months. A relatively small time change corresponds to a very large difference in production.

Exponentials don't last forever; eventually a plateau is reached. But as you're bringing automation/production up, you're still in the exponential phase (as the data shows), and so small delays can make a big difference in production without telling you much about how many you'll produce once production is fully up and running.

> Way to spin all the production issues and delay of the previous quarter into a positive.

I don't really like Musk but sending positive messages in Investment relations is the key to keeping the company afloat. At one of my previous employers we lost top 4 customers and 10% of our revenue. But, the investment relationship site said - "We are up 1% in revenue, if we discount top 4 customers".

If Tesla admits and says - "We have improved but we are still behind on our original promise" then the stock price is going to drop like a rock.

No, investors are not that stupid. They might buy these marketing talks for a while but eventually they will see through. The recent drop in Tesla's share price is a testament of that.

"You can fool some people all of the time, and you can fool all people some of the time, but you can't fool all people all of the time."

Price is a function of supply and demand. So this tactic is better than the blunt tactic even if it manages to fool only one shareholder.

Yes, it's about the ratio of shareholders you can fool all the time to the ratio of the shareholders you can't fool all the time.

I agree investors are not stupid. But, I never said it was about investors being stupid. It is simply not saying stuff which casts doubt about Tesla's ability to deliver.

People are going to arrive at the conclusion irrespective. Take the GP for example, he/she correctly pointed out that Tesla is behind schedule. There is nothing wrong with that conclusion.

> then the stock price is going to drop like a rock

Shouldn't investors know the truth about their investment? Give people a chance to keep their money if the are making a poor investment? (Im not saying Tesla is, but smoke and mirrors is a poor way to present your company to the public)

He didn't lie, and investors that care about the numbers we're talking about here are welcome to look at them.

So perhaps the lesson is savvy investors should ignore the pr and focus on the hard numbers?

> Shouldn't investors know the truth about their investment?

Don't they? Tesla gave the raw numbers. Investors (should) use those to make up their mind.

The message to investors is more about demonstrating that they haven't given up and are still enthusiastic about improving.

What investors flee from is demoralized companies where the leaders are burned out or have stopped trying to make gains.

> I don't really like Musk but sending positive messages in Investment relations is the key to keeping the company afloat.

Let's see how the SEC will like this line of argumentation.

Stock price is mostly controlled by the sort of investor for whom figuring out a company's prospects is a full-time job for multiple days. PR spin matters, but you should expect the stock price to mainly reflect the numbers, not the spin.

Dishonest is the norm of doing business That does not make them right

It IS a massive positive. The only reason you are complaining is because Musk set some super ambitious goals. But if you read the report, they are already producing as many Model 3s as Model S and S has been in production for 5 years. It is a monumental achievement for a company that only has been selling mass produced cars from 2012

It really reeks of desperation. They are frantically doing anything they can to keep investor confidence but all of their tricks are so worn out and tired now and their debt load and burn rate is so much higher that it isn't going to change anything.

They will go bankrupt. 100%. Maybe they can arrange some buy out or merger to try and save face, but doubtful.

Given their level of candor I am sure their accounting is an Enron style sh-t-show of epic proportions.

That is almost certainly why they had to buy SolarCity. Other than paying off Musk and SpaceX loans they also couldn't afford to have the books opened in bankruptcy court because it would destroy Musk's reputation.

It is coming though.

If you're 100% sure, then you should dump your life savings into shorting Tesla. You'll make a fortune.

I have been hearing this bankruptcy coming for the last 7 years. Yet, Tesla keeps delivering. I remember when the Model X production started, people had already written the obituary because of quality issues. The key thing to note is that Tesla's demand far outstrips supply and Tesla's customer satisfaction rate is over 90%. They can raise any amount of liquidity with those numbers.

> They can raise any amount of liquidity with those numbers.

7.5% bond yield says no.

> I have been hearing this bankruptcy coming for the last 7 years

Yes, the anticipation makes it even sweeter. :)

But seriously, they have been loosing money non-stop and at progressively higher rates for those entire 7 years, so what do you think is going to happen?

“Winners compare their achievements with their goals, while losers compare their achievements with those of other people” -- Nido Qubein

Beyond all the spin, they stated the following important facts:

- Produced 2020 cars and expect to produce the 2000 next week. - Tesla does not require an equity or debt raise this year

I think these two facts laid to rest a number of concerns from last couple week: production rate, running out of money, moody's rating cut. The one major thing that's still pending is the last week's fatal crash.

As far as I can tell, this is a great progress from where we were last week.

The initial 2020 target was 500,000 cars (forecast made early 2016).

Today, they maintain a production target for 2020 of… 1M cars. Despite the delays.

They can achieve 50% of that goal and still be one of the best performing company in recent history. But you would probably insist that it's the biggest miss ever (only half the production target!).

The initial 2018 target was 500,000 cars (forecast made mid 2017).

Today, they are on track to make 120,000.

When this particular company says that their 2020 target is 1M cars, it's a totally meaningless statement.

They built 9766 Model 3 in Q1 and were able to surge out 2000 in the last 7 days, and claim a doubling in their Model 3 production rate over Q1.

Something doesn't really add up there. Regardless of their spin their Q1 must have been hellish on the guys and gals on the floor and in production support.

I hope they can do a sustainable ramp soon so my friends can get their Model 3s.

I would REALLY love to see what their internal messaging on this is.

I can't find the actual memo. But Bloomberg wrote about a leaked memo.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-29/tesla-urg...

> Tesla will suspend Model S and Model X production Thursday and Friday because it’s ahead of target on building those this quarter, Peter Hochholdinger, vice president of production, wrote to employees in a March 21 email obtained by Bloomberg News. An unspecified “limited number” of workers who build those vehicles will have the option to work on the Model 3 line on those two days and Saturday, he said.

They moved workers from the Model S & X lines over to the Model 3. And an unspecified number of "volunteers" also got cracking to make the final spurt.

I was next to Model X at a stoplight last night.

They look nice from a distance, but when you sit up close you can see where every panel and piece of trim just doesn't line up quite right. Sitting in my cheap little Mazda3, I've never noticed any problem with simple fit-and-finish details like that.

I truly hope the Model 3s catch up, but I really think those owners will be in for a world of headaches after delivery.

As much as I want Tesla to win, I messed around with the back-seat center cup-holders in a friend's model 3, and they seem to be constructed with extremely cheap plastic that is quite embarrassing.

It's not just owners. In fact, guarantee service can eat a lot of planned margin for TSLA.

Simply put, carmakers sell each car for X and they assume that on average each car will require Y dollars in a free service, and automaker will end up with Z of profits. If Y is severely underestimated, it may hurt the bottom line.

Yes, honestly every time I've seen one they look kind of cheap.

I also saw a model X, and the doors didnt line up correctly with the chassis. Maybe it was not closed properly? Maybe it was bad construction. I'm not sure.

Edit, added link: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/door-alignment-norma...

The rear doors are a 100% given, especially where the upper chrome trim meets the C pillar. It's like they just threw up their hands at that part of the manufacturing spinup.

But, the longer you look, the more mistakes you see.

That’s a photo from 2 years ago?

I have a Model S expensive Ford Truck and the panels don't line up perfectly either. It's not JUST a Tesla problem.

2,020 is under Elon's 2,500 prediction, but well above the 1,000-1,500 expectations of those shorting the stock (unless the shorts' articles were deliberately misleading, of course).

Also, according to the release, those are customer-delivered numbers. Overall, a good trajectory and a sign of long-term health.

Yeah, if they're able to consistently hit that weekly number (and continue to improve upon it) this is some much-needed good news for Tesla.

They need to improve on it, badly. Operating a line at 40% capacity is terrible for your bankaccount.

Shorts? Misleading? Never.

The game around Tesla stock is pure and simple speculation - by all sides. There is no world that justifies the current value of Tesla's stock, and there is also clear evidence that there is significant illegal market manipulation by shorts.. This is becoming more of a problem. Remember the fairly benign AMD "security" issue where it was discovered that root users could update security code? The announcement of that exploit came with a "this should drive AMD stock to zero" comment.

Just a little bit over oversight please, SEC?

Originally Tesla was predicting to produce 5,000 per week in March 2018. The prediction was later downsized to 2,500 and now they didn't even reach that.

Investors have been funding Tesla so far based on all these predictions. I don't see any sign of long-term health here now that both targets have not been met.

2,020 is about halfway between 1,500 and 2,500. It’s almost like both sides are selling hyperbole around a truth in the middle.

Except that wasn't the prediction, the prediction was 5K / week:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/tesla-predicts-production-...

Worth posting Bloomberg's Tesla Model 3 Tracker, which contains a model attempting to independently estimate production, as well as background info about Tesla's past projections: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/

I think most people shouldn't take this tracker seriously as it was wildly off most of the time and was often manually adjusted.

The tracker on Apr. 2 (Google Cache) has an estimate of 12,245 units, which is based off of a confirmed production total of 2,686 at the end of Q4.

http://archive.is/WXoXw

Today's announcement says 9,766 M3s were produced in Q1: 9766 + 2686, i.e. 12452.

They don't seem that far off?

It was adjusted manually in the beginning of the month. In March it was all over the place. I think unofficial tracker like this, even with all the disclaimers, actually makes this worse.

I clicked on this article expecting a graph of an exponential curve, and they utterly failed to deliver. Who cares how many cars they’re making, if they can’t make a decent exponential curve? That is the #1 priority product of any California hype house! How are we supposed to believe they’ll amount to anything if they can’t show us a trend line that would consume all matter on the planet by 2045?

Despite the disappointment of missing the goal of 2500 cars, this is good news. Tesla came reasonably close to their goal and certainly won't stop at that number. To put the number into scale, they made as many Model 3 in the last week as Model S and X combined. That means, Tesla is on a good track to produce at least twice as many cars in 2018 as they did in 2017, which already was a record year.

GM/Toyota/NUUMI would produce four times vehicles in the same amount of time in that plant. (about 120 to 130k/quarter, depending on the nuumi production numbers you believe)

Maybe. Some of the production process is brilliant. At the same time, some of it is far less sophisticated than you might imagine from much publicized reports. And they have skeletons, alright.

You could be comparing apples and grapefruits here.

It has been reported that Tesla makes a lot of thier own parts. So more of the total supply chain for manufacturing the car exists in that plant.

For example Tesla manufacturers thier own motor in the plant were the NUMMI plant would have had thier ICE motors pre-assembled.

Tesla asked for volunteers to staff the assembly lines last week. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-29/tesla-urg...

I personally am bearish on this. If they worked so hard, but only made it to 2000 / week (their goal was 5000/week by December2017. They lowered it to 2500 this past week), then its all just marketing spin to make 2000/week look better, which is still missing their original targets.

Volunteer staff while cutting Model S / Model X production (and moving that staff over to the Model 3 lines) is not sustainable. They could do it for one week to pad out the numbers, but they need real growth to remain solvent over the next year.

Ignoring the 2000/week spurt last week, the other 7000 Model 3 cars were made over the course of 11 weeks. That's roughly 650ish Model3 cars made per week, on the average (when looking at it across the quarter). This is actually less than the 793/week Model 3 they did at the end of Q4.

Bloomberg estimates that Tesla's overall production has grown to 1000/week or maybe a little bit above that, which might be closer to the "sustainable" size (ie: not counting the volunteer staff + spurt last week).

I'd be surprised if Tesla makes 30,000 Model 3s next quarter (which is still grossly below their target of 5000/week by Dec2017).

Tesla NEEDS 5000/week. 2000/week is still very low and unsustainable for this company.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2018-04-03/...

> "Tesla continues to target a production rate of approximately 5,000 units per week in about three months, laying the groundwork for Q3 to have the long-sought ideal combination of high volume, good gross margin and strong positive operating cash flow," it said.

> "As a result, Tesla does not require an equity or debt raise this year, apart from standard credit lines."

> Ignoring the 2000/week spurt last week, the other 7000 Model 3 cars were made over the course of 11 weeks

Exactly. The 2000 number is complete B.S. They just held back nearly finished units and the "completed" them all in the last week so they could release a semi-decent number without technically lying, but they are nowhere close to target.

"Q1 deliveries totaled 29,980 vehicles, of which 11,730 were Model S, 10,070 were Model X, and 8,180 were Model 3"

"In Q4, Tesla delivered 29,870 vehicles, of which 15,200 were Model S, 13,120 were Model X, and 1,550 were Model 3." - http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=1053245

Model S/X: -23% deliveries. That is a BIG problem. Falling demand for S/X and inability to sell at sticker price (where they still lose money) and replacing that with another model that they lose even more money on is not a great "growth" story.

Well, I think many people don't want to understand that ambitious targets are most likely to be missed. So missing the target is actually what is going to happen and the real question is by how much.

So some might ask, why setting a goal that is unlikely to be reached and not simply set a realistic target?

Changing the automotive world isn't realistic. So if you would go with a realistic target you could have shutdown Tesla years ago. Nevertheless, there is an actual risk involved in setting the targets too high as burning people and investors can cause real problems.

Yet, I think it is best to judge Tesla by their actual performance and not so much by the fact that they missed their ambitious targets.

There's a number of questions on this thread about Telsa's production uptick being about "burning the late night oil" or automation. Does anyone have any reliable insight into this question?

And, regarding their automation, a few honest questions:

1. How much automation are we talking about, compared to the status quo?

2. How much of the automation is reusable across other models? Are they building up a repeatable model to increase scale at a lower cost?

Both are important.

They haven't ramped up automation yet, so right now they're burning the midnight oil on both regular production (i.e. likely with a similar labor/automation mix as typical manufacturers) AND tuning automation. Trying to do both simultaneously on a compressed timescale is what makes this hard.

> The quality of Model 3 coming out of production is at the highest level we have seen across all our products.

I am dumbfounded by this statement, weren't tons of images and videos of huge gaps between sections on Model 3s?

He does not even acknowledge it happened, so I cannot assume that it is meant to say that the issues were fixed.

Am I missing something? Otherwise that's incredibly misleading.

The joke is an indication their position is stronger than perceived. That's his warped sense of humor, and something he's probably been longing to do (once the time was right). I predict this press will be the first of many positive releases from Tesla. While they flew very close to the sun, the wings have held, and they will be soaring from here.

Why is this posted on HN?

I know there are a lot of people here who are so into Tesla. But this does not fit the HN content guidelines in anyway...

Which content guidelines are you talking about?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

> Anything that good hackers would find interesting.

How is quarterly statement from a Car company interesting to "good hackers" or how is this gratifying intellectual curiosity in anyway? If you want to discuss the financial/production reports of the company you can go to the forums dedicated to it...

How come someone that's been here less than 2 months and who has two 'Ask HN's to his name one of which is flagged feels they get to dicate what should and should not be on the site?

The Tesla story is interesting to 'good hackers' because it is a company that does exactly the kind of thing that 'good hackers' love to read about: disrupt a bunch of incumbents. The fact that Elon Musk started out as a nobody that came to the United States in order to chase his dreams and is actually doing just that coupled with the fact that I suspect that a large number of HN readers either has a position in Tesla and/or drives a Tesla (or covets one) means there is a pretty good chance that substantial articles about Tesla will get upvoted.

If you can't deal with that rather than telling the people here to go elsewhere maybe you should go elsewhere or at least attempt to add to the discussion in some constructive way.

>The Tesla story is interesting to 'good hackers' because it is a company that does exactly the kind of thing that 'good hackers' love to read about

That it like saying Physicists will be interested in the bowel movements of Einstein because he is a brilliant physicist..

Tesla may be an interesting company to "hackers" or what ever. But does the article contains anything of that sort? If HN is filled with the quarterly reports of every "interesting" company, that would be bad, right?

If it contained a technique, or an interesting idea that Tesla is employing, then it would have been ok.

Clear?

You do realize how HN works right? If none cared it would not get upvoted.

To be fair, quarterly reports for companies like Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and Google often make the front page. And HN is just as interested in Tesla as those companies. Furthermore, this is a particularly interesting quarterly report for Tesla, as it comes after Tesla faces serious questions about its production shortfalls, on top of the other bad news (fatal AP crash, huge recall for Model S, Moody's downgrade) it has received this past week.

"Tesla Goes Bankrupt
Palo Alto, California, April 1, 2018 --

Despite intense efforts to raise money, including a last-ditch mass sale of Easter Eggs, we are sad to report that Tesla has gone completely and totally bankrupt. So bankrupt, you can't believe it."

- Elon Musk

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/980566101124722688

For those who didn't already get it, it's an April Fool's joke.

Indeed. Given the number of down votes, either folks didn't catch that, or it's all the short sellers :)

Or maybe it was a lame joke by the CEO of a publicly traded company and as such totally out of order.

That joke might have been funny if Tesla was making 7500 model 3 cars / week.

Agreed. Can't wait to live in a world where CEOs can control themselves and refrain from cracking a quick joke on April Fools Day.

With being listed on the stock exchange comes a certain amount of responsibility. If you can't control yourself from making jokes about your company going bankrupt then maybe you should stay private?

Keep in mind there are people's savings on the line here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com