TSLA corporate outlook

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Via IEVS:
Tesla Returns Unlimited Supercharging To Current Owners
http://insideevs.com/tesla-returns-lifetime-unlimited-charging-to-current-owners/
In a move that caught everyone off guard, Tesla has retroactively given all of its existing Model S and Model X owners unlimited free Supercharging, including those who had been switched to the new paid-subscription service.

Previously, all those who purchased a new Tesla (after January 15th) were switched from the original unlimited use-for-life Supercharging program, to one that limited the “free” portion of charging to the first 400 kWh per year, after which fees were introduced.

The decision to make the change seems to be connected to a new referral program announced at the same time:

Starting May 19, 2017, Tesla owners can give five friends free unlimited Supercharging and a $1,000 credit toward a new Model S or Model X with their personal referral code. . . .

We should note that the new program changes the terms of what unlimited charging means to recently upgraded (and future) owners, as Tesla’s disclaimer notes that upon re-sale, the free Supercharging does not transfer to the new owner. . . .
 
Tesla factory workers reveal pain, injury and stress: 'Everything feels like the future but us'

When Tesla bought a decommissioned car factory in Fremont, California, Elon Musk transformed the old-fashioned, unionized plant into a much-vaunted “factory of the future”, where giant robots named after X-Men shape and fold sheets of metal inside a gleaming white mecca of advanced manufacturing.

The appetite for Musk’s electric cars, and his promise to disrupt the carbon-reliant automobile industry, has helped Tesla’s value exceed that of both Ford and, briefly, General Motors (GM). But some of the human workers who share the factory with their robotic counterparts complain of grueling pressure – which they attribute to Musk’s aggressive production goals – and sometimes life-changing injuries.

Ambulances have been called more than 100 times since 2014 for workers experiencing fainting spells, dizziness, seizures, abnormal breathing and chest pains, according to incident reports obtained by the Guardian. Hundreds more were called for injuries and other medical issues.

In a phone interview about the conditions at the factory, which employs about 10,000 workers, the Tesla CEO conceded his workers had been “having a hard time, working long hours, and on hard jobs”, but said he cared deeply about their health and wellbeing. His company says its factory safety record has significantly improved over the last year...

“We’re a money-losing company,” Musk added. “This is not some situation where, for example, we are just greedy capitalists who decided to skimp on safety in order to have more profits and dividends and that kind of thing. It’s just a question of how much money we lose. And how do we survive? How do we not die and have everyone lose their jobs?”

Musk’s account of the company’s approach differs from that of the 15 current and former factory workers who told the Guardian of a culture of long hours under intense pressure, sometimes through pain and injury, in order to fulfill the CEO’s ambitious production goals...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/18/tesla-workers-factory-conditions-elon-musk
 
https://youtu.be/bAWq2HE9wmU
You wouldn't expect all these problems to happen to a $120k car...

Actually those are exactly the kinds of problems you should expect with a $120k car... you wouldn't expect them with a $20k car though
 
GRA said:
Via IEVS:
Tesla Returns Unlimited Supercharging To Current Owners
http://insideevs.com/tesla-returns-lifetime-unlimited-charging-to-current-owners/
In a move that caught everyone off guard, Tesla has retroactively given all of its existing Model S and Model X owners unlimited free Supercharging, including those who had been switched to the new paid-subscription service.

Previously, all those who purchased a new Tesla (after January 15th) were switched from the original unlimited use-for-life Supercharging program, to one that limited the “free” portion of charging to the first 400 kWh per year, after which fees were introduced.

The decision to make the change seems to be connected to a new referral program announced at the same time:

Starting May 19, 2017, Tesla owners can give five friends free unlimited Supercharging and a $1,000 credit toward a new Model S or Model X with their personal referral code. . . .

We should note that the new program changes the terms of what unlimited charging means to recently upgraded (and future) owners, as Tesla’s disclaimer notes that upon re-sale, the free Supercharging does not transfer to the new owner. . . .
It appears that those of us with older cars not only have free unlimited Supercharging (called "FUSC" in the Tesla community) on our current cars, but on any future S/X cars we buy as well:
You have free, unlimited Supercharging, including your current Tesla and any new Model S or Model X you purchase. If you choose to sell your current Tesla, free Supercharging will transfer to the next owner. In addition, up to five friends you refer will also receive free Supercharging.
This is a nice benefit for current S/X owners and will allow them to trade in for a newer car in the future without losing FUSC, if I understand it correctly.


Not that I expect anyone here to be interested, since MNL tends to be rather anti-Tesla, as one can see from many, many posts above, but here's my referral code...
 
The numbers are in for Tesla from: http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

Summary YTD for U.S.:
S - 8845, X - 6745, Total - 15590 (for 2016 YTD was 12185 - only a 22% increase for YTD U.S. over '16)

Assuming 65% U.S. then WW - 24K, or assuming 50% U.S. then WW - 31K

Assuming that Tesla plans to achieve in excess of 100K sales for 2017 (2016 - 76K), then Tesla needs to deliver
worst case about 76K or in the best case about 69K. That amounts to an average combined S & X delivery rate
of about 11K units per month WW worst case or about 10K best case. The highest delivery rate occurred this
year in March (U.S. ~ 5.6K, @ 50% WW 11.2K). So if can achieve for the balance of the year, a delivery rate
exceeding March '17, then Tesla may achieve 100K deliveries for 2017. Good luck Elon!

Note: Above assumptions based on Model 3 being insignificant for 2017.
 
Via IEVS:
Elon Musk Leaves President Trump’s Council Over Paris Climate Accord Withdrawal
http://insideevs.com/elon-musk-trumps-council-paris/

My knee-jerk reaction was that he should over this; OTOH, it's not as if there was much doubt what the President was going to do, so the reasons for him staying on the council remain valid.
 
GRA said:
Via IEVS:
Elon Musk Leaves President Trump’s Council Over Paris Climate Accord Withdrawal
http://insideevs.com/elon-musk-trumps-council-paris/
My knee-jerk reaction was that he should over this; OTOH, it's not as if there was much doubt what the President was going to do, so the reasons for him staying on the council remain valid.
Agree. It would be better if he is on the inside, rather than outside. Maybe who could wrestle some tax credit extension.
 
Via GCR:
AAA raises Tesla insurance rates 30 percent; company disputes analysis
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1110823_aaa-raises-tesla-insurance-rates-30-percent-company-disputes-analysis
AAA combed through its own data and found Model S and Model X owners had abnormally high claim rates. The claim rates were also much costlier than competing vehicles in the Model S and Model X's respected classes. After cross-investigating AAA's data with the Highway Loss Data Institute, AAA announced insurance rates could rise 30 percent for the vehicles.

Tesla immediately refuted all claims by AAA and the Highway Loss Data Institute, according to Automotive News.

"This analysis is severely flawed and is not reflective of reality," Tesla said in a statement. "Among other things, it compares Model S and X to cars that are not remotely peers, including even a Volvo station wagon."

AAA is confident the data speaks for itself.

"Looking at a much broader set of countrywide data, we saw the same patterns observed in our own data, and that gave us the confidence to change rates," Anthony Ptasznik, chief actuary of AAA, said.

The Model S is involved in 46 percent more claims than average, and the claims cost twice as much than the average. Model X owners filed claims 41 percent more often compared to the average and repairs cost 89 percent more than the average insurance claim. . . .

IEVS version:
AAA Raises Insurance Premiums For Tesla: High Claim Frequency, Costly Repairs
http://insideevs.com/insurance-raises-tesla-model-s-x/
It turns out Tesla’s forward thinking regarding the Insure My Tesla program may be a necessary step. . . . [GRA note: same details as above re frequency/cost of claims]

Despite all of this, insurance companies are working on new ways to calculate premiums, and vehicle autonomy should play a part. An Ohio insurance startup called Root, bases insurance on driver behavior, which is monitored via a mobile phone app. Root CEO Alex Timm believes that self-driving tech should lower rates as well. Root gives Tesla drivers an additional discount due to the NHTSA’s findings that Autopilot’s Autosteer feature reduces crashes by 40 percent. . . .
 
TSLA is a pioneer... in manufacturing inefficiency.

Tesla's real capacity problem: Too many people

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said last week the company has run out of space at its Fremont, Calif., plant and is looking to build a second factory.

"There's no room at Fremont," Musk said. "It's bursting at the seams."

But that statement left plenty of industry watchers scratching their heads...

Tesla ... had between 6,000 and 10,000 workers in 2016 and manufactured 83,922 vehicles. That puts its vehicle-per-worker number between 8 and 14, about one-seventh the efficiency of NUMMI at its peak.

"The number of people Musk's got in there has a great deal to do with why he doesn't make money building vehicles," said automotive manufacturing consultant Michael Tracy of Agile Group in Howell, Mich. "Toyota's numbers reflect the number of people you expect to have if you were going to efficiently build vehicles for a profit."...
http://www.autonews.com/article/20170611/OEM01/170619951/teslas-real-capacity-problem-too-many-people
 
edatoakrun said:
TSLA is a pioneer... in manufacturing inefficiency.
I realize this is just snark.
I'm no auto manufacturing consultant but I suspect the breakdown isn't that simple. First, you're comparing peak output of a mature plant to one that is still being built.
Tesla is in the midst of completing a 400,000 car/year line and much of the workforce is probably in place and some fraction is building the line.
Second, Tesla is very vertically integrated. The plant itself builds a lot of the car parts. More than most manufacturers.
NUMMI was just the final assembly-line.
As an extreme comparison, Tesla's European assembly plant in Tilburg already has numbers closer to Toyota's (around 70 cars/worker annually). But they do much less per vehicle than Fremont; bolt drive-trains and battery packs to vehicles and QA.
 
sparky said:
edatoakrun said:
TSLA is a pioneer... in manufacturing inefficiency.
I realize this is just snark.
I'm no auto manufacturing consultant but I suspect the breakdown isn't that simple. First, you're comparing peak output of a mature plant to one that is still being built.
Tesla is in the midst of completing a 400,000 car/year line and much of the workforce is probably in place and some fraction is building the line.
Second, Tesla is very vertically integrated. The plant itself builds a lot of the car parts. More than most manufacturers.
NUMMI was just the final assembly-line.
As an extreme comparison, Tesla's European assembly plant in Tilburg already has numbers closer to Toyota's (around 70 cars/worker annually). But they do much less per vehicle than Fremont; bolt drive-trains and battery packs to vehicles and QA.
Well, NUMMI did a LOT more work than what you describe of the Tilburg plant.

I toured NUMMI before GM went BK and pulled out. I recall stamping, welding besides final assembly of components internal and external + QA at the end, of course. I think we did see "marriage" of the chassis w/the drivetrain.

I think there might've been an engine assembly line for at least 1 of the engines used there (memory foggy), but not all of them since they made the Corolla-based cars like the Pontiac Vibe, Corolla, etc. + the Tacoma.

We didn't get to see the paint shop. I've toured many auto plants and the only one I've been on that let us see the paint shop at all was BMW's in Munich.
 
Germany's Berenberg upgrades TSLA to $464.

Berenberg upgraded Tesla Motors (NASDAQ: TSLA) from Hold to Buy with a price target of $464.00 (from $193.00), saying the threat from traditional OEMs is overestimated and less realistic than perceived.

Analyst Alexander Haissl said beyond "skeleton" strategies and unsubstantial announcements, underlying progress towards dedicated, mass-market electric vehicles (EVs) by traditional OEMs will remain uncompetitive as long as they remain bound to the same low-risk, low-cost approach that has been in place for the past 20 years....
...Haissl says OEM production inefficiencies coupled with a legacy footprint will hamper those manufacturers.
 
sparky said:
Germany's Berenberg upgrades TSLA to $464.

Berenberg upgraded Tesla Motors (NASDAQ: TSLA) from Hold to Buy with a price target of $464.00 (from $193.00), saying the threat from traditional OEMs is overestimated and less realistic than perceived.

Analyst Alexander Haissl said beyond "skeleton" strategies and unsubstantial announcements, underlying progress towards dedicated, mass-market electric vehicles (EVs) by traditional OEMs will remain uncompetitive as long as they remain bound to the same low-risk, low-cost approach that has been in place for the past 20 years....
...Haissl says OEM production inefficiencies coupled with a legacy footprint will hamper those manufacturers.

"Production inefficiencies coupled with a legacy footprint will hamper those manufacturers" - Oh Please! Total Naivete!

Another MBA student that attended the same finance class, "How to Hype a Stock", as did Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley,
presented by the professor's grad student whose key background was trading penny Stocks. Most likely Alex Haissl
hopes to obtain the next round of stock offerings to finance the balance of Tesla's 2017 anticipated negative cash flow.
They both probably missed most of their Product Marketing lectures on "External Threats & Long Term Viable Products".
 
lorenfb said:
sparky said:
Germany's Berenberg upgrades TSLA to $464.

Berenberg upgraded Tesla Motors (NASDAQ: TSLA) from Hold to Buy with a price target of $464.00 (from $193.00), saying the threat from traditional OEMs is overestimated and less realistic than perceived.

Analyst Alexander Haissl said beyond "skeleton" strategies and unsubstantial announcements, underlying progress towards dedicated, mass-market electric vehicles (EVs) by traditional OEMs will remain uncompetitive as long as they remain bound to the same low-risk, low-cost approach that has been in place for the past 20 years....
...Haissl says OEM production inefficiencies coupled with a legacy footprint will hamper those manufacturers.

"Production inefficiencies coupled with a legacy footprint will hamper those manufacturers" - Oh Please! Total Naivete!

Another MBA student that attended the same finance class, "How to Hype a Stock", as did Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley,
presented by the professor's grad student whose key background was trading penny Stocks. Most likely Alex Haissl
hopes to obtain the next round of stock offerings to finance the balance of Tesla's 2017 anticipated negative cash flow.
They both probably missed most of their Product Marketing lectures on "External Threats & Long Term Viable Products".

Your unrelated rant aside, I think that "legacy footprint" will absolutely hamper traditional OEMs as they try to embrace EVs. Their entire business is built upon a ICEVs. They have countless billions invested in manufacturing facilities which cannot simply be retuned to build EVs. The entire infrastructure for sales, service, parts, etc for ICEVs is largely not applicable to EVs.

But it sounds like you'd rather jump to the conclusion that this is a giant conspiracy to hype up Tesla's stock. :roll:
 
GetOffYourGas said:
lorenfb said:
sparky said:

"Production inefficiencies coupled with a legacy footprint will hamper those manufacturers" - Oh Please! Total Naivete!

Another MBA student that attended the same finance class, "How to Hype a Stock", as did Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley,
presented by the professor's grad student whose key background was trading penny Stocks. Most likely Alex Haissl
hopes to obtain the next round of stock offerings to finance the balance of Tesla's 2017 anticipated negative cash flow.
They both probably missed most of their Product Marketing lectures on "External Threats & Long Term Viable Products".

Your unrelated rant aside, I think that "legacy footprint" will absolutely hamper traditional OEMs as they try to embrace EVs. Their entire business is built upon a ICEVs. They have countless billions invested in manufacturing facilities which cannot simply be retuned to build EVs. The entire infrastructure for sales, service, parts, etc for ICEVs is largely not applicable to EVs.

But it sounds like you'd rather jump to the conclusion that this is a giant conspiracy to hype up Tesla's stock. :roll:

Yes, some automotive OEMs may fail by not embracing new technology and significant changes, e.g. Blackberry,
but to imply that most all present ICEV OEMs would not be able/willing to adapt when significant changes necessitate
change is naive. As an obvious example is GM with the Bolt, i.e. the first below $50K 200+ mile BEV. To some, it has
fallen short of the "ideal" market BEV, but GM did produce it. We have yet to see a long term profitable BEV from Tesla,
and the scaled-down version of the Model S, i.e. the Model 3, will be even less profitable further questioning the
long term viability of Tesla.
 
lorenfb said:
Yes, some automotive OEMs may fail by not embracing new technology and significant changes, e.g. Blackberry,
but to imply that most all present ICEV OEMs would not be able/willing to adapt when significant changes necessitate
change is naive. As an obvious example is GM with the Bolt, i.e. the first below $50K 200+ mile BEV. To some, it has
fallen short of the "ideal" market BEV, but GM did produce it. We have yet to see a long term profitable BEV from Tesla,
and the scaled-down version of the Model S, i.e. the Model 3, will be even less profitable further questioning the
long term viability of Tesla.

This much is true. But the original quote said nothing about other OEMs failing. It was talking about their threat to Tesla. Since Tesla is exclusively an EV company, that threat is mostly over the developing EV market. The point is that they are at a competitive disadvantage in this market. The conclusion is that their threat to Tesla is overstated, not that this will become their downfall.

I don't pretend to know what the market will look like in, say, 8 years from now. I do know that I strongly disagree with Mr. Tony Seba. I believe that gas and diesel cars and trucks will continue to be sold, and in large numbers. But there could easily be some shakeups, and bankruptcies in the industry.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
This much is true. But the original quote said nothing about other OEMs failing. It was talking about their threat to Tesla. Since Tesla is exclusively an EV company, that threat is mostly over the developing EV market. The point is that they are at a competitive disadvantage in this market. The conclusion is that their threat to Tesla is overstated, not that this will become their downfall.

To state that ICEV OEMs are at competitive disadvantage to Tesla is naive:

1. The BEV technology is basically "off-the-shelf", e.g. motors & key ECUs are accessible to all ICEV OEMs.
2. Tesla presently possesses no key cost advantage to battery technology/production, i.e. Giga is presently questionable.
Also, Tesla still relies on Panasonic.
3. Tesla's only present key "rent" is its SC network which can easily be displaced by independent energy suppliers, e.g. EVGO.

Yes, major ICEV OEMs are a long term threat to Tesla simply because they can operate profitably long term!
 
I've never thought these surveys were particularly useful myself, but many do take them quite seriously.

IMO, this is just another example of TSLA obsessive-compulsive management, wanting restrict to all access to vehicle data to the greatest extent the law allows.

Even for its own customers...

Why won’t Tesla participate in the J.D. Power quality survey?

‘THEY DON'T WANT TO PLAY THIS GAME’


How do the quality ratings for the 2017 Tesla Model S and Model X compare to competitors?

They don't, based off J.D. Power's 2017 U.S. Initial Quality Study that was released Wednesday. That's not because Tesla Inc. doesn't make quality vehicles, but because it doesn't allow J.D. Power access to its customer registration data for the survey...
http://autoweek.com/article/tesla/why-wont-tesla-participate-jd-power-quality-survey
 
Back
Top