Official Tesla Model 3 thread

[EVDRIVER]

Do you track Nissan and other EV deliveries as well or are only Teslas your passion? What are the numbers like for Nissan deliveries?

I’m old enough to remember when he swore up and down Tesla wouldn’t sell 100k cars a year and couldn’t possibly do any firmware updates beyond infotainment and such because he owns an oscilloscope and definitely knows how these things work.

He’s best ignored.

Your links to the above and specific ECUs (modules) that Tesla has used OTAs to do a complete firmware update or just minor
coding tweaks are? It's highly doubtful you have any concept/understanding of what a firmware update to a vehicle ECU really is.

Anything other than an ad hominem to post?

How about you back up your claims and I will back mine? In fact let's make it worth my time, I'll organize a demo if needed or provide acceptable evidence. I could use a spare LEAF EV and wouldn't you like a Model 3? I can prove that Tesla can even update third party parts firmware like Bosch ESP and has done so many times. Let's see how sure you really are, you seem to run and hide when you need to back your claims or misleading statements.

 

[lorenfb]

SoCal has been one of Tesla's biggest domestic markets. During the latter half of 2018, the Marina Del Rey Tesla delivery center at month
end has had large numbers of M3s in the delivery lots and with customers arriving to take deliveries. This hasn't been the case for month
ends for Q1 of 2019. This situation appears to have been repeated for April. So either Tesla has better managed April deliveries over the
last few weeks, or the poor Q1 marginal delivery rate, i.e. a significant demand reduction, has continued. Some may argue that the above
is no more than anecdotal data which can't be extrapolated as indicative of an overall M3 demand decline. Yes, there's some basis to that,
but given the population (10M) of LA County, this market would still be considered a bellwether of vehicle demand. One would expect April
U.S. M3 deliveries to be at least 50% of an ideal monthly total production of 25K - 30K units, exceeding the March U.S. deliveries of 10K.

Hopefully, data from InsideEVs tomorrow will provide some insight. Lately, though, InsideEVs has not been able to provide Tesla data
until a few days after most all other EV data has been posted.

Our estimates show that Tesla delivered some 10,050 Model 3 to U.S. buyers in April 2019. That's slightly down compared to the 10,175 in March, but hugely up compared to the 5,750 we estimated for February and 6,500 we estimated for January and it blows away the year-over-year figure from April 2018 (3,750 Model 3 estimated sales in the U.S.).

And the M3 demand hasn't declined versus Q4 of 2018? And about those MS/MX numbers (total ~ 2K) for April? That's a 24k annual U.S.
run rate for 2019, i.e. 50% of 2018. Another projected loss for Tesla in Q2, right?

InsideEVs needs to use U.S. Q4 of 2018 M3 average deliveries of 20K per month as a comparative baseline and NOT April of 2018
which distorts the demand inference.

 

[jlv]

But we all know that 12/18 US deliveries were higher than normal because of people getting cars before the tax credit halved - deliveries were up 1/3 up over the prior month across the board. And we all know that starting in January deliveries started to Europe.

So to point to the higher year-end numbers as the base and then to point to the Q1 numbers and say "oh look, sales are down" is just distorting the trend.

Frankly, I expect a similar surge in June deliveries as the tax credit halves again.

 

[EVDRIVER]

BMW sold 12,361 cars in the US in April. That is all cars combined. 2,3,4,5,6,7 series and the I3, I8, X1, and X2

The model 3 almost matched those sales in total last month. The M3 is an EV FYI. A poor selling one supposedly.

 

[EVDRIVER]

Crickets Loren......

 

[lorenfb]

BMW sold 12,361 cars in the US in April. That is all cars combined. 2,3,4,5,6,7 series and the I3, I8, X1, and X2

The model 3 almost matched those sales in total last month. The M3 is an EV FYI. A poor selling one supposedly.

So what! The present issue is Tesla's growth rate (increasing demand) to survive and achieve a level of profitability.
If BMW sells less vehicles and is profitable, they will survive long term to supply the EV market when it becomes
a viable/profitable market.

 

[EVDRIVER]

BMW sold 12,361 cars in the US in April. That is all cars combined. 2,3,4,5,6,7 series and the I3, I8, X1, and X2

The model 3 almost matched those sales in total last month. The M3 is an EV FYI. A poor selling one supposedly.

So what! The present issue is Tesla's growth rate (increasing demand) to survive and achieve a level of profitability.
If BMW sells less vehicles and is profitable, they will survive long term to supply the EV market when it becomes
a viable/profitable market.

Wrong again and Still crickets on my other post. Are you going to put up or shut up?

 

[lorenfb]

I’m old enough to remember when he swore up and down Tesla wouldn’t sell 100k cars a year and couldn’t possibly do any firmware updates beyond infotainment and such because he owns an oscilloscope and definitely knows how these things work.

He’s best ignored.

Your links to the above and specific ECUs (modules) that Tesla has used OTAs to do a complete firmware update or just minor
coding tweaks are? It's highly doubtful you have any concept/understanding of what a firmware update to a vehicle ECU really is.

Anything other than an ad hominem to post?

'
They can flash the firmware at the component level, not just coding tweaks. Stop with your old OEM part supplier mentality and constant Tesla trolling which is 95% the reason you come to this site.

OK, let's start with a very basic automotive controller (ECU), an ABS/Traction control unit.

1. Who's the Tesla vendor for the ECU? Surely Telsa doesn't waste engineering resources designing that generic type of
an automotive ECU, right?
2. Whose microcontroller (processor) is being used in the ECU, e.g. STMicro? Are there multiple processors being used,
e.g. for redundancy/backup?
3. What is the word width of the processors, e.g. 32/64 bit?
4. Who has control of the source code? Can Tesla change the source code?
5. Does Tesla have a complete description of the algorithm being for the braking system? Does the design include
a Fast Fourier processor, e.g. Texas Inst, to analyze analog data, e.g. wheel speeds? Can that unique algorithm be changed?
6. Does Tesla have a compiler for the source code?
7. Does the Tesla MCU receive the OTA re-flash file and control the re-flash process? Please describe in detail.
8. Is there a buffer memory in each ECU to store the re-flash file to avoid data transfer problems over the Tesla CAN network
while the re-flash process occurs? Does the ECU have a dedicated processor within the ECU to control the re-flash process?
9. What's the typical re-flash time per ECU?
10. Is the re-flash file stored after the OTA process to be used by the ECU when the vehicle is in the shut-down mode? If so, where is
the re-flash file stored?

Hopefully, you understand the above, right? You can always ask Elon for the answers, surely he knows the details of the OTA process.

 

[EVDRIVER]

Your links to the above and specific ECUs (modules) that Tesla has used OTAs to do a complete firmware update or just minor
coding tweaks are? It's highly doubtful you have any concept/understanding of what a firmware update to a vehicle ECU really is.

Anything other than an ad hominem to post?

'
They can flash the firmware at the component level, not just coding tweaks. Stop with your old OEM part supplier mentality and constant Tesla trolling which is 95% the reason you come to this site.

OK, let's start with a very basic automotive controller (ECU), an ABS/Traction control unit.

1. Who's the Tesla vendor for the ECU? Surely Telsa doesn't waste engineering resources designing that generic type of
an automotive ECU, right?
2. Whose microcontroller (processor) is being used in the ECU, e.g. STMicro? Are there multiple processors being used,
e.g. for redundancy/backup?
3. What is the word width of the processors, e.g. 32/64 bit?
4. Who has control of the source code? Can Tesla change the source code?
5. Does Tesla have a complete description of the algorithm being for the braking system? Does the design include
a Fast Fourier processor, e.g. Texas Inst, to analyze analog data, e.g. wheel speeds? Can that unique algorithm be changed?
6. Does Tesla have a compiler for the source code?
7. Does the Tesla MCU receive the OTA re-flash file and control the re-flash process? Please describe in detail.
8. Is there a buffer memory in each ECU to store the re-flash file to avoid data transfer problems over the Tesla CAN network
while the re-flash process occurs? Does the ECU have a dedicated processor within the ECU to control the re-flash process?
9. What's the typical re-flash time per ECU?
10. Is the re-flash file stored after the OTA process to be used by the ECU when the vehicle is in the shut-down mode? If so, where is
the re-flash file stored?

Hopefully, you understand the above, right? You can always ask Elon for the answers, surely he knows the details of the OTA process.

I'm not going to address every question but yes it works as you describe. Do you want me to explain it all so you can feel comfortable or not ? Sorry, you claim it is not possible and I understand all of the above and claim it is, it is a yes/no. I don't need to ask Elon I will show you.Take the bet or not but stick to it once you do. It's clear to me you don't know the real answer and you are trying to assess your exposure. Stop posting guesses or back it up because I will.

 

[lpickup]

BMW sold 12,361 cars in the US in April. That is all cars combined. 2,3,4,5,6,7 series and the I3, I8, X1, and X2

The model 3 almost matched those sales in total last month. The M3 is an EV FYI. A poor selling one supposedly.

So what! The present issue is Tesla's growth rate (increasing demand) to survive and achieve a level of profitability.
If BMW sells less vehicles and is profitable, they will survive long term to supply the EV market when it becomes
a viable/profitable market.

Ummmm....they've already ticked the "survive" and "achieved profitability" boxes. While it's not as high as they'd prefer, the profit margin on the Model 3, at the volumes they are selling today, is about 20%. Much better than the competition.

But it has to be, not because there is an issue with survivability, but because Tesla's objective is to grow the company even more, and to do that requires significant cash flow. So while it is important to grow Model 3, it's not required for the reasons you stated.

 

[cwerdna]

Ummmm....they've already ticked the "survive" and "achieved profitability" boxes. While it's not as high as they'd prefer, the profit margin on the Model 3, at the volumes they are selling today, is about 20%. Much better than the competition.

They've achieved profitably for only a handful of quarters. Their cumulative net losses (including their few profitable quarters) is north of $6 billion. Their debt when I last checked was past $9 billion, so I think it's soon to be $11 billion w/recent $2 billion capital raise.

As for profit margin, Tesla's figure is inflated due to not including R&D as part of cost of automotive revenues. See http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=534035#p534035. Will type more on this later.

 

[lorenfb]

BMW sold 12,361 cars in the US in April. That is all cars combined. 2,3,4,5,6,7 series and the I3, I8, X1, and X2

The model 3 almost matched those sales in total last month. The M3 is an EV FYI. A poor selling one supposedly.

So what! The present issue is Tesla's growth rate (increasing demand) to survive and achieve a level of profitability.
If BMW sells less vehicles and is profitable, they will survive long term to supply the EV market when it becomes
a viable/profitable market.

Ummmm....they've already ticked the "survive" and "achieved profitability" boxes. While it's not as high as they'd prefer, the profit margin on the Model 3, at the volumes they are selling today, is about 20%. Much better than the competition.

But it has to be, not because there is an issue with survivability, but because Tesla's objective is to grow the company even more, and to do that requires significant cash flow. So while it is important to grow Model 3, it's not required for the reasons you stated.

Did you overlook this post: http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=18016&start=3540#p555236

So given Tesla's overhead financial structure, Tesla will continue to lose money without an increase in product demand.
And since all three Tesla products are experiencing a reduced volume in 2019 versus Q4 of 2018, Tesla will continue
to hemorrhage financially. The capital markets will only tolerate this, "surviving", for so long!

Remember, GP (gross profit) per vehicle gets multiplied by product volume to offset overhead, i.e. CAPEX, R&D, & Sales.

 

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

Ummmm....they've already ticked the "survive" and "achieved profitability" boxes. While it's not as high as they'd prefer, the profit margin on the Model 3, at the volumes they are selling today, is about 20%. Much better than the competition.

They've achieved profitably for only a handful of quarters. Their cumulative net losses (including their few profitable quarters) is north of $6 billion. Their debt when I last checked was past $9 billion, so I think it's soon to be $11 billion w/recent $2 billion capital raise.

As for profit margin, Tesla's figure is inflated due to not including R&D as part of cost of automotive revenues. See http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=534035#p534035. Will type more on this later.

Yes, Tesla's 10Q lists "Total liabilities" as $9.2B, but they also list "Total current assets" (doesn't include value of factory and tooling, which is a depreciating asset worth almost $10B) as $7.6B.

So you might want to rethink how complete your info really is?

As for Tesla's R&D. True, Tesla's gross margin figure doesn't include R&D, like how the traditional automakers do it. But Tesla has always calculated R&D like the tech companies and factored it into operating expenses, just like SG&A. This is actually more correct, since R&D is labor and mostly done in-house, unlike the traditional automakers which contract out the subsystem work.

 

[webb14leafs]

People post as if they're accounting experts and that the numbers show Tesla's demise is assured. Why then, are major financial institutions with huge accounting/analytical staffs lining up to give Tesla money?

Nothing is assurred. Tesla might fail, it might succeed. To say the numbers are horrible is just ignorant though. Bottom line is they are dominating a nascent market. They currently have a product (M3) with very respectable sales, even though the style and price point don't match the overall market. The margins are solid, and if you only consider the current models they are near sustained profitability. They have a bigger moat (network) than any other car company. The potential is there. Throw in a few more models that match current demand, and it starts to make sense. Maintain the current growth trend for energy storage and it makes even more sense.

Tesla might fail. It might not. Don't pretend either is a sure thing.

 

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

People post as if they're accounting experts and that the numbers show Tesla's demise is assured. Why then, are major financial institutions with huge accounting/analytical staffs lining up to give Tesla money?

Nothing is assurred. Tesla might fail, it might succeed. To say the numbers are horrible is just ignorant though. Bottom line is they are dominating a nascent market. They currently have a product (M3) with very respectable sales, even though the style and price point don't match the overall market. The margins are solid, and if you only consider the current models they are near sustained profitability. They have a bigger moat (network) than any other car company. The potential is there. Throw in a few more models that match current demand, and it starts to make sense. Maintain the current growth trend for energy storage and it makes even more sense.

Tesla might fail. It might not. Don't pretend either is a sure thing.

Not an accountant, but learning to read the 10Q isn't that hard after doing it for 7 years. Two decades of stock investing also taught me how to identify who did their own research and who are just parroting info they've read elsewhere.

Although you're pointing out the flaw in some short investors, throwing your hands up and "trusting" (relying on them to not be playing an angle) the investment bankers in their "investment" of Tesla is equally bad. Take the time to understand the financial documents of any company you invest in, even if you're not a CPA.

 

[lorenfb]

They currently have a product (M3) with very respectable sales, even though the style and price point don't match the overall market.

So Tesla does have a problem, which is affecting demand, right? Can you explain this, "very respectable sales", with some detail,
given that now the demand for all Tesla vehicles has declined in the first four months of 2019 versus Q4 of 2018? Remember,
both Nokia & Blackberry had "very respectable sales" and GPs, notwithstanding Apple. Tesla is nowhere near achieving critical
mass in the automotive marketplace, i.e. to compete with the likes of GM, Toyota, VW, etc.!

The margins are solid, and if you only consider the current models they are near sustained profitability.

You like many ignore the fact that without an adequate sales volume, stating a product's GP per vehicle is a non-sequitur.

 

[EVDRIVER]

They currently have a product (M3) with very respectable sales, even though the style and price point don't match the overall market.

So Tesla does have a problem, which is affecting demand, right? Can you explain this, "very respectable sales", with some detail,
given that now the demand for all Tesla vehicles has declined in the first four months of 2019 versus Q4 of 2018? Remember,
both Nokia & Blackberry had "very respectable sales" and GPs, notwithstanding Apple. Tesla is nowhere near achieving critical
mass in the automotive marketplace, i.e. to compete with the likes of GM, Toyota, VW, etc.!

The margins are solid, and if you only consider the current models they are near sustained profitability.

You like many ignore the fact that without an adequate sales volume, stating a product's GP per vehicle is a non-sequitur.

\What company has adequate EV sales volume? You assume all factors will remain the same in Tesla sales and you ignore many temporary factors. . Nissan and all other EV companies are in the dumps but based on your subsidy model that is ok. Do you have your pink slip ready by the way?

 

[lorenfb]

\What company has adequate EV sales volume? You assume all factors will remain the same in Tesla sales and you ignore many temporary factors. . Nissan and all other EV companies are in the dumps but based on your subsidy model that is ok. Do you have your pink slip ready by the way?

Viability in the automotive marketplace can't be based on the present very limited EV volume. The present EV volume is insignificant
compared to ICEVs for most all OEMs, and as such the profitability is marginal at best. The key question then becomes; How long
can Tesla continue to receive new funding without achieving a critical mass volume in a very limited EV market?

 

[webb14leafs]

They currently have a product (M3) with very respectable sales, even though the style and price point don't match the overall market.

So Tesla does have a problem, which is affecting demand, right? Can you explain this, "very respectable sales", with some detail,
given that now the demand for all Tesla vehicles has declined in the first four months of 2019 versus Q4 of 2018? Remember,
both Nokia & Blackberry had "very respectable sales" and GPs, notwithstanding Apple. Tesla is nowhere near achieving critical
mass in the automotive marketplace, i.e. to compete with the likes of GM, Toyota, VW, etc.!

The margins are solid, and if you only consider the current models they are near sustained profitability.

You like many ignore the fact that without an adequate sales volume, stating a product's GP per vehicle is a non-sequitur.

I'm not ignoring anything. That's kinda my point. There are two sides to this debate over whether Tesla will survive or go bankrupt.

Even at Q1 volume, the M3 dominates the EV market, and the ICE market for its class. I'll call that respectable. Feel free to disagree.

Tesla has work to do, and will need to burn cash to get there. I'm not ignoring, or even arguing against that fact. It has a plethora of major financial institutions ready to lend it the money to burn. I'm saying that there's a chance...JUST A CHANCE... that these financial institutions might...MIGHT... employ a few people who are better at making investing decisions than your average forum troller.

Call me crazy...

 

[EVDRIVER]

They currently have a product (M3) with very respectable sales, even though the style and price point don't match the overall market.

So Tesla does have a problem, which is affecting demand, right? Can you explain this, "very respectable sales", with some detail,
given that now the demand for all Tesla vehicles has declined in the first four months of 2019 versus Q4 of 2018? Remember,
both Nokia & Blackberry had "very respectable sales" and GPs, notwithstanding Apple. Tesla is nowhere near achieving critical
mass in the automotive marketplace, i.e. to compete with the likes of GM, Toyota, VW, etc.!

The margins are solid, and if you only consider the current models they are near sustained profitability.

You like many ignore the fact that without an adequate sales volume, stating a product's GP per vehicle is a non-sequitur.

I'm not ignoring anything. That's kinda my point. There are two sides to this debate over whether Tesla will survive or go bankrupt.

Even at Q1 volume, the M3 dominates the EV market, and the ICE market for its class. I'll call that respectable. Feel free to disagree.

Tesla has work to do, and will need to burn cash to get there. I'm not ignoring, or even arguing against that fact. It has a plethora of major financial institutions ready to lend it the money to burn. I'm saying that there's a chance...JUST A CHANCE... that these financial institutions might...MIGHT... employ a few people who are better at making investing decisions than your average forum troller.

Call me crazy...

Soon to be ex forum troller if things do not change soon.