Other car manufacturers are missing what makes Tesla do so well.

It's a lot of things, really. Range, performance, the hope of self-driving, the supercharging network (Which is much bigger than people think!), and of course, the fact that they look like normal cars. Most other EVs like the Leaf are either incredibly lacking in range and performance, or they're incredibly ugly like the BMW i3.

Then you've got cars like the Mullen Qiantu K50 [0] that try to be something special, but other than looks are incredibly lackluster and overpriced. $125K, and its performance and range are on par with a $48K Model 3 LR AWD. They're trying to brand it like a supercar, but it's only a supercar in the looks.

It's crazy to me that other makers can't even get charging done well. Most public CHAdeMO or CCS chargers are only up to 50 kW, while Tesla superchargers are usually 72 kW and sometimes up to 150 kW. Being able to charge quickly is a must when one of your biggest barriers to getting customers is overcoming their range anxiety.

[0] https://mullenusa.com/reserve-qiantu-k50/

Yes and other car manufacturers capital is tied to a return on manufacturing lines of petrol and diesel vehicles so if BMW were to release 7e tomorrow what would happen to the 7 sales.

This is while Telsa is building out a charging network and fighting for a direct to consumer sales model and also possessing a knowledge base of every fault that's ever occurred in it's entire fleet and every Tesla Sale increases the return on Tesla's deployed capital plus a highly dedicated creative resilient workforce that are at the point of smoothing variability and product refinement.

So for BMW to win they have to bet the factory that they will take enough market share while Tesla's quality and brand strengthen. Hence the current share valuation.

Now a lot of people say Elon is a manipulative exaggerator but the fact remains he has built car sensor database company with a carbon advantage that has BMW on the ropes while reigniting a space race. If machine learning can sort the data and it seems to be improving year on year then alot of people who haven't built nearly as much will probably be taking a Tesla to work.

Why do people want Tesla to fail. Economies of scale, improving battery technology and a global charging network and everyone eventually has a cheaper travel option. How revered the founder was is a quite irrelevant.

> Range, performance, the hope of self-driving, the supercharging network (Which is much bigger than people think!), and of course, the fact that they look like normal cars.

The self-driving bit is a risk either way, but I think Tesla is dangerously close to losing out on both the “looking like a normal car” and potentially the performance factor if they’re serious about Cybertruck.

Personally I think cybertruck is a one-off looks wise. The model Y looks totally normal.

Plus I actually think the cybertruck looks awesome (you have to see it as a driving space ship not a car) and the value is amazing - so much range for not that much money. And that thing looks built to last (balls of metal thrown at the windows withstanding)

The glass issue will be solved eventually. And I don't mind a bulletproof car that looks amazing (to me).

>the fact that they look like normal cars

This was my first thought during the Cybertruck unveil. It no longer looks like a normal truck. Rivian was far out originally, but this blew it out the park.

So the question is really, would people want an electric pickup truck that looks like nothing before it?

I'm leaning towards yes, but we have to wait for the market to make its choice to find out for sure.

It looks as much like a conventional truck as the Hummer did, and that was arguably a great success. I think the primary market, at least at first, is going to be guys who want a big flashy truck to be noticed in. I mean, look how much attention Elon gets in it everywhere he goes.

Cybertruck is going to be an Edsel-type blunder if they keep pursuing it. It’s obvious that Elon is a car guy because the Tesla cars all look slick and sporty but he’s obviously not a truck guy and I think he’s utterly misunderstood the market with Cybertruck.

Based on what? Its cheap, can pull lots of stuff fast, you can plug in power tools and it has lots of storage area.

It looks stupid, the trapezoidal side walls around the truck bed actually make it much less usable, and it looks stupid.

The whole problem with eg the BMW i-Series or most other electric cars is that they are designed in a silly way that says, “look at me, I’m a weird electric car, I’m not a normal car at all, I’m willing to look like a total dork in order to virtue-signal about being eco-friendly”. Teslas just look like sports cars—except the Cybertruck’s styling is 100% “dorky virtue signal about having a weird special truck”, and truck people are even less likely than car people to put up with that.

Because you have active suspension you the bed can actually be lower then most trucks. Also overall usability seems like its clearly better on this truck compared to the competition you basically point out one single thing and ignore everything that goes the other direction.

And I think it looks cool, so that literally purely your opinion.

The design of the truck allows it to be produced for 40k and still have quite a bit of range. Those performance and price measures matter. Had they copied an F150 it would cost at least 50k and would not have as much range.

Tesla had to make conservative cars to establish themselves, but a revolutionary brands will not always just copy the competition, specially when trucks are on of the most uninspired markets where literally every vehicle is a copy of the other.

Do you own a truck? What do you use it for and how would the Cybertruck provide an improvement?

I wouldn't characterize Tesla's other cars as "conservative" in the slightest. "Conservative" makes me think of Volvo or Lexus. The Model S is absolutely gorgeous and if any car aficionado saw it, he would say, "that is an absolutely gorgeous car". It literally looks like a better Lamborghini, Ferrari, or Porsche. The Cybertruck provokes reactions somewhere on a spectrum between "what the fuck is that?" and "hmm, that's interesting". Which is roughly the same design space that the Pontiac Aztek, Chrysler PT Cruiser, and BMW i-Series inhabit. It's not fertile ground.

For usability, I looked to see what truck users on /r/Trucks had to say about it.[1][2] Here are some highlights, both positive and negative:

> It’s really damn cool aside from the roof coming to a point. I’m not sure I understand that design decision. However, onboard air compressor, 110v/220v accessory power, fast as shit, good ground clearance, integral bed cover and ramps, air ride suspension, and tough shell to boot... there is a lot to like here. I might just have to buy one in a couple years.

> Yeah because everyone wants a ‘bed’ you can’t load from the sides.

> I think [being able to load the truck bed from the sides] really only matters for people who use their trucks for actual work. This is obviously for people who want a truck for play and not work.

> ... he could have taken this seriously and actually made an impact. Now he’s proven the older anti EV crowd 100% correct that an electric truck isn’t a viable alternative.

> Clearly designed by someone who has literally never even used a truck once in their entire life.

> It's stupid tall bedsides ruin it for slide in campers too. If it wasn't for that the 3500lb payload and huge battery would make it great for a slide in.

> I'm surprised you all are not pouncing on the unibody. The other "truck" (Honda) that uses a unibody construction does not get much love.

> [People who like the Cybertruck design are] those who've never actually used a truck to haul items and/or trailers. Those who are in the ranching, mining, and other similar industries are laughing at this.

> Is the bed cover transparent? Seems like the rear window is only usable when the cover is retracted. I'm sorry. This is a truck for the Ridgeline crowd. No 8ft bed option. Only crew cab configuration. AWD, not 4WD. Can't tow a Gooseneck or 5th wheel, which you're gonna want when towing a 14K trailer. People will buy it. I won't.

> It’s a weird case of form over function. He was so focused on the blade runner vibe he forgot to make sure it was usable as a truck. Can’t even get to the front of the bed without opening the tailgate and getting inside.

> Trucks have a utilitarian purpose. There is a reason for their shapes. And if you look worldwide there are some differences, but also some commonalities. Like being able to access the frigging bed. That’s a massive failure here.

> There’s some things about truck design that are important to the function of being a truck. Like not having angled bed sides so you can fucking reach the first 1/2 of the bed without getting in it or being able to tow a 5th wheel.

> After looking at more pictures today I realized it doesn't even have a true 6.5' bed. It's much shorter than that, but angles in underneath the rear seats. Probably ok for hauling a few sheets of plywood, but putting in, say, furniture, would be harder.

> I set things in the bed over the bedside a lot. And climb in the sides. I’d have to awkwardly yeet shit over the side of that angled monstrosity

> This truck looks like an absolute nightmare to load and unload tbh. I actually even ditched my bed for a Bradford flatbed to make my truck easier to use. Rear/side visibility looks awful. Boasts a 14,000 towing capacity yet it looks like a nightmare to hook up to a trailer. I’d love to know how far this thing can tow 14,000lbs. Payload of “3,900lbs”. What does the truck itself weigh? Does Tesla understand GVWR or how to calculate payload or is it assuming it’s potential buyers do not? I guess I just don’t understand the whole concept and what exactly they’re going for. Seems like they’re trying to do too much. This has been the plague of these types of “crossovers” which is exactly what this is. El Camino, Ford Ranchero, Subaru Brat, Subaru Baja, Chevy Avalanche, Honda Ridgeline, the list goes on and on.

> Having a large locking cover would give me so much peace of mind when I'm parked with my tools in there. Having the thing build of stainless steel made me ask why hasn't trucks been main of stainless steel for years.

> The bed has some L-Tracks and T-Slots in it too for easy tie downs, which was something I learned from a video I saw that someone did a test drive in

> Literally the only good truck feature is the integrated full width ramp in the tailgate.

> And you can lower the suspension in the back to make it easier! I would have killed for that the last few times i was loading heavy equipment into the back of my truck by myself. I had to make due with backing up to a hill and using a shitty steel ramp that would fall if i so much as looked at it wrong.

> Let's be honest, most people in suburbia/cities with trucks are just drugstore cowboys anyway. This truck will meet the needs of most consumers

> Good luck towing a 5th wheel with that thing

> If you need a truck, Cybertruck's already disqualified itself. Little clearance, no room for mods, unibody, no side access to the truck bed, likely range issues (once you add a load), and that's just the stuff we know about now. I can only imagine buying this if you buy a truck just so you can feel like you're driving a truck but never plan on using the truck features beyond occasional off-roading.

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Trucks/comments/dzvqhx/tesla_truck/ [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/Trucks/comments/e061ru/style_contra...

Wel, that’s just like... your opinion, man. Seriously, the world has enough identical-looking sedans and identical-looking trucks. I can’t tell most major brands apart anymore until I see them up close.

Let me guess, you used to drive a PT Cruiser :)

I don't love the look of the Cybertruck but what I do love is the value per dollar and the larger than expected cab space.

Many EVs have a good enough range and more than good enough performances. Sure a ipace or etron don't drive as far as a equivalent Tesla, but sometimes you don't need that.

Also, we are many to love the i3 look. It's a matter of tastes.

> Many EVs have a good enough range and more than good enough performances.

Range is good enough for daily driving, sure.

More than good enough performance? Subjective and debatable. I frequently hear about all the instant torque of an EV, but all it takes is a ride in a Leaf to learn that this really only applies to Teslas and the more sport-intended EVs. In other words, not the Leaf. Sure, the torque is still instant, but its...not a lot.

But the range...we need more 300+ mile EVs that support 150+ kW charging in order to overcome people's range anxiety for road trips, not to mention more 150+ kW chargers. I'm taking my Model 3 Performance on a 2,250 mile road trip later this year, and it'll be my first EV road trip. I'd be lying if I didn't say that I'm feeling a little anxious about it. I've planned the crap out of my stops (Thanks to sites like ABRP), but still a little nervous. If I had a SR Model 3, I'd probably just say forget it and take my wife's CRV.

I realised awhile back how my brain works when I buy stuff. Most of my happiness with something I buy is based on regret or not.

I know that if I buy an electric car that isn’t a Tesla, whenever that car bugs me, I will think ‘damn it, I wish I bought a Tesla’

But if I buy a Tesla, I’m not going to think it wish ‘I’d bought a leaf’

That’s just me. I don’t even have an electric car yet. But my name is down for the cybertruck.

I understand you well. However, it's a lot simpler when you can't afford or justify buying the fancy car.

I bought an used electric car with a tiny range to commute and every time I did long trips with it I wished I got a Tesla with a five times bigger battery.

But then I think about it, I do not regret not spending the money on a Model S, renting a long range car a few times a year, and buying a bigger flat with the money I saved.

But a model 3... maybe?

The logo for Mullen is incredibly similar to Tesla's.

Also, Supercharger v3 goes up to 250kW

250? That's insane! Do you know what the timeline is? Can we assume all charging stations will be upgraded, or will there be a limitation in capacity?

For example, what Mercedes is missing for the EQC electric SUV production is, enough batteries for full production. I wonder how many other makers are looking at this particular bottle neck?

I went to a supermarket in the UK recently that had an electric car charging area, with space for around 8 cars. Guess what the maximum charging power was?

7 kW.

Seven! What is the point of that?

You’ve got to realize electric cars are evolving fast, the affordable 200+ mile-range that charges in 30 minutes is Tesla’s 1-year old model 3. 7kW is what everyone who bought a Nissan Leaf 4-5 years ago expected and used. Also, the charger is probably 4-5 years old.

It’s a totally different mind-set and usage pattern. Gas-like refills vs just topping off for free. Older EVs with smaller batteries that you charge all around town, vs newer Tesla’s that you supercharge like a fill-up. But 7kW can still give you 30 miles of range in an hour of shopping, plenty to get home somewhere in the suburbs even if you happen to be low already.

7 kW would take ~11 hours to recharge a Model 3 LR/Perf battery.

The only place a 7 kW charger should be considered acceptable is at home, a hotel, or the workplace. A supermarket where you're likely to only be parked up to an hour? Nah, that needs to be much more.

What you describe would be the “bull case” dozens of billions in valuation ago. Right now we are quite disconnected from that, in my analysis.

To justify their current valuation, the “bull case” is for them to dominate the entire automative industry (not just the EV segment) and do an Amazon-like turnaround of losses into profitability.

Anything short of that, their valuation is ludicrous.

> To justify their current valuation, the “bull case” is for them to dominate the entire automative industry (not just the EV segment)

Toyota has over twice the market cap that Tesla has (230 billion vs 105 billion) and considering how big the auto industry is outside of just these 2 companies, I don't know how you think an automotive company at 105 billion is vastly overvalued.

The argument is not that no car maker deserves to be valued at $XXX billion. It's that Tesla, which produced around ~1/30th the number of autos as Toyota last year, probably shouldn't have a market cap that's anywhere near Toyota's.

I think your mistake is in assuming that Tesla only makes cars, and the number of them they make is the only factor that goes into their valuation.

They also have the world's biggest charging network, storage solutions, solar solutions and produce more batteries than virtually everyone else combined. Mercedes actually just put out a press release that said they can't build enough electric cars because they can't build enough batteries, because Tesla acquired the company they were going to use in 2016. Evidently Mercedes have done exactly zero about that in the years since.

Of course Tesla also have the whole "self driving car" thing they've been working on for a while. If they crack that one in the next ~24 months, their valuation will easily top Toyota's, because they're worth so much more than just how many cars they can build.

How much of their revenue comes from not making cars?

Good point. Right now it's not much, but I think the valuation is based on the speculation that it could soon be a lot.

Right now revenue from energy storage resembles Tesla's auto business in 2013[1].. so if it grows at the same rate...

[1] https://twitter.com/kerooke/status/1222637828741439488

Their solar business, which they purchased, has declined every year since the acquisition

Until now. "The company marked a 26% quarter-on-quarter increase in solar installations"

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/01/29/tesla-energy-lifts-off-...

QoQ. They still showed a YoY decline for 2019. And that's in a market that's been expanding, so they've significantly lost market share.

What is important is that they can make money from selling lots of electric cars. While the other companies get horrifying margin on their electric car and they have no clue how to make money with them.

Can they? They had a loss of $800 million in 2019, and that’s with over $500 million in regulatory credit sales boosting that. The EV market still seems like it incinerates capital

They lost that money because they had to repay massive amount of debt early in the year. They did that successfully and once that debt was payed they were profitable.

What matters is that they produce lots of cars and the cars have a better then expected profit margin, focusing on anything else is simply foolish.

No, that’s GAAP loss, so that doesn’t include any debt repayments. That’s what the business generated.

And they produced the most cars they ever did and still lost money for the tenth consecutive year, in a year where the expectations given from Wall Street and the company were to make money.

Can you please link me to this press release?

Press release for what?

This: "Mercedes actually just put out a press release that said they can't build enough electric cars because they can't build enough batteries, because Tesla acquired the company they were going to use in 2016. "

Here's the original (in german)

https://teslamag.de/news/betriebsrat-tesla-ist-mitschuld-an-...

And translated

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/euob34/the_cri...

That's not a press release from Mercedes, and given that Mercedes denied the core allegation that production would be halved this year, I would probably give them the benefit of the doubt on the rest...

Stock valuation also includes future growth and Tesla is consistently showing large growth in deliveries and expanding with new factories.

This growth will eventually plateau but it's a good bet that it will do so with millions of cars in production.

One of them has manufactured 900k cars the other manufactured more than 200 million. Even if Tesla were the market leader and reached peak production rates of 10 million cars per year it would still take 20 years to catch up and justify that valuation.

What does the total car manufactures have to do with anything at all? Cars sold last year, sure, that makes sense.

They would have to do substantially better than Amazon, who lost far less money before becoming profitable.

Hardware startups are always harder.

Even as a long-time Tesla fan, I think their stock price is fairly excessive.

> the “bull case” is for them to dominate the entire automative industry (not just the EV segment)

Is Tesla's market valuation highest than the highest valued automakers?

Tesla is not just a car manufacturer though right? They are a solar company and battery company too. They could conceivably have astronomical growth in both of those segments.

The valuation of Tesla also seems very high to me at first, but given their growth in the other segments such as energy storage and generation, I absolutely think that the valuation could be justified.

Tesla owns the entire vertical from battery cell manufacturing, using those cells to do work (automotive), home and grid energy storage, and solar generation. Throw in the rest of Elon’s companies and you also get the transportation network itself (Boring) and even the data provider for these cars that need to be highly connected (Starlink). And if you really want to believe Elon, some weird, someday a pressurized version of the Cybertruck might become the transportation off of this planet.

And that's not all. They are also now a chip maker, an insurance company, a technology company with some of the leading research and IP in self-driving, and also leaders in automated manufacturing.

Other car manufacturers would be smart to source their batteries from Tesla.

I doubt Tesla will sell to them, Elon has said a few times their vehicle output is constrained by how many battery cells they can make. If they sell those cells to other manufacturers, they won't be able to make so many cars themselves.

Making vehicles is hard. There are a lot of logistical and technological challenges, plus the deep penetration of cars into society means that marketing, perception, and utility are on the lips of the hyper-rich down to the common man.

With batteries... you just make batteries. With cars you have to score adequate or better in lots of different areas to be competitive.

It’s funny how closely Tesla mirrors iPhone and the doubts everyone had about that VS The traditional phone makers.

“No-one wants a touch screen keyboard” etc, the CEOs said as their business evaporated.

Tesla are still at iPhone 3G point I reckon, having just released their first affordable car.

Also consider that while they are so far ahead - they are still accelerating. And the traditional car makers haven’t even realised they’re in a race to the death yet.

Most countries have barred the sale on non-EV cars in couple of decades. That’s not actually that far away. Or self driving could make all other cars seem like Nokia 3310s.

Out of curiosity: Could you explain your reasoning with numbers?

Cheers!

GM? Bolt is a great car and GM has enormous production capability.

Well aware of the difference in sales figures, but having driven both, I prefer it to the Model S.

I think battery tech will end up deciding the market, though, and GM would have to pivot harder that I think they are able to in order to beat Tesla. I am very curious about their internal R&D pipeline for the Maxwell technology.

Why do you prefer the Bolt?

From my perspective the Bolt is: -Ugly -Less safe -Slower -Doesn't drive itself, or will be capable in the future

Worst of all the Bolt's infotainment system is horrible.

https://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/chevrolet/na/us/englis...

I preferred the Bolt because it had similar and adequate range, adequate recharge capability, better drive, felt substantially roomier in the interior, and I preferred the higher seating.

I have no use for an infotainment system in any vehicle (give me a hotspot and I'll bring my own devices). I disliked the Tesla center mounted tablet console dashboard, though that's subjective.

I don't think the Tesla drives itself, does it? That was not a factor for me, and if anything would be a mild negative at the current level of self-driving tech maturity. At any rate, the Bolt had some useful driver assist packages for safety, though they are upgrades. I think they both have fairly similar safety ratings. And speed isn't a consideration for me, as long as it goes fast enough for highway. Nor is appearance, within reason.

I really am thrilled for Tesla's success and don't think there is a "right car" but a "right car for you". The Bolt is a good car, though.

> would be a mild negative at the current level of self-driving tech maturity

Tesla's more or less take over on the freeway. They are also on their way to mastering traffic lights.

> center mounted tablet console dashboard Yeah, that's a little weird.

> the Bolt had some useful driver assist packages for safety, though they are upgrades

Tesla's are the safest cars on the road now.

> They are also on their way to mastering traffic lights.

Sure and I’m on my way to mastering Russian Roulette. Until I actually get there though you might not want to sell me life insurance.

There are some things where being “on the way” to mastery is worse than nothing, and propelling a two ton object at a red light is one of those things.

What statistic says that Tesla’s are the safest cars on the road right now? Based on death statistics for vehicles of their age and class they generally are about 2x worse.

> Tesla's are the safest cars on the road now.

Eh, I imagine that depends on how actively you use the autopilot and auto unpark features. I know they don't want to cede the frontrunner status of that technology, but it still feels like a risky gambit for tesla and for its customers.

The IIHS rates TM3 it's top tier aware of Top Safety Pick+ which is a higher rating than the Bolt (noted in the article)[0]. This doesn't factor in autopilot although it does evaluate collision avoidance systems, which must rate advanced to superior.

[0]https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/tesla-earns-its-first-ever-...

I recently bought a 2020 Bolt LT and I really enjoy it - $26k "out the door" price (after taxes, registration, etc) - 260 miles of range (66kWh battery by LG Chem) - DC Fast Charging - upright seating - lots of headroom/legroom in the front and backseat - dedicated LCD for the driver, separate from infotainment system

I compared it to a Tesla (test drove a Model 3), and a Tesla would be about $15k more. I have no use for self-driving. As a software engineer, I feel that full self-driving requires a general AI, which I think is on the order of decades away.

I really just wanted a simple electric car with minimal maintenance and no fossil fuel dependencies. Minimal complexity, no gimmicks (fart generator, Tesla? come on...)

With those requirements, the Bolt is awesome.

> I have no use for self-driving. As a software engineer, I feel that full self-driving requires a general AI, which I think is on the order of decades away.

Doctors make the worst patients.

> Why do you prefer the Bolt?

The 2020 Bolt has 259 miles of EPA range and is the best value for money of any EV in the world at the moment. Have a look at these prices:

https://www.cars.com/for-sale/searchresults.action/?mdId=362...

Here's a real world example of someone who has leased a 2020 Bolt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8Egdi0GU9Y

He has a 2017 Bolt on lease and he was thinking about getting a different EV, but in the end he went with a 3 year lease on a 2020 Bolt because the offer was too good to refuse. He paid $2500 down (which was covered by state EV incentives) and the lease is $147 a month for 12,000 miles per annum.

Show me a better EV deal than that.

Is it practical to own it as the primary car though? Can you travel cross-country in the Bolt without spending hours charging?

Yes. In the video he talks about the roadtrip he is on right now from Boston to Austin for the Fully Charged Live event. He's posting more videos as he goes.

Here's a 2020 Bolt doing a 1,000 km trip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMVRm8UvHjs

Here's a Bolt which did the Cannonball run: https://www.torquenews.com/8861/chevrolet-bolt-ev-set-cannon...

Here's a 2017 Bolt surviving the cold: https://www.torquenews.com/8861/my-chevy-bolt-ev-sat-unplugg...

As ever, you need to plan your trip around charging stops. A Better Route Planner (https://abetterrouteplanner.com/) is a useful tool but it's a bit conservative for the Bolt (although I think it's better to be conservative than stranded). It also doesn't necessarily take into account overnight charging. On a long trip you'd charge overnight and start the next day with a full battery: https://www.torquenews.com/8861/chevrolet-bolt-ev-issues-bet...

How often do you really travel cross country?

>Worst of all the Bolt's infotainment system is horrible.

It has Carplay/Android Auto; you'd never look at that UI if you didn't want to.

Agrees. GM is building a battery factory

https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/5/20996866/gm-lg-ev-electri...

And recently an ounced a $2.2 billion investment to turn a plant into one that will produce only electric vehicle

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2020/0...

GM has the EV knowledge from Bolt and Volt. It has autonomous tech from Cruise Automation.

GM is planning 20 all electric vehicle models by 2023.

IMHO they would be the clear leader in the pack of traditional manufacturers.

I also don't think anyone needs to beat anyone. Everyone will have their market share sooner or later as the tech becomes a commodity. I just want my self driving EV cheaply, and reliability. I've never owned a GM vehicle but I'm an keeping an eye on what they come out with.

The problem is that all old car manufacturers are treating EV like the enemy, which it is to their old ways. Same thing happened with Kodak. Imagine your art, your soul, your heritage of combustion engines ripped away. You spend decades, centuries even, perfecting the internal combustion engine. Your pride and joy is now obsolete. You can see why it was so hard for everyone to switch over. Almost all your cumulative knowledge, obsolete. Everything back to the drawing board. It is why Toyota, with their insanely successful Prius, who knew full an well how transformative the EV side is, dragged their heals until to this very day. Most of the Germans have delayed their EVs for mass market in the US from 2021 to 2022. Even Hyundai, who is the closets to Tesla in efficiency, is frought with delays. "We are X* we will have no problem making an EV" they said!

*Daimler, Volkswagon, Audi

> The problem is that all old car manufacturers are treating EV like the enemy, which it is to their old ways.

In what way are they treating EV like the enemy?

> Same thing happened with Kodak.

No it did not. What happened to Kodak was that its primary source of profit, film, was threatened by new technological developments. That is in no way comparable with the situation of car manufacturers.

> You spend decades, centuries even, perfecting the internal combustion engine. Your pride and joy is now obsolete. You can see why it was so hard for everyone to switch over.

It was hard to switch over because it was thought that it wasn't profitable. Now that it is apparent that it is profitable nobody has any problems switching over at least not any problems of the kind you are talking about.

> Almost all your cumulative knowledge, obsolete.

Almost all knowledge is obsolete... wtf. Are EVs not vehicles and haven't we been making vehicles for a long time?

> It is why Toyota, with their insanely successful Prius, who knew full an well how transformative the EV side is, dragged their heals until to this very day.

Because they were concentrating on hydrogen cars.

> Most of the Germans have delayed their EVs for mass market in the US from 2021 to 2022. Even Hyundai, who is the closets to Tesla in efficiency, is frought with delays. "We are X* we will have no problem making an EV" they said!

And how many delays did Tesla have?

The management of car manufacturers are full of dinosaurs and execs that hate evs due to compliance regs.

The dealer networks are outright hostile to them since maintenance revenue is reduced so much.

I still think the other manufacturers aren't going to stay behind forever. VW in particular seem to be betting the company on their MEB platform.

Tesla still lost $800 million this year and has never had a profitable year, on both record car sales and record regulatory credit sales. What about that indicates sustainability?

The financial results from the link don't show a $800 million loss for this year.

From that document in the FINANCIAL SUMMARY section there are these quarterly profit/loss number:

    Income (loss) from operations 
    Q1-2019  Q2-2019  Q3-2019   Q4-2019  
       -522     -167      261       359

So for the first half of the year Tesla did lose 689 million dollars.

But for the whole year that was only a loss of 69 million dollars.

I think what the market likes is the Tesla cash position.

If you look at those it would appear Tesla is no longer burning cash.

    Cash and cash equivalents 
    Q4-2018   Q1-2019  Q2-2019  Q3-2019   Q4-2019  QoQ   YoY
    3,686     2,198    4,955    5,338     6,268    17%   70%

The fact that the year on year cash position grew by 70% would be pretty comforting to shareholders.

You’re using non-GAAP numbers. By GAAP standards, they lost $800 million

LOL, it was ONLY ~$70 million.

How does this stack up to last year, and forecasts for next year? If they were in the hole $120MM last year and now only 69, with forecasts for ~20MM or less next year then there is a clear road to profitability and I might be willing to do the Long thing.

$800M loss on $25B sales (which are growing YoY while R&D actually resulting in new models and features is maintained stable) is a noise at this point.

Agree. Given the growth numbers and their market leadership in the EV area, there's a strong case to be made that this 'loss' is more of an 'investment' to set up for future revenue growth and consequently profits that come with increasing maturity and operational cost reductions.

They have shrunk in sales YoY in the US and Norway, their two largest markets. They managed to grow globally by finding the most advantageous subsidies for them to take advantage of. However, even that only gave them 1% growth of the past year.

The low growth was because of production problems and because they maxed out their single factory. Now they have another factory producing and a third under construction.

As to subsidies, governments are pushing ev's harder and harder. The EU has continually-increasing fleet standards that can be met only by adding more ev's, and China has continually increasing ev production standards. Ev sales are going to keep increasing, and Tesla makes the best ev's. Sales, revenues and profits are going to keep going up.

Why were they able to meet a run rate or 500k cars a year in Q4 of last year and not sustain it if their factory was maxed out? And why would they claim in projections that their factory was capable of producing that if they didn’t meet that?

Companies are rarely production constrained. Many claim they are, but the fact that Tesla sales in their two largest markets declined doesn’t indicate to me that production is their number one issue.

At 500k per year they were still nowhere near meeting global demand, and they decided to move sales away from markets they were already well-established in, and into new ones.

The nice thing about this disagreement we are having is it will be settled by what happens in the next year. I say Tesla's sales will go up strongly now that it has another factory. I take it you think they won't, and all that new capacity will go unsold.

You're spot on with everything. I think the biggest hitch this year will be China. That is such a huge market

Again they produced 367k, not 500k, like they claimed they could. If they could produce 500k, why claim they could, and why didn’t they?

And I would say Tesla’s revenue growth will start to flatline, yes, as the last two quarters have shown.

Their production capacity increased in every quarter. By the end of the year it was at a 500k per year rate. And it is continuing to go up rapidly, now that it has a new factory.

Did it? They only produced a small number more than they did per quarter at the end of last year. Why do we think they are production constrained?

R&D isn’t even meeting depreciation though. Either these factories are some how never before seen in accounting history or this company is underinvesting in its futures

Actually there’s a third option which has been discussed on their financial calls.

Their capital efficiency has markedly increased.

To put it less glamorously, they burned boatloads of money chasing “alien dreadnaught” style fully automated production, and after recognizing that failure (better late than never) they now find they are able to build out new production lines at a fraction of the first line’s cost.

If you look at their letter you can see a comparison between the layouts of their California and Shanghai factories. Massive difference in efficiency. They learned a lot from their initial debacle of Model 3 ramp-up. Cap-ex per unit was announced as being 65% lower in the China factory.

65% lower cap-ex per unit in China is astonishing. Elon's "machine that builds the machine" vision really created a lot of misprioritization.

Maybe. My bet is that they have been underinvesting in order to meet financial results, and that that will catch up to them. Looking at other financial statement history, this seems like a safe bet.

It is really hard to say they are underinvesting when they just opened a new factory and have a new vehicle, the Y, that just started production.

It’s really hard to ever say a company is properly investing if their CapEx on their income statements exceeds their depreciation. Can you name other fast growing companies that is true for?

I don't understand enough about financials to understand what you are saying.

But more to the point, what exactly do you think Tesla should have been spending its money on that it didn't?

And let add to my original comment that Tesla also has the Semi going into production later this year, and recently brought out a greatly improved version of its solar roof, and is working like crazy on self-driving.

But back to my question: what should it have been spending its money on that it didn't?

> I don't understand enough about financials to understand what you are saying.

Capital Expenditures are what a company spends on land, buildings, equipment -- all of those sort of long term assets. Depreciation is how much the value of those assets decline over time with usage and would eventually require maintenance or repair costs.

Usually, when depreciation exceeds CapEx, it means the company isn't spending enough to maintain their current assets, and this will eventually catch up to them. For growing companies investing in the future, CapEx is usually a great deal more than depreciation, since there will be a large amount spent on future assets.

> But more to the point, what exactly do you think Tesla should have been spending its money on that it didn't?

> And let add to my original comment that Tesla also has the Semi going into production later this year, and recently brought out a greatly improved version of its solar roof, and is working like crazy on self-driving.

> But back to my question: what should it have been spending its money on that it didn't?

My point is that the PR statements that Tesla releases don't match the financials. It's easy to announce that a factory is being built or a new car is going into production, but we should be extremely skeptical of these statements when they aren't backed up by audited financial information.

Generally when investing in a company you should look at their financials first, as they are going to be the most honest, and PR statements/rumors last, as they will be the least honest.

>My point is that the PR statements that Tesla releases don't match the financials. It's easy to announce that a factory is being built or a new car is going into production, but we should be extremely skeptical of these statements when they aren't backed up by audited financial information.

Oh dear, are you saying that Tesla did not actually recently open a new factory in Shanghai, or start a new one outside Berlin? In spite of all the news stories and announcements by the governments in each of the countries. And ditto it has not been developing the Y in spite of all the reported sightings? Or that the new version of the solar roof did not go into production, in spite of all the reviews of it, and all the people who have said they have ordered one? It is all an extremely elaborate hoax? And even when their latest quarterly report discusses all this?

You know, when someone is so far gone into conspiracy theories as you appear to be, there is no reasoning them.

How many of these things exist currently? As far as I know I’ve only seen a total of 10 deliveries from the Chinese factory, there has not been a single Model Y sold to the public yet, the German factory hasn’t even broken ground, and the Solar Roof, despite being in production for three and a half years still hasn’t had even a thousand customers install yet.

Companies exaggerate in their PR statements. It’s very easy to claim a factory is complete but not have meaningful production. It’s very easy to claim that the Model Y is just around the corner. It’s apparently very easy to bilk investors that solar roofs are beyond a concept phase for three plus years. That doesn’t mean they are.

It’s not a conspiracy theory to want a company to produce audited financials that show that they have done the complete investment in all of these projects and they aren’t vaporware.

Our TSLA brokerage accounts thank you and your /r/RealTesla brethren for your sacrifice.

Please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamewar comments.

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

Well, let's check back next year. The bears are already 1-0 against Elon Musk, given that a large percentage of Tesla bears were originally short SolarCity.

Bears are down over 5B in mark to market losses. Sure, call that 1-0.

Tesla has lost -6.5 billion, so, yeah, I'd still stick with the Bears.

Please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamewar comments.

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

Here's a different opinion: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/29/business/tesla-earnings/i...

Using non-GAAP numbers. Non-GAAP gives you substantial lee-way to not charge things to your bottom line. I don't think you get to claim to run a profitable business just because you started paying your employees completely in stock.

Because it has overcome the problems that lead to the losses, and it is set in a number of ways to be highly profitable this year and into the future.

This company has been unprofitable for ten consecutive years as a public company. That’s a record. I’ll hold my breath on people saying the future will be different.

This is what a speculative bubble looks like. Enjoy popcorn on the sidelines until people start pricing in financial reality. Manias sometimes take a while to fizzle out. Year over year revenue growth is actually flat to slightly negative for the past 2 quarters. If top-line revenue growth continues to stall out, that's often a catalyst for corrections.

Yeah, it will be hard for Q1 to be as bad as last year, but it doesn’t look pretty from there.