Electric cars

Martyn1981

DoaM wrote: »

Hammer? Nail? Please meet at the Head.

The ICE is a case in point ... there are still advances being made (with power to weight/size, efficiencies, etc.) but I doubt anyone would class the ICE as an immature technology.

Yep, the ICE is I believe a mature technology. In fact some people only a few years ago probably would have classed the motor car as a mature technology, but then we go and change the whole power delivery system. Gotta love change.

AdrianC

...and there we have it.

The definition changes to suit [STRIKE]Humpty[/STRIKE] Martyn's preconceptions, regardless of facts and reality.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

...and there we have it.

The definition changes to suit [STRIKE]Humpty[/STRIKE] Martyn's preconceptions, regardless of facts and reality.

You been licking car paint again Ade!

BEV's and BEV batts are not mature, it's hardly confusing nor contentious, there's a long way to go, and we haven't even discussed the addition of super-capacitors yet that could provide a few seconds of high charge or discharge for high acceleration / regen braking, thus removing one of the hardest roles for batts, and reduce wear and tear / capacity reduction.

It's a brave new world for those that want to see it and enjoy it. But not so good for the FUDsters.

Martyn1981

For anyone interested in where Tesla might go in the next few years, I thought a recent posting by Gali - Galileo Russell on his Youtube channel Hyperchange might be of interest.

Quick background - He's an interesting analyst, though he looks too young (I'm showing my age). He grow on me when during a live episode his mum walked in and had to be quickly ushered out.

Those that remember Elon's outburst about stupid questions during the Q2 earnings call may recall Elon switched to a Youtuber and took about 20mins worth of questions, remaining with the one person as he said the questions were interesting. That was Gali who was allowed onto the calls as a large number of shareholders had nominated him to represent them.

He regularly updates his predictions for Tesla, and does so again in this article, and if anything he was a bit negative on some previous numbers. But in short he predicts a vehicular output of 0.5m and a profit of $2bn for Tesla in 2019, and 2m vehicles with a profit of $22bn in 2024.

2M+ EVs in 2024 ⚡ Modeling Tesla's Financials

silverwhistle

almillar wrote: »

Yes, good idea.

.. followed by a long post..


Perhaps you too, having agreed with me, could also have let this unproductive squabbling slide. Nobody, apart from the direct participants, is actually reading what you are all saying.



Perhaps you could all read this?


https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-who-spent-evening-arguing-with-cretins-online-forgot-he-didnt-have-to-20181120179656

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

.. followed by a long post..


Perhaps you too, having agreed with me, could also have let this unproductive squabbling slide. Nobody, apart from the direct participants, is actually reading what you are all saying.



Perhaps you could all read this?


https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-who-spent-evening-arguing-with-cretins-online-forgot-he-didnt-have-to-20181120179656

Cheers, I'll give it a go, I'll pop him on ignore and also delete the recent posts since my replying only feeds him.

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

He regularly updates his predictions for Tesla, and does so again in this article, and if anything he was a bit negative on some previous numbers. But in short he predicts a vehicular output of 0.5m and a profit of $2bn for Tesla in 2019

Assuming S/X sales remain static at ~100k/yr (the S will be 7yrs old, without even a light facelift), then that's 400k Model 3. Q3 18 saw 70k M3 delivered, 56k assembled, with profit of $312m.

So the question is whether a sustainable 42% increase in M3 deliveries, 78% increase in M3 production, and a 60% increase in profit is realistic - and we come straight back to those production bottlenecks. Production appears from Bloomberg to still be static around the Q3 average of ~4,500 cars/week, which scales to ~60k/qtr, 240k/year - but let's wait for the Q4 production figures to be published, due shortly after the new year.

and 2m vehicles with a profit of $22bn in 2024.

That's one hell of a crystal ball.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

Assuming S/X sales remain static at ~100k/yr (the S will be 7yrs old, without even a light facelift), then that's 400k Model 3. Q3 18 saw 70k M3 delivered, 56k assembled, with profit of $312m.

So the question is whether a sustainable 42% increase in M3 deliveries, 78% increase in M3 production, and a 60% increase in profit is realistic - and we come straight back to those production bottlenecks. Production appears from Bloomberg to still be static around the Q3 average of ~4,500 cars/week, which scales to ~60k/qtr, 240k/year - but let's wait for the Q4 production figures to be published, due shortly after the new year.

That's one hell of a crystal ball.

All of the figures and suggestions are supported with reasonable arguments. Whereas your continuous FUD has failed every time. Care to compare your profit/loss estimation for Q3 with his?


With regard to 2m vehicles by 2024, I'd have thought that was reasonably obvious given the ramp up of the TM3*, the additional Chinese factory, and the introduction of the MY which is expected to have greater demand than the M3. It would take a brave person, or a fool to estimate significantly lower based on the plan Tesla is already developing.

*An increase from 1/4m to 1/2m (a 22fold increase according to you) is surely lowballing, so Gali's estimate of 700k seems perfectly reasonable.

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

All of the figures and suggestions are supported with reasonable arguments.

The figures I just gave are Tesla's own, except for Q4-to-date production, which I clearly stated to be Bloomberg's. I then asked questions, no more.



You'll forgive me for not watching 24 minutes of youtuber waffle. But I do find his "TeslaCon" t-shirt quite amusing, in part for the unintentional message it sends, but primarily for how it completely discredits any suggestions of impartiality.

BTW, his video's own subtitle only says "could" scale to 22m/$2bn - and I'd point you to the disclaimer on the end of the subtitle.

Disclaimer: This video is purely my opinion and should not be regarded as factual information. I am not a financial advisor. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell securities. Do not assume any facts and numbers in this video are accurate. Always do your own due diligence.

(my emphasis)

Martyn1981

I think this is interesting(?)

Currently it seems that the Western rollout of BEV's is largely being driven by Tesla and California. This year Trump rolled backed the planned increases demanded in future car fuel efficiency targets - but as Cali can set higher standards, and it's simpler for the manufacturers to meet the higher target, than build different makes, or miss out on Cali's sales (it represents about 10% of the US), Trump also has to remove Cali's legal ability to set that higher standard.

Well, now there are 13 States signed up to the higher standards, making it harder for Trump, and at the same time supporting lower emissions vehicles.

Colorado Joins California Low Emission Vehicle Program In Rebuke To Trump

Colorado Passes New Low-Emission Vehicle Standard