Electric cars

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The article doesn't mention weekly TM3 'burst' rates, (the figure that fascinated so many FUD'ers last year),

Looks like the weekly burst rate records will remain FUD'ster fascination this year too! :snow_laug

AdrianC

If "burst" rates really are possible nearly 50% above the sustainable average, that suggests that there are issues seriously harming the consistency...

Supply chain?
Or some kind of fragility within the production line itself? That would not bode well for quality in the cars produced.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

So there we have it... It's official. 61,394 Model 3 built in Q4. Over 13 weeks, that's an average of 4,730 per week. Only a 15% increase on Q3, and still at an average that they first reached back at the start of Q3. Bloomberg's estimate is within a couple of hundred cars for the second quarter in a row - their sources definitely appear solid.

Had to chuckle at your agreeing with Bloomberg tracker numbers, given that they've had to revise them up (again) to reflect actual production.

So you aren't agreeing with Bloomberg, you are agreeing with Tesla, whom Bloomberg have to revise against. So you think they are 'solid' after they correct them to match reality - that certainly sounds like an Ade statement. [Just to be clear, today they are within a couple of hundred, but two days ago (~90days into the quarter) it was out by approx 700.]

I wouldn't have realised this (too) had I not read these comments just yesterday:

Tesla Completely SOLD OUT (Almost)

Comments dated 1-1-19:

"..are about rising production levels to 6,000/week and higher for Model 3.." why does bloomberg tracker showing weekly production as 4K ? I'm super curious about Q4 18 production vs delivery official numbers from Tesla

Bloomberg adjust their tracker almost every quarter as it's a lagging system (currently working on a 13 week average). You can expect a jump up at the beginning of Q1 2019 when Tesla announce the Q4 2018 figures.

The truth is somewhere between Bloomberg's guessometer and the number of Model 3 vin's registered.... (Model 3 Vin's on Twitter).

It was updated yesterday. Jumped 7000 units to 155000. And weekly rate revised to 4600.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

If "burst" rates really are possible nearly 50% above the sustainable average, that suggests that there are issues seriously harming the consistency...

Supply chain?
Or some kind of fragility within the production line itself? That would not bode well for quality in the cars produced.

Nope, it reflects the 'polishing' of the production line(s) as issues are found and dealt with, sometimes resulting in lines stopping for revisions. Also overtime from month end / quarter end pushes. And of course the addition of additional production lines over time.

[Edit - I'm not entirely sure you can feign surprise at this, since I thought this issue had come up around the middle of 2018 with discussions about regular planned production line stoppages, some for several days, to implement changes/upgrades.]

You can't honestly expect averages to match burst rates can you? And for a relatively new car, and new production lines, I'm really not sure why you think a variance of +50% is unreasonable, though of course, over time, the two figures (average and burst) will get closer.

I'm really not sure why you are so fascinated by the burst rates, I think Tesla has met all expectations on the TM3, even if they weren't able to meet Elon's own personal (optimistic) wishes/tweets.

They always said they were aiming for 500,000 cars pa by the end of 2020, and I'd suggest that figure looks reasonable

AdrianC

So you're accusing Bloomberg of lying, when they say their estimate was 69,113 vs actual of 69,394?

That CleanTechnica article seems to contradict Tesla's own figures, which show a difference between production and delivery over Q4 of just 244 cars.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

So you're accusing Bloomberg of lying, when they say their estimate was 69,113 vs actual of 69,394?

That CleanTechnica article seems to contradict Tesla's own figures, which show a difference between production and delivery over Q4 of just 244 cars.

Nope, not accusing them of lying. That's a very strange statement you've made since it doesn't seem to reflect what I've posted at all, does it my ickle FUD'ster?

I've simply pointed out that the figure you believe proves Bloomberg's accuracy, is only accurate today, because they've revised it to better match Tesla's quarter end figures. A couple of days ago it wasn't very accurate.

I just found it particularly funny how you attempt to discredit all facts and figures, but made a great showing of support for the accuracy of numbers that needed significant revision just prior to your quoting/referencing them:

Bloomberg's estimate is within a couple of hundred cars for the second quarter in a row - their sources definitely appear solid.

I can give you a very accurate estimate of the lottery numbers, but please only refer to them after my week end revisions. :snow_grin

Martyn1981

Ade, why does good BEV / Tesla news upset you so?

T'is Xmas, have a drink, relax and be happy.

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nope, not accusing them of lying. That's a very strange statement you've made since it doesn't seem to reflect what I've posted at all, does it my ickle FUD'ster?

I've simply pointed out that the figure you believe proves Bloomberg's accuracy, is only accurate today, because they've revised it to better match Tesla's quarter end figures. A couple of days ago it wasn't very accurate.

So you are accusing them of lying...


Either that was their estimate, or it wasn't. You're suggesting that they've revised their estimate to be closer to the published figure, and then claimed that was their estimate before the official figure was published.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

So you are accusing them of lying...


Either that was their estimate, or it wasn't. You're suggesting that they've revised their estimate to be closer to the published figure, and then claimed that was their estimate before the official figure was published.

Don't reach peak FUD too soon, you have almost a whole year ahead of you.

As I've already explained to you, it wasn't their estimate for about 90 of the 92 days. They revised it up significantly a few days ago, something that others expected and have noted before.

The fact that you paid a compliment to their data gathering is therefore not surprising again, since you usually need to significantly revise your claims/predictions too.

Now Ade, why not approach 2019 with a smile and some positivity towards BEV's, and dare I say Tesla too, otherwise it'll be yet another miserable year for you, and 100's (perhaps 1,000's) more pointless comments on this thread. You can't stop the tide.

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

As I've already explained to you, it wasn't their estimate for about 90 of the 92 days. They revised it up significantly a few days ago, something that others expected and have noted before.

Let's look at the fuller picture through the quarter.


<looks back on archive.org>
A third of the way through the quarter, 1st Nov, they were estimating 29,802 for the quarter to date. That would take the quarterly total to 90,000-ish.
Half-way through the quarter, 14th Nov, they were estimating 37,362 for the quarter to date. That would take the quarterly total to 75,000-ish.
Two-thirds of the way through the quarter, 1st Dec, they were estimating 41,465 for the quarter to date. That would take the quarterly total to 62,200-ish.
Nearing the end of the quarter, 14th Dec, they were estimating 50,784 for the quarter to date. That would take the quarterly total to 61,000-ish.
The last archived page is 21st Dec, when they were estimating 53,399 for the quarter to date. That would take the total to 60,400-ish.

Yes, the estimates have been refined - constantly. As they always have. Looks like something started to go a bit quicker than expected in the last week or two, with the expected December decline being stemmed - looks like they were pretty bob-on at the end of November, after a massively optimistic start to the quarter. That's what happens as you refine estimates...



Of course, it couldn't be Tesla trying to pull all the stops out to get a nice number for the end-of-quarter, could it?