Electric cars

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya and thanks.

Do you think the reduction in cost to 1/3 means the process of making the packs, and not the whole cost of the pack, as that seems like one hell of a price reduction?

Am I wrong to read it as a massive cost reduction, or do you think the para is badly written/misleading?

Hi

On the grounds that the manufacture of the cells themselves would be on an automated flow-line anyway and that Panasonic would have had plenty of experience & time to tweak efficiency to pretty high levels, combined with the engineering company concerned specialising in automotive sector automation, my thoughts would steer towards the automation of assembly of the battery pack itself on some kind of transfer-line as opposed to battery manufacture so it's likely that the reduction mentioned would either exclude the cost of all materials & components or just the batteries ... leaving the considerable cost of the cells aside, there's probably relatively little material cost involved, so it probably doesn't make all that much difference!

HTH
Z

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, you're right.

So 6k/wk now - which means they're still well within capacity, since production has dropped from a one-week peak of just over 6k cars and five consecutive weeks over 5k, back to <4k, probably as they try to reintroduce some of the automation they swapped out to release the bottleneck.

Add 2k/week with each of the three new machines, so that's a total of 12k/week, double current.

But how does that square with "Tesla expects that these machines will enable battery production at 3 times the current rate"?
...

Hi

"at 3 times the current rate" .. Build 3x as many units in a given time using the same power & services, the same (or less) labour and using the same manufacturing cell footprint and the cost of operating the cell reduces by 3x per unit throughput & that's what's described

Effectively the article didn't say they could build 3x the volume of batteries when the new machines are all in production, it's just that you interpreted it that way!

HTH
Z

You even used capitals to emphasise the present tense. Your rude (because you don't understand) response actually brings up the issue of 'present' and future. We are currently in the present, yes? The present is Q3, yes? Tesla might (just might) be in profit in Q3 ....... the present.

No. We're diametrically opposed on this issue. I've been talking about the present all along. The most present information we have is Q2. That was a loss. That's current for 3 months. It's no more complicated than that.

again, 'Tesla aren't in profit', you didn't say 'weren't' nor 'won't', you said aren't, which is present.

See above. You nor Tesla can't say otherwise until the Q3 results are out. You can say cars are profitable, lines are profitable, there's a plan (I agree with all of that) but you can not state as fact that they're in profit. You've now made a bet with Adrian C, and you've bet that Q3 will be a loss! Whilst arguing they're in profit!

Nothing is idiot proof, as idiot's are too ingenious.

Rogue apostrophe. And I'm the one trying to keep it simple.

So I can't correctly say that they may, or may not be in profit, but you can say that they are not when you don't know. Please stop spinning and wiggling and give it up now.

They may or may not be. As of their LATEST REPORT, they're not. Can we agree that line?

Nope. They can come to a different result, I explained all of this to you, but my result is based on past results and information, so is a fair and reasoned guess, whereas their result would be despite the past results and information, so an unreasonable guess - it may well turn out to be correct, but that doesn't mean it's fair and reasonable.

Disagree. I think it would be reasonable to say 'they've made 'x' quarters of loss, and 2 of profit, therefore they're likely to make a loss. Not as detailed an analysis as yours, but still REASONABLE.

they haven't so far

This is the only time I made that claim. I wasn't aware they had made a profit 2 quarters in the past. Not a repeated claim. The repeated claim is 'they're not currently in profit' and we're arguing about the meaning of 'current'.


(AdrianC)

You can call Tesla's official financial reporting "false" and "wrong" if you like... No skin off my nose. The SEC might be interested in your allegations...

No, apologies to both AdrianC and Martyn. I admit I've caused confusion here. I said, once, long into the conversation, that Tesla had NEVER been in profit, you corrected me, and Martyn thinks I've repeatedly claimed this - not the case.