MyTeslaWeekend Rumor - Dual Motor only for the first 500k units produced!

[cvalue13]

An interesting conjecture put forward should Tesla not copy other OEM’s instead follow its own product reveal at launch for multiple variants of the Cybertruck versus only building a single high priced version that is the most expensive to produce.

Where’s this data? I’m unconvinced your point is that Tesla is wasting spent-profit selling other variants than its most expensive to produce truck.

I’m looking at the reveal specs and pricing from launch. Tesla typically produces vehicles that return in the range of 30% margin for profit. That 30% is baked into quoted MSRP quoted, published and accepted reservations in hard currency from that launch party. Only an idiot would sell a product that he had not locked down pricing on COGS.

SO any assertion Tesla is somehow not profitable is bullshit. Further Tesla has gone to further lengths reducing the cost to manufacture the battery, batterypack, structural castings and drive unit. Maybe Tesla has only increased its margin of profit 1%. Its making more money!

It matters not which variant of Cybertruck Tesla sells - all Cybertrucks make money. The improvements Tesla has invested in Cybertruck lift all variants profitability. Traditional OEM mindset that a “special”:high priced, limited release and high performance car is where all the money is made is antiquated thinking.

EVERY Cybertruck Tesla sells will be making TSLA a relatively similar profit because they all share the identical exoskeleton platform, drive units and performative specifications ‘cuz the motors are essentially the same. To the point, its actually more expensive on a per unit basis to produce and sell a “one-off” variant like Elon’s Quad Cybertruck.

Quad completely requires new software, system integration and NHTSA certification. Additionally, development and engineering costs are unable to be spread on millions of Cybertrucks – only the fortunate 4% able to afford a Quad. Over burden the Quad build with the expense of CF-wrapped motors4X, redesigned drive units 2X, molds and castings, plus whatever Quad-stuff to make a one-off Quad and the assertion that Tesla is wasting spent-profit for every Cybertruck is ridiculous.

Apologies, didn’t mean to speak ill of your gods!

Speaking of data: all this talk of the market net profitability of a truck that has never been produced, is form …. where?

What seems “ridiculous” to me: all this speaking of a product that doesn’t exist as though it’s economics are obvious, particularly given that it seems to have not been produced yet in part because it’s economics are not obvious.

Was it not only a year ago EM was telling investors on earnings calls that if they didn’t sort out the battery each truck will “literally cost a million dollars a piece or more”? Maybe over the last year of inflation and minerals markets they’ve gotten that price down instead to ~$27,000/unit, as you say?

But ok, if Tesla doesn’t have a higher profit margin on its higher priced models, then I suppose there’s no reason to not produce and sell all the variants in any desired number from first sales day - which is happy news for me (dual motor reservation).

If they instead first sell a disproportionate number of higher priced models initially, I’ll be thinking of you not fondly.

Sponsored

 

[JBee]

Was it not only a year ago EM was telling investors on earnings calls that if they didn’t sort out the battery each truck will “literally cost a million dollars a piece or more”? Maybe over the last year of inflation and minerals markets they’ve gotten that price down instead to ~$27,000/unit, as you say?

I don't think EM said or meant it like that and the statement was not because the battery would cost $1 million per vehicle, but rather he was talking about the cost of manufacturing a "CT prototype" instead of mass producing it, because he was trying to justify the delays.

Sure the economics of the CT can only be known after a few thousand have been made, but like with all forecasting, I'm pretty confident that Tesla's CT economic predictions are within 10% of the pricing at reveal, plus things out of their control like inflation and commodity prices. (What "ridiculous" manufacturer wouldn't first do a economic forecast of if said product is at all profitable?)

So given that production is limited by supply, the 1.5m CT orders can be considered essentially "unlimited demand" for the next few years of production, given that as soon as production CTs hit the street, demand will grow further.

I believe that Tesla's sale technique will be according to EMs twitter posts and will "maximize value for functionality".

Meaning CT customers will get some extra features, at fairly low cost to Tesla, like 4WS (sub $1k), Solar rear window (probably not vault cover because it is too expensive and produces not much more), maybe a refrigerated frunk (costs $1-200), and quad motors on all models produced with torque vectoring etc (all software), using smaller, cheaper, same performance, higher RPM CF wrapped motors, likely resulting in the same costs as a dual motor. In exchange, Tesla will charge for inflation, commodity pricing security, and price the CT to pocket most of the tax rebate, until production and supply chains ramp to capacity, and people will buy the "improved" CT for a 15-25% premium without a problem.

BTW The latest figures for battery production, and the price target for 4680's is around the $70kWh or around $8400 for a 120kWh pack for just the cells. Structural pack technically could be the same cost as the conventional non-structural pack, there's nothing really note worthy in there that adds cost, with the advantage being that less overall vehicle structure is required.

 

[charliemagpie]

Tesla will first release the version which will beat the Lightning in a tug of war so convincingly that there will be brown skid marks where the lighting once stood.

 

[happy intruder]

I am about 65k in the queue. Since about 25% are out of country, I figure that means I’m around 50k actual. I think they are going to ignore configurations and just send emails out in order of your res number.

I’ll probably get the quad steer, dual motor, tri vault, medium range, big wheel trim.

Or whatever comes available first.

I am at 46k, and have no idea what will be available......dual, try or quad......hopein for dual with 400mi range and below 75k

 

[cvalue13]

What "ridiculous" manufacturer wouldn't first do a economic forecast of if said product is at all profitable?

all good points thanks

But to be fair, few manufacturers announce products that aren’t prepared to launch, much less years out from launch. I’m not sure that what’s “normal” for forecasting applies.

Otherwise, I think EM’s comment was a bit of something other. It was apparently in the context of discussing the lack of battery scale, therefore meaning they could produce so few CT units that each unit would be exorbitant in price “There's a reason why you do things at volume production, which is to get the economies of scale that get the cost down”

In other words, without sufficient battery production they could not scale CT production to levels required to make them remotely economical. Seems an obvious point, and seems the most obvious point causing years-long delays.

 

[JBee]

all good points thanks

But to be fair, few manufacturers announce products that aren’t prepared to launch, much less years out from launch. I’m not sure that what’s “normal” for forecasting applies.

Otherwise, I think EM’s comment was a bit of something other. It was apparently in the context of discussing the lack of battery scale, therefore meaning they could produce so few CT units that each unit would be exorbitant in price “There's a reason why you do things at volume production, which is to get the economies of scale that get the cost down”

In other words, without sufficient battery production they could not scale CT production to levels required to make them remotely economical. Seems an obvious point, and seems the most obvious point causing years-long delays.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that battery "cost" is the limiting factor for CT production, maybe production numbers, but not cost. MY already has the 4680 structural pack on the street, and manufacturing at 1000 a week. They are still selling the 4680 MY at the same cost. Do you have info on the 4680 cost we don't know about?

Regardless, EM said recently they have enough legacy battery supply for cars, being 2170/18650 production from Panasonic and Co, plus LFP from China, so they could of earmarked 4680 just for CT if they wanted too. In fact I remember vividly the discussions we had here on this forum if at all would get the 4680 after battery day. It would still work with 2170 too, and they are mass produced and a known cost.

Either could of been in CT's instead, but my understanding is the controller shortage from wafer manufacturing meant they could only produce a limited number of cars, and adding another new model would only reduce the numbers of the existing models. Otherwise the main component they are still missing is the 9kt gigapress for the rear castings. That thing did not exist until a few months ago and only came about way after the CT was revealed. Castings and structural pack weren't even a thing when CT was released, that only happened over a year later.

Anyways, my point is that I haven't seen any evidence of the cost of 4680 battery production being the reason for the delay.

 

[cvalue13]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that battery "cost" is the limiting factor for CT production, maybe production numbers, but not cost.

You’re maybe not slowing down to read

First, *I* didn’t say anything - I was quoting EM from Q2 2021 investor’s call

Second, I/he didn’t say battery cost - but instead that there is so little battery available (at that point), they could only produce so few trucks (at that point), that there would be no economy of scale resulting in production of each truck being far too expensive

At the time, he was explaining the further delay of the CT in these terms

(And to remind: bringing that up was not to say those facts remain the same today, but instead only that it would be surprising to me that in only 1 year things had changed so drastically as to still both (A) offer a ~$40K version of a CT and still yet (B) retain a 30% net profit margin (A/B being what someone earlier seemed to be putting forth)

 

[charliemagpie]

Whilst my comment above was with tongue in cheek, in essence I think there is value for Tesla to introduce a model which will win be a clear standout compared to the competition.

First impressions are important, for this reason alone, one could pose a convincing argument for the quad first.

---

A conspiracy theorist could say by spreading the rumor that the dual motor is being produced first, it could sway some impatient CT customers' to compromise towards Rivian, which after all, if the Tri or Quad is years away, why wait any longer.

 

[JStat]

Brian from MyTeslaWeekend has some new juice... take it what you will.




Get through all the other stuff, but around 9:40 in, he starts talking about some leaks he's heard from his sources at Tesla.

1.) Semi will be using plaid or plaid-similar carbon wrapped motors and they are cranking them out currently at Fremont/Nevada. Just 3-4 trucks worth of motors per day at Nevada which isn't the main factory for those motors.

2.) Nevada is setting up two new power wall 3 lines for a total of 3 lines cranking out 33,000 power walls a day by end of year.

3.) Cybertruck will be Dual Motor only for approximately the first 500k units produced because they will have a shortage of carbon wrap needed for the quad motors as its all going to Semi and other model's plaid motors. And due to the amount of models sharing the same motors, they will be trying to get as many cybertrucks built as possible with the fewest motors until the bottleneck clears up.

cue the hot takes and heated arguments...

I have heard the same thing about the Semi motors/day from other sources. That, I believe, as would I believe similarly the Cybertruck tie-in. We will surely see.

 

[JBee]

You’re maybe not slowing down to read

First, *I* didn’t say anything - I was quoting EM from Q2 2021 investor’s call

Second, I/he didn’t say battery cost - but instead that there is so little battery available (at that point), they could only produce so few trucks (at that point), that there would be no economy of scale resulting in production of each truck being far too expensive

At the time, he was explaining the further delay of the CT in these terms

(And to remind: bringing that up was not to say those facts remain the same today, but instead only that it would be surprising to me that in only 1 year things had changed so drastically as to still both (A) offer a ~$40K version of a CT and still yet (B) retain a 30% net profit margin (A/B being what someone earlier seemed to be putting forth)

Sorry, to me your comments sounded like they couldn't afford to produce the CT because 4680 batteries haven't been scaled up to mass production and therefore still cost to much.

Likely resulting from this comment you made further up:

Was it not only a year ago EM was telling investors on earnings calls that if they didn’t sort out the battery each truck will “literally cost a million dollars a piece or more”? Maybe over the last year of inflation and minerals markets they’ve gotten that price down instead to ~$27,000/unit, as you say?

Anyway, I don't think Tesla, or EM plan without having redundancies in place should cutting edge developments and plans not pan out. That is why I posted that on the CT release, everyone thought it would get a 2170 pack, not a 4680, or even structural pack. It could even be the castings and structural pack was a "addon" after the CT reveal, once MY proved it worked, and when they released it had a more substantial "exoskeleton" design that didn't need either.

CT would have worked just fine with 2170's even at the current cost, but I agree that 4680's, if they achieve yield and cost targets, would result in a more profitable CT.

 

[cvalue13]

CT would have worked just fine with 2170's even at the current cost, but I agree that 4680's, if they achieve yield and cost targets, would result in a more profitable CT.

yeah I suppose I don’t know what, I’m Q2 of ‘21, was in EM’s mind regarding why there were not “enough” batteries to produce the CT at sufficient scale. Or, if EM was merely lying to investors on the call with a convenient excuse.

But back to the prior point in which it was raised: given that recent history and that the CT is still not being manufactured, assertions that each trim level of CT will be equally profitable (on a relative basis), and in fact each at a 30% net profit margin per unit, seems … as of yet unfounded aspiration.

 

[JBee]

yeah I suppose I don’t know what, I’m Q2 of ‘21, was in EM’s mind regarding why there were not “enough” batteries to produce the CT at sufficient scale. Or, if EM was merely lying to investors on the call with a convenient excuse.

But back to the prior point in which it was raised: given that recent history and that the CT is still not being manufactured, assertions that each trim level of CT will be equally profitable (on a relative basis), and in fact each at a 30% net profit margin per unit, seems … as of yet unfounded aspiration.

Not sure what you mean with trim, but I'm going under the assumption there will only be one motor choice being the QM, and that most of the other features, like 4WS etc will be standard. With that at a price point starting around $65-70k they are in a overall winning position, even in comparison to reveal day.

 

[cvalue13]

Not sure what you mean with trim, but I'm going under the assumption there will only be one motor choice being the QM, and that most of the other features, like 4WS etc will be standard. With that at a price point starting around $65-70k they are in a overall winning position, even in comparison to reveal day.

If you read back up the thread, my posts were in response to someone suggesting essentially that they would make all the different versions of the truck, because they make the same amount of money on all the different versions of the truck

 

[Crissa]

But to be fair, few manufacturers announce products that aren’t prepared to launch, much less years out from launch. I’m not sure that what’s “normal” for forecasting applies.

Few? Seems like all of them, as far as I can tell. Or maybe it's just the tech industry.

How many of the EVs announced have been endlessly delayed or canceled? There's not even a moving prototype of the new Jeep models!

-Crissa

 

[cvalue13]

Few? Seems like all of them, as far as I can tell. Or maybe it's just the tech industry.

How many of the EVs announced have been endlessly delayed or canceled? There's not even a moving prototype of the new Jeep models!

-Crissa

Fair enough, though I was limiting to auto manufacturers; if allowed an additional paragraph to flesh it out:

True the handful of EV’s have had a different vibe, but more generally in the ICE manufacture world it’s standard fare to announce vehicles that get made, on schedule.

For EVs, if the majors have materially slipped/failed to bring one announced I probably haven’t been paying attention.

Jeep’s announcement was they were going to make something in 3 years, but with (as far as I noticed) zero mention of price, specs, etc.

Which brings back to the prior convo RE the CT announcement: even with EVs, I can’t off hand think of a major that has announced price and specs 3+ years before production. Though, soon as I say that, no doubt folks will have some!

Sponsored