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

[rr6013]

A $90k pickup truck is not “Main Street”. Nor is the follow up $90k SUV.

But the fourth vehicle needs to be Main St. WallSt and the upper 4% aren’t enough to loft a bespoke niche brand.

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

MSO is one obvious, customary certificate to trigger these by VIN. Cuz’ IRS the recipient bears the burden of applying. Certifying the crediting ledger falls to the IRS.
Just imagine Birth Certificates will be a piece of cake compared to how the IRS is going to make such a system work in exchange for the credits.

For 2023, I’d suspect that the very few qualifying manufactures (those few with BEV vehicles assembled in North America), will be able to certify with the IRS broad swaths of their battery materials and assemblage bona fides. It’s not as though e.g. Ford has a unmanageable multitude of battery types across model ranges in 2023.

But for 2024 and beyond, when the credit will be eligible instead for a purchase price contract reduction at the dealership (with the dealership then holding the credit and bearing the responsibility with the IRS), I don’t suppose it will be much if any bother to buyers.

We’ll see.

For Teslas and others, the relatively straightforward MSRP caps and taxpayer income caps are likely to be the more common limitations to folks benefiting from any of the new credits/rebates.

 

[Ogre]

But the fourth vehicle needs to be Main St. WallSt and the upper 4% aren’t enough to loft a bespoke niche brand.

Rivian doesn’t have enough scale to produce a Main Street sort of vehicle.

They have yet to demonstrate they can make a profit selling tens of thousands of trucks. Selling hundreds of thousands of anything for a profit is entirely out of their reach.

 

[Qball]

Rivian doesn’t have enough scale to produce a Main Street sort of vehicle.

They have yet to demonstrate they can make a profit selling tens of thousands of trucks. Selling hundreds of thousands of anything for a profit is entirely out of their reach.

100% agree!!!

after watching the Munro’s videos on Rivian their design is hardly any different compared to ford or GM! They are startup in name only IMHO and their production numbers shows exactly just that!

 

[rr6013]

Rivian doesn’t have enough scale to produce a Main Street sort of vehicle.

They have yet to demonstrate they can make a profit selling tens of thousands of trucks. Selling hundreds of thousands of anything for a profit is entirely out of their reach.

That is the crux!

Without a high volume 4th everyman vehicle people can afford, Rivian’s burn rate sunsets the maque in a couple years. What its produced cannot save Rivian - at any price.

But its DNA can. Rivian have what people want hardcodded in its DNA. It needs put that into a 4th platform that’s all business case - no bragging rights.

 

[Ogre]

That is the crux!

Without a high volume 4th everyman vehicle people can afford, Rivian’s burn rate sunsets the maque in a couple years. What its produced cannot save Rivian - at any price.

But its DNA can. Rivian have what people want hardcodded in its DNA. It needs put that into a 4th platform that’s all business case - no bragging rights.

I think before people start talking about Rivian’s 4th leg, they need to make sure the other 3 can actually reach the ground.

 

[Mini2nut]

I agree 100% on this rumor.

Tesla wants to crank out the ”affordable” trim first to help scale up production faster. Think KISS principle. Half the motors needed versus the Quad.

If and when sales start to slow they can offer a the premium Tri or Quad version.

 

[charliemagpie]

Tesla sold some shares and put it in the kitty. That kitty was growing and infrastructure was building. Also, to cover impending recession etc. It was a choice.

We are seeing the rumblings of death.

Lucid are also gearing up to sell shares. Not to boost their sales, or shore up savings, but as a contingency they are 99% sure to use. They will remain on borrowed time bought with borrowed money.

I read the other week of another company ( I forget which) was going to design and produce a different model at an even higher price point. To me, they are struggling with production, they can't make profit at lower prices, so have decided to focus on becoming a higher end niche business.
So already, this next Tesla Killer has had to pivot its business, and is out of the race.

As innocuous these actions would be to the casual observer, to us watching a little closer, they signal the weakening of vital signs.

It begins.

 

[cvalue13]

Tesla wants to crank out the ”affordable” trim first to help scale up production faster. Think KISS principle. Half the motors needed versus the Quad.

*could* be the case, but it would fit in the face of all major trends and analyst forecasts for BEV vehicles in general (pilot toward selling fewer units of higher profit units).

if think that if Tesla bucks that trend it won’t be on fundamentals of being profitable, but instead at a profit loss “spent” in order to gain market share and posture in competition

 

[JBee]

Motors still only cost $752 according to Monroe. Cost reflects availability.

Manufacturing and cost are not significant for motors. There might be supply limits for rare earth magnets in the near future (3-5years) as global EV numbers ramp, but from what I can tell atm Cybertruck ramp shouldn't be affected by it. The rest of the production is highly automated and streamlined, and is not "new" tech. AC motor windings were made in the millions before EV's became popular, and that's the most complicated part.

The two motor argument to reduce costs or increase productivity and vehicle supply, just doesn't hold water on so many levels.

Nickel has been a concern as of late with Ukraine driving peaks seeing Russia is hard to source high grade ore from atm:

Lithium is also having fun:

Remember there is nearly 6 times the mass of Nickel in a Lithium Ion battery than Lithium itself.

Look at the difference between the 2019 CT release and trend and the price now, even without the recent nickel peak.

Given the battery is the main cost of manufacture, and predominately sourced externally, with only long term contracts binding supply costs, if at all, this will likely be the main reason for having difficulty in getting resources at a price that allows the CT to be built on time and on budget. Delaying production, also helps reduce supply costs, as markets stabiles after overreacting to negative stimulus events.

 

[cvalue13]

Nickel has been a concern as of late with Ukraine driving peaks seeing Russia is hard to source high grade ore from atm:

A bit of an aside, but if your implication is that Tesla’s batteries are dependent at all on Russian ore then it’s interesting (at least, to me) to note that any such battery will be excluded from the new tax credits/rebates (so long as that continues to be true)

 

[JBee]

A bit of an aside, but if your implication is that Tesla’s batteries are dependent at all on Russian ore then it’s interesting (at least, to me) to note that any such battery will be excluded from the new tax credits/rebates (so long as that continues to be true)

I wasn't trying to say Tesla sourced materials from Russia, just that Russia affects global commodity prices, no matter who's ground it comes from.

 

[cvalue13]

I wasn't trying to say Tesla sourced materials from Russia, just that Russia affects global commodity prices, no matter who's ground it comes from.

Roget that

Interesring graphs, appreciate it

 

[rr6013]

if Tesla bucks that trend it won’t be on fundamentals of being profitable, but instead at a profit loss “spent” in order to gain market share and posture in competition

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.

 

[JBee]

Tesla is not cash restrained, that is not what is limiting its growth in any way. It's resource and parts constrained, because they are still ramping production of the custom parts they need, or suppliers can't produce enough to meet demand.

EM said himself that if they brought out a new model they would have to reduce how many existing models they make to produce them. The net output would be the same, but with the added risk of developing a new vehicle manufacturing line.

Sponsored