cvalue13
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2022
- Threads
- 74
- Messages
- 7,153
- Reaction score
- 13,764
- Location
- Austin, TX
- Vehicles
- F150L
- Occupation
- Fun-employed
- Thread starter
- #1
UPDATE Jan 27th 2024:
Through various efforts between myself, @newwave1331, @JBee, @scottf200, and most recently @bwilliam79, the VIN activation data tracking & presentation effort has evolved to this:
http://ctvins.tehkernel.com
A big hat tip to @bwilliam79 for building upon what @newwave1331 had accomplished from a programming perspective, and in taking/automating a laboring oar from @newwave1331, to arrive at the VIN tracking site.
An associated set of notes from @bwilliam79 regarding the site:
While the data will be collected and presented at that site, we will here on this forum occasional collect and bring-down that information here when certain key observations or questions present.
Afterall, we only arrived at the new VIN tracking site in virtue of the community here providing observations, feedback, and assistance. For the same reasons, even though the data is presented at that site, it’s important to keep up the discussion (and scrutiny) here in forum.
UPDATE 12/16/2023
With collaboration from @newwave1331 and @JBee, the relative sophistication and utility of this thread has increased a fair bit from its nascent historical start.
Where initially this thread was explaining how Tesla VINs work generally (see immediately below), then later piecing together VINs of early pre-production builds (see ~pages 1-7), to now being in the earliest stages of having a decent grasp and tracking of Tesla’s VIN registrations for the CyberTruck (see ~pages ~7-8).
Where we’re headed next, is roughly the same process Bloomberg News used to track early Model 3 production ramp in its “Tesla Model 3 Tracker.”
Indeed, with any luck, Bloomberg or another sophisticated outfit with paid analysts picks up this torch again, and does this lifting with more resources (and better info-presenting tools than the forum provides).
Bur for now, for either us or Bloomberg, the info from Tesla this early in production ramp is not terribly deep or predictive.
Basically, this early in ramp, there are presumably a lot of growing pains and line shake-down occurring. As such, weekly VIN registration data can be expected as choppy and reflecting any number of earliest ramp hiccups or surges. It may be weeks before enough data is compiled to begin plotting projections, etc.
Still, some key and interesting info about this early stage of volatility is evident.
Particularly given the total number of CyberTruck’s built to date, and the build blend of AWD to Cyberbeasts. So far, all and only “Foundation Series” units. Which info about Foundation units allow us to lightly infer some info about when, perhaps, normal retail units may begin being available for configuration/delivery.
Those trends are recounted immediately below. As data develops further, we aspire to clean up this thread to have a front page of live updating charts and graphs (at least, perhaps, until Bloomberg et al take over for us).
Cyberbeast will be built, but rarely (compared to AWD) for now.
After the delivery event on Nov. 30, Tesla has registered only one (1!) VIN # for a Cyberbeast build - while >200 AWD VINs have been registers.
Going further back, including all RC/MC and Foundstiin builds (including a bundle of Beasts handed over in connection with the Delivery Event), the total build blend has been about 9-to-1 favoring AWD.
Here’s the overall data, since the first Release Candidate build at GFTX began back on ~June 1, 23, to the date of this post.
This and more info from our Cybertruck VIN Tracking Thread
There’s a Beast driveline parts bottleneck, which if resolved *could* change the build blend.
In theory, if driveline parts become infinitely available, they could reverse the build blend and play catch-up on the Cyberbeast backlog. Building instead eg 9-to-1 in favor of Beasts, until caught up.
However, it’s also possible that Tesla plans to keep Beasts relatively rare (as halo products), even if the bottleneck breaks. In which case perhaps they catch up, but not at a pace of eg 9-to-1.
Ultimately we don’t know Tesla’s intended/aspirational build blend, only current build blend and VIN registration data (plus a dash of clandestine info).
Since the delivery event on Nov. 30 to the date of this post, Tesla has registered a about ONE (1) VIN for a Cyberbeast build. In that same time, they’ve registered almost 200 AWD VINs.
VIN registrations always exceed actual production and assembly figures, so Tesla’s conceivably to date (since the Delivery Event) begun assembly on no Cyberbeasts, and somewhere shy of 200 AWD units.
While that blend is surely not Tesla’s aspirational goal, even if the Beast bottleneck is resolved, and even if Tesla then plays catch-up for a period, we don’t know Tesla’s aspirational blend goal.
Some may think/say Tesla would like to sell more Beast than AWD, due to higher profit in Beast. This is certainly a reasonable take.
Some may counter that the Beast is a Halo product, and as such marketing and corporate interests in maintaining exclusivity of the Beast availability would be weighed in Tesla’s aspirational blend. This is also a reasonable take.
But the reality is, given the early demand and reservation backlog for Cybertruck, any normal course aspirational build blend may be secondary to Tesla seeking to fulfill order backlogs.
This forum’s order tracking chart, presently shows around a 6-to-4 ratio of AWD to Beast orders.
But with the present build blend of 9-to-1 in favor of AWD, that means the average Beast order will be waiting for delivery ~9 times longer than the average AWD order.
Put differently, in terms of wait times between order and delivery, the line for Cyberbeasts is 9 times longer than the line for AWDs.
From an optics and customer satisfaction perspective, this will eventually become a problem Tesla wants to resolve, regardless of their ultimate aspirational build blend.
However, Tesla’s recent communications about delivery expectations for Foundation AWD vs Beast suggest that Tesla foresees the bottleneck extending for some time.
In the initial Dec. 8th tranche of Foundation order invites, Tesla’s stated delivery estimates for AWD was Dec. 23 to March ‘24, while for Beast it was ‘early 24.’
But in the most recent Dec. 15 tranche of Foundation order invites, this changed to AWD “Jan. 24 to May 24,” and Beast to ‘mid- to late-24.”
This recent update suggests that, however many Beast-to-AWD orders they’ve received, they don’t expect to catch up to AWD with their bottleneck.
If this Forum’s order chart is any decent proxy of Tesla’s order blend, around 6-to-4 in favor of AWD, it means they anticipate still quite a lot of bottleneck through all build/deliveries in 2024.
And that’s just for Foundation series.
When it comes to normal retail units, it seems *possible* that Beast configurations don’t open up until at least late 2024, while normal retail AWD could open up as soon as Q2.
Or Later.
Let’s assume for the moment that Foundation orders have finished, so Tesla’s most recent delivery timing is what it takes for Tesla to finish Foundation deliveries.
In that scenario, Tesla is wrapping up Foundation Beast deliveries not until late 2024. That would suggest normal retail order confirmations don’t go out until say Q3 for first retail deliveries in day Q4.
If instead Tesla isn’t yet done taking Foundation orders, it means the next tranche should come with a further delivery expectation, further out.
Not until we know for certain that Tesla’s done taking foundation orders, and have any then-current info on expected Foundation delivery timelines, can we have any idea how much further PAST the end of year before normal retail Beast order/deliveries begin.
(And yes, I assume Tesla’s delivery estimates are made with best-present view as to production capacity forecasts.)
HISTORICAL POSTS / UPDATES BEGIN BELOW
Tesla’s VINS generally:
Where Digits 12 - 17:
IN PRE-RETAIL PRODUCTION:
DIGIT 12 PRE-retail Production series: before retail production, this digit 12 will be an A = alpha, B = beta, R = release candidate, S=Signature, F=Founders
(EDIT 11/19: seems historical S/F approach not followed with CT, as first delivery event units are numbered 000001+ - and new “Foundation” nomenclature perhaps being used - distinct from “Founders”).
WHEREAS DIGITS 13-17: production sequence, and for above pre-production categories will generally start with a batch number in the hundredths
e.g., each Alpha could be “AXX3XX,” whereas each beta “BXX4XX” and so on
IN RETAIL PRODUCTION
After retail Production starts, digit 12 has a 0-9 digit here as the first of 6 digits in the production sequence to allow for 999,999 cars
SO, as seen in NZ, all Beta CTs are 5XX
And confirmed from Joe’s video of today, all RC CTs are 6XX
As release candidates can have step-wise iterations toward level of production readiness (eg RC1 vs RC2, etc.), it’s possible that within RCs we later see a jump from eg RC1s being 6XX to eg RC2s being 8XX, TBD
Unsure if they jump hundredth place categories between RC1 and RC2, but only to point out that if at some point in the coming weeks or months we see an ‘8XX’ it doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve built over >200 RCs (though that is also possible - wouldn’t be the plan, but could the result of a long road to retail production)
Conversely, if we see a ‘0XX’ - that’ll very likely be a retail production unit
Through various efforts between myself, @newwave1331, @JBee, @scottf200, and most recently @bwilliam79, the VIN activation data tracking & presentation effort has evolved to this:
http://ctvins.tehkernel.com
A big hat tip to @bwilliam79 for building upon what @newwave1331 had accomplished from a programming perspective, and in taking/automating a laboring oar from @newwave1331, to arrive at the VIN tracking site.
An associated set of notes from @bwilliam79 regarding the site:
- I am not a programmer by trade, this was just a hobby project. Bugs may be present. 
- The web server I'm using to host this is VERY limited in resources. If a bunch of people start hitting it all at once, it may very well be slow to respond or not respond at all. I'll try to keep an eye on this.
- Currently, this process is checking for VIN activations on a four hour interval.
- Feedback is welcome.
While the data will be collected and presented at that site, we will here on this forum occasional collect and bring-down that information here when certain key observations or questions present.
Afterall, we only arrived at the new VIN tracking site in virtue of the community here providing observations, feedback, and assistance. For the same reasons, even though the data is presented at that site, it’s important to keep up the discussion (and scrutiny) here in forum.
UPDATE 12/16/2023
With collaboration from @newwave1331 and @JBee, the relative sophistication and utility of this thread has increased a fair bit from its nascent historical start.
Where initially this thread was explaining how Tesla VINs work generally (see immediately below), then later piecing together VINs of early pre-production builds (see ~pages 1-7), to now being in the earliest stages of having a decent grasp and tracking of Tesla’s VIN registrations for the CyberTruck (see ~pages ~7-8).
Where we’re headed next, is roughly the same process Bloomberg News used to track early Model 3 production ramp in its “Tesla Model 3 Tracker.”
Indeed, with any luck, Bloomberg or another sophisticated outfit with paid analysts picks up this torch again, and does this lifting with more resources (and better info-presenting tools than the forum provides).
Bur for now, for either us or Bloomberg, the info from Tesla this early in production ramp is not terribly deep or predictive.
Basically, this early in ramp, there are presumably a lot of growing pains and line shake-down occurring. As such, weekly VIN registration data can be expected as choppy and reflecting any number of earliest ramp hiccups or surges. It may be weeks before enough data is compiled to begin plotting projections, etc.
Still, some key and interesting info about this early stage of volatility is evident.
Particularly given the total number of CyberTruck’s built to date, and the build blend of AWD to Cyberbeasts. So far, all and only “Foundation Series” units. Which info about Foundation units allow us to lightly infer some info about when, perhaps, normal retail units may begin being available for configuration/delivery.
Those trends are recounted immediately below. As data develops further, we aspire to clean up this thread to have a front page of live updating charts and graphs (at least, perhaps, until Bloomberg et al take over for us).
Cyberbeast will be built, but rarely (compared to AWD) for now.
After the delivery event on Nov. 30, Tesla has registered only one (1!) VIN # for a Cyberbeast build - while >200 AWD VINs have been registers.
Going further back, including all RC/MC and Foundstiin builds (including a bundle of Beasts handed over in connection with the Delivery Event), the total build blend has been about 9-to-1 favoring AWD.
Here’s the overall data, since the first Release Candidate build at GFTX began back on ~June 1, 23, to the date of this post.
| Build Type | AWD | Cyberbeast | Grand Total |
| RC (600-724) | 100 | 20 | 120 |
| MC (801-906) | 95 | 10 | 105 |
| Showroom (1200-1219) | 20 | 20 | |
| Foundation (0-1199) | 187 | 21 | 208 |
| Grand Total | 402 | 51 | 453 |
This and more info from our Cybertruck VIN Tracking Thread
There’s a Beast driveline parts bottleneck, which if resolved *could* change the build blend.
In theory, if driveline parts become infinitely available, they could reverse the build blend and play catch-up on the Cyberbeast backlog. Building instead eg 9-to-1 in favor of Beasts, until caught up.
However, it’s also possible that Tesla plans to keep Beasts relatively rare (as halo products), even if the bottleneck breaks. In which case perhaps they catch up, but not at a pace of eg 9-to-1.
Ultimately we don’t know Tesla’s intended/aspirational build blend, only current build blend and VIN registration data (plus a dash of clandestine info).
Since the delivery event on Nov. 30 to the date of this post, Tesla has registered a about ONE (1) VIN for a Cyberbeast build. In that same time, they’ve registered almost 200 AWD VINs.
VIN registrations always exceed actual production and assembly figures, so Tesla’s conceivably to date (since the Delivery Event) begun assembly on no Cyberbeasts, and somewhere shy of 200 AWD units.
While that blend is surely not Tesla’s aspirational goal, even if the Beast bottleneck is resolved, and even if Tesla then plays catch-up for a period, we don’t know Tesla’s aspirational blend goal.
Some may think/say Tesla would like to sell more Beast than AWD, due to higher profit in Beast. This is certainly a reasonable take.
Some may counter that the Beast is a Halo product, and as such marketing and corporate interests in maintaining exclusivity of the Beast availability would be weighed in Tesla’s aspirational blend. This is also a reasonable take.
But the reality is, given the early demand and reservation backlog for Cybertruck, any normal course aspirational build blend may be secondary to Tesla seeking to fulfill order backlogs.
This forum’s order tracking chart, presently shows around a 6-to-4 ratio of AWD to Beast orders.
But with the present build blend of 9-to-1 in favor of AWD, that means the average Beast order will be waiting for delivery ~9 times longer than the average AWD order.
Put differently, in terms of wait times between order and delivery, the line for Cyberbeasts is 9 times longer than the line for AWDs.
From an optics and customer satisfaction perspective, this will eventually become a problem Tesla wants to resolve, regardless of their ultimate aspirational build blend.
However, Tesla’s recent communications about delivery expectations for Foundation AWD vs Beast suggest that Tesla foresees the bottleneck extending for some time.
In the initial Dec. 8th tranche of Foundation order invites, Tesla’s stated delivery estimates for AWD was Dec. 23 to March ‘24, while for Beast it was ‘early 24.’
But in the most recent Dec. 15 tranche of Foundation order invites, this changed to AWD “Jan. 24 to May 24,” and Beast to ‘mid- to late-24.”
This recent update suggests that, however many Beast-to-AWD orders they’ve received, they don’t expect to catch up to AWD with their bottleneck.
If this Forum’s order chart is any decent proxy of Tesla’s order blend, around 6-to-4 in favor of AWD, it means they anticipate still quite a lot of bottleneck through all build/deliveries in 2024.
And that’s just for Foundation series.
When it comes to normal retail units, it seems *possible* that Beast configurations don’t open up until at least late 2024, while normal retail AWD could open up as soon as Q2.
Or Later.
Let’s assume for the moment that Foundation orders have finished, so Tesla’s most recent delivery timing is what it takes for Tesla to finish Foundation deliveries.
In that scenario, Tesla is wrapping up Foundation Beast deliveries not until late 2024. That would suggest normal retail order confirmations don’t go out until say Q3 for first retail deliveries in day Q4.
If instead Tesla isn’t yet done taking Foundation orders, it means the next tranche should come with a further delivery expectation, further out.
Not until we know for certain that Tesla’s done taking foundation orders, and have any then-current info on expected Foundation delivery timelines, can we have any idea how much further PAST the end of year before normal retail Beast order/deliveries begin.
(And yes, I assume Tesla’s delivery estimates are made with best-present view as to production capacity forecasts.)
HISTORICAL POSTS / UPDATES BEGIN BELOW
Tesla’s VINS generally:
Where Digits 12 - 17:
IN PRE-RETAIL PRODUCTION:
DIGIT 12 PRE-retail Production series: before retail production, this digit 12 will be an A = alpha, B = beta, R = release candidate, S=Signature, F=Founders
(EDIT 11/19: seems historical S/F approach not followed with CT, as first delivery event units are numbered 000001+ - and new “Foundation” nomenclature perhaps being used - distinct from “Founders”).
WHEREAS DIGITS 13-17: production sequence, and for above pre-production categories will generally start with a batch number in the hundredths
e.g., each Alpha could be “AXX3XX,” whereas each beta “BXX4XX” and so on
IN RETAIL PRODUCTION
After retail Production starts, digit 12 has a 0-9 digit here as the first of 6 digits in the production sequence to allow for 999,999 cars
SO, as seen in NZ, all Beta CTs are 5XX
And confirmed from Joe’s video of today, all RC CTs are 6XX
As release candidates can have step-wise iterations toward level of production readiness (eg RC1 vs RC2, etc.), it’s possible that within RCs we later see a jump from eg RC1s being 6XX to eg RC2s being 8XX, TBD
Unsure if they jump hundredth place categories between RC1 and RC2, but only to point out that if at some point in the coming weeks or months we see an ‘8XX’ it doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve built over >200 RCs (though that is also possible - wouldn’t be the plan, but could the result of a long road to retail production)
Conversely, if we see a ‘0XX’ - that’ll very likely be a retail production unit
Sponsored
Last edited:
