Tesla's Cybertruck VIN Activation Tracker (NOT Customer VIN Allocations)

[TeslaFANa]

was responding to a different comment/concept altogether

there are a few people who say (don’t have photos) they ordered a beast and saw an EDS of Jan-March, rather than the multiple photos we’ve seen of either “early 2024” or “mid to late 2024”

I forgot to take screenshots when I ordered my beast January 10th, but I know for a fact that I was not given an estimate time of delivery, I looked for it on every screen. Maybe they stopped giving delivery estimates for beasts.

Sponsored

 

[Known-Background]

I have a theory that if you were in the first round of emails to configure, you should be getting one of the first 1000 production trucks.

At the time they were sent out, a Tesla employee claimed that they were still capped at 1000 Foundation examples. I’m sure as soon as they saw the high conversion rate and customer willingness to pay the extra 20k, they then decided to expand the Foundation run with subsequent rounds of invitations.

But how would this fit into earnings call saying they were almost “sold out for 2024”.

 

[cvalue13]

But how would this fit into earnings call saying they were almost “sold out for 2024”.

easy: earnings call didn’t say that

Here’s what the earnings call actually said:

“ K. Budhiraj​

​

First of all, I want to thank all the Cybertruck reservation holders for their patience. The reservation to order conversion rates so far has been very, very encouraging. If the trend continues as it very likely to be, we will soon sold out all the builds in 2024. And also, we have new orders come in after the launch. The auto numbers keep growing. So we're now all hands on deck, focused on ramping so we can fulfill all the demands in a reduced wait time.”​

Here is what that means in corporate speak:

this is the only rational interpretation, especially given what I know separately

Put differently, here’s the point:

“we sent out [5,000] invites for these trucks priced at a $20K premium, and got [X]% uptake; based on that, when we next send out [30,000] invites, at MSRP, we expect a 2[X]% uptake, which very quickly means we’re sold out for 2024 deliveries”

anyone thinking otherwise is off base

to think otherwise, you’d have to basically assume both (a) Tesla expects to have extremely low total volume in 2024 (like, <15-20k units), and (b) Tesla plans to only configure FS units in 2024

There’s not only zero evidence of (a) to date, it’s the LAST thing they would intend to signal on an earnings call.

as for (b):

not exactly singling out @seanocono here, but his post basically mirrors a dozen others in this thread, all providing the arguments for why eg Tesla won’t offer retail MSRP CTs in 2024 (or for some, 2026!)

I won’t deny that the various reasons people cite are rational. These would all be reasons in the “pro” bucket for such an approach.

But people are glossing over all the reasons in the “con” bucket for such an approach. They’re also glossing over the public indications that this isn’t the plan.

So while all the “pro” reasons for selling FS all 2024 (or through 2026!) are rational, they are not performing the final weighing test of the pro vs cons, nor accounting for the public indications that this isn’t Tesla’s plan.

And, in fairness, here’s the ~non public indication that it isn’t Tesla’s plan: me telling you that it is not (at least still presently).


Meanwhile, I’ll only briefly list some of the other indications:

• every “pro” rationale stated here was easily anticipated by Tesla prior to Nov 30, yet despite those pro reasons it was Tesla’s plan to build only 1,000 FS units (this was fact)

• similarly, on Nov 30, Tesla revealed MSRPs for retail pricing, which is not something you do if you don’t expect to offer those vehicles for a year(s) out

• the “pro” reasons being described regarding the CT would ALSO have applied to almost any prior Tesla model during the first year of ramp, yet Tesla has never taken the approach before

• true enough, the “pro” reasons were some but not all the reasons why the plan to build only 1,000 FS has shifted somewhat, but to think it shifted from “only build 1,000” to “build it so long as anyone pays” is a swing that would go too far

• why too far? Well, there are dozens of such reasons (the “cons” few seem to be weighting), but in brief and to include: public/market perception (just look at the complaining here already about even a 1,000 build plan), Foundation buyer perception (you going to tell your VIPs and earliest adopters they’re getting a ‘limited edition’ and then double-screw them by making it a year(s) long non-exclusive?), etc.

• finally (for what I have time to write this AM), people in this “pro” camp keep conveniently characterizing the FS price as free and clear extra margin, only by ignoring that Tesla is including in those prices a broad range up options/additional equipment that also hits their books on separate margin basis - yes, there’s extra margin there, and yes it’s nice to force people to buy eg premium wheels, home power equipment, etc., but no the $20K premium is not not all upside that overrides the “cons”/downside


ultimately, again, perhaps my focus on the above “cons” is disproportionate only based on my bias created by independently knowing that the current plan is not to sell FS all or even most of 2024

but giving some of those breadcrumbs only to somewhat thwart the responses here along the lines of “source?”

if you’ve not been watching the forum long enough for prior instances where I’ve stood behind a point that is contrary to the group think - just know the “source?” demand crowd got real quiet after Nov 30

 

[cvalue13]

I forgot to take screenshots when I ordered my beast January 10th, but I know for a fact that I was not given an estimate time of delivery, I looked for it on every screen. Maybe they stopped giving delivery estimates for beasts.

they definitely have not stopped giving EDDs

we’ve seen several recent reports of them, and screenshots of same

Meanwhile, folks seem to possibly misunderstand the very limited way in which Tesla gives this EDD, and at what stage in the configuration it is buried.

so when you and others say something like “I was not given an estimated time for delivery,” it leaves ambiguous if we’re talking about the same thing. It suggests the possibility that you were expecting some stage at which during the completion of configuration you’re handed some order-specific EDD.

when instead, the only EDD info anyone has gotten is on the very initial configuration trim selection page, before any actual configuration begins

for *that* EDD info, there has never ONCE been a person who DID take screen shots that DIDNT include one of the following line items of information (which version, depending on at what time they received their invite):

 

[cvalue13]

I have a theory that if you were in the first round of emails to configure, you should be getting one of the first 1000 production trucks.

At the time they were sent out, a Tesla employee claimed that they were still capped at 1000 Foundation examples. I’m sure as soon as they saw the high conversion rate and customer willingness to pay the extra 20k, they then decided to expand the Foundation run with subsequent rounds of invitations.

I’ve stated elsewhere and will repeat here for posterity:

Well before and by the time of the Nov. 30 delivery event, the widely-known (internally) and official plan was to produce only 1,000 FS units. This wasn’t just a misunderstanding at margins, or one or two rando employees that stated it and it took on a life of its own. This was the official plan, internally. As reflected in the build plan (and detailed variously in this thread) from VINS 000000-001219.

Within that build plan, they began with the MC units, before ever building a saleable unit. The MC build units were, in the build plan, slotted VINS 800-999 (200 reserved MC units). These were not Foundation builds. Based merely on how MC allotments work, they were able to stop line validation builds after building only 110 MCs.

Once they were done with the MCs, they very next thing they built were the specially configured showroom units. Which in the build plan were VINS 1200-1219 (20 reserved showroom unit VINs). Which were not foundation builds. So they skipped ahead to build VINS 1200-1219, which were not Foundation builds.

Now finished with with both MC and showroom builds, there remained in the build plan exactly 1,000 VINs between 000000-1199

and as we can now see today (based on my prior post above), of those 1,000 VINs in the build plan, exactly 420 of them were allotted for FS Beast builds, while the remaining 580 were allotted for FS AWD builds.

Having completed the MC and showroom non-FS builds, they then backed up to the beginning of the VINs, and began building the FS units intended for the delivery event. (They did not at first start with eg 000000, or 000001, etc., because those and a few of the other earliest VINs were reserved for the you-know-who’s … but they needed to first build the delivery event units so that they could have them for the Nov 30 deadline).


At some point around this time, the plan to limit FS builds to 1,000 changed.

Exactly how it has changed is still a bit of an unknown. What I do know, is that it has not changed to “build them as long as people buy them” and there is a nearish-term target, that is time based, at which point they aspire to flip over to opening non-FS configurations.


All the above stated, as to what has gone on, does not yet address the separate matter as to why it has gone on or arrived at this place.

On that point, first things first: reasons for these sorts of things are almost always multi-factorial. There are an overlapping and synergistic bucket of reasons to do it a particular way, counterbalanced by a second bucket of reasons to not do it that way. Then the decision is made based on how those two counterbalancing buckets weigh against one another.


So, because there can be overlapping reasons to have changed the plan away from 1,000, I won’t and couldn’t disagree that among the reasons was the either ancillary or primary reasoning that people here are often stating: eg, that Tesla gets more $ for an FS build, etc.

But I don’t think I’ve seen anyone emphasizing the the other brand of reasons that could cause Tesla to essentially be forced to do it.

Here are some of the types of reasons that could essentially force Tesla to expand past 1,000, which can all collectively be true at once and add up to a list of reasons to go past 1,000:

• parts constraints: what if eg the “base” wheels and Pirelli AS tires are not ready to be sold/offered, and so without them Tesla cannot open non-FS configuration for a trim selection that comes in below $80K.There are other such “base” trim features that could, for all we know, be having parts and/or QC constraints.

• regulatory constraints: we still have not seen, eg, finalized EPA numbers for the Cybertruck. They don’t need finalized EPA numbers to sell the Foundation units, but they DO need them to sell normal retail units. For all we know, Tesla and the EPA are still in the background battling over Tesla’s attempt with the CT to apply its most aggressive EPA adjustment factor in history (0.82), and the EPA is pushing back (they’ve done it before). There are other such regulatory hurdles that, for all we know, simply still aren’t finalized, and as a result the FS units are the only ones Tesla can continue to sell until those regulatory constraints are resolved.

• accounting/financial reporting constraints: it still remains the case that these FS configurations may allow Tesla to continue various accounting gymnastics such that their financial reporting doesn’t yet require the realization of Cybertruck related CapEx/OpEx to hit their books. That all changes the moment they begin to sell the non-“special edition” versions of the Cybertrucks.

(on this last point, I still haven’t since Wed had time to dive into the financials from the Q4 call, but on a quick glance it does not seem like Tesla has yet moved these expenses to the revenue-offsetting side of the ledger.)


the three categories of constraints above may not be the only such constraints at play here. But these three are possible if not probable.

At the end of the day, it’s these types of constraints that might be either the necessary or sufficient explanations to the reason why Tesla moved away from the 1,000 FS build plan. And yes, if that were the case, there would be ancillary “silver linings” to that consequence, such as selling more FS units at the higher price.


but that “higher price” folks are making WAY too much of.

they’re acting like that “higher price” is all found upside which Tesla would see none of if they were instead selling non-FS units. That’s simply not the case.

if Tesla was selling non-FS units, they’d STILL be having people buy floor mats, upgrade to the premium wheels, upgrade to the Goodyear ATs, buying home chargers, buying light bars, and yes - even buying FSD!

So is it a nice perk that the FS units basically require people to buy all these accessories and FSD? Sure!

But it is NOT the case that the $20K premium on FS units is all just *found* money. there is *some* forced upside and additional revenue. But there are still COGS in all these things (other perhaps than FSD), offsetting that $20K. There is also offsetting that $20K the fact that many people would be buying some or many of these accessories regardless if they were “forced” to.

hell, it seems that half the people buying Foundation units are only doing so based on the rationale that they would have “bought ALL this stuff anyways,” so the $20K isn’t even a premium for them. Then shy of that, are universes of people that would have bought, “most” of this anyway, and shy of them “some” of this anyway, etc.


End of the day, people are VASTLY overstating the idea that selling these Foundation units are some windfall to Tesla, causing Tesla to sell more than 1,000 of them in order to grab all that *found* money.

and people are VASTLY underestimating the concurrent reasons that Tesla may be essentially constrained into NEEEDING to keep selling Foundation units, because - to put it bluntly they’re not as far along in the ramp/preparation to sell non-FS units as they intended to be.

Which all told is essentially next instantiation of people possibly giving Tesla more credit than the reality behind the curtain.

Hell, just like they’re not dripping out Cyberbeasts because it’s part of some master plan. They simply can’t build the damn things because of supply chain constraints on the rear drive motors.

 

[TeslaFANa]

they definitely have not stopped giving EDDs

we’ve seen several recent reports of them, and screenshots of same

Meanwhile, folks seem to possibly misunderstand the very limited way in which Tesla gives this EDD, and at what stage in the configuration it is buried.

so when you and others say something like “I was not given an estimated time for delivery,” it leaves ambiguous if we’re talking about the same thing. It suggests the possibility that you were expecting some stage at which during the completion of configuration you’re handed some order-specific EDD.

when instead, the only EDD info anyone has gotten is on the very initial configuration trim selection page, before any actual configuration begins

for *that* EDD info, there has never ONCE been a person who DID take screen shots that DIDNT include one of the following line items of information (which version, depending on at what time they received their invite):

I understand the estimated delivery is still posted on the web page, I may be mistaken, but on other threads I've read people say that their order confirmation EMAIL had an estimated delivery date such as it's listed on the web page or that during their configuration it also had a similar statement. I'm pretty sure mine didn't have that during configuration, nor does my email have an estimated delivery. Just to be clear I've read plenty of statements from people getting estimated delivery on the AWD, I was referring to CYBERBEAST. Again, I may be mistaken, I don't mean to spread misinformation, I'm just telling you my experience, I can't back it up with screenshots because I was too excited making the order. But I remember flipping back and forth trying to look for an estimated delivery for the CYBERBEAST and did not find it.

 

[cvalue13]

I understand the estimated delivery is still posted on the web page, I may be mistaken, but on other threads I've read people say that their order confirmation EMAIL had an estimated delivery date such as it's listed on the web page or that during their configuration it also had a similar statement. I'm pretty sure mine didn't have that during configuration, nor does my email have an estimated delivery. Just to be clear I've read plenty of statements from people getting estimated delivery on the AWD, I was referring to CYBERBEAST. Again, I may be mistaken, I don't mean to spread misinformation, I'm just telling you my experience, I can't back it up with screenshots because I was too excited making the order. But I remember flipping back and forth trying to look for an estimated delivery for the CYBERBEAST and did not find it.

I don’t believe anyone has received an EDD outside of or contrary to the basic configuration EDS

 

[Coltpete]

I’ve stated elsewhere and will repeat here for posterity:

Well before and by the time of the Nov. 30 delivery event, the widely-known (internally) and official plan was to produce only 1,000 FS units. This wasn’t just a misunderstanding at margins, or one or two rando employees that stated it and it took on a life of its own. This was the official plan, internally. As reflected in the build plan (and detailed variously in this thread) from VINS 000000-001219.

Within that build plan, they began with the MC units, before ever building a saleable unit. The MC build units were, in the build plan, slotted VINS 800-999 (200 reserved MC units). These were not Foundation builds. Based merely on how MC allotments work, they were able to stop line validation builds after building only 110 MCs.

Once they were done with the MCs, they very next thing they built were the specially configured showroom units. Which in the build plan were VINS 1200-1219 (20 reserved showroom unit VINs). Which were not foundation builds. So they skipped ahead to build VINS 1200-1219, which were not Foundation builds.

Now finished with with both MC and showroom builds, there remained in the build plan exactly 1,000 VINs between 000000-1199

and as we can now see today (based on my prior post above), of those 1,000 VINs in the build plan, exactly 420 of them were allotted for FS Beast builds, while the remaining 580 were allotted for FS AWD builds.

Having completed the MC and showroom non-FS builds, they then backed up to the beginning of the VINs, and began building the FS units intended for the delivery event. (They did not at first start with eg 000000, or 000001, etc., because those and a few of the other earliest VINs were reserved for the you-know-who’s … but they needed to first build the delivery event units so that they could have them for the Nov 30 deadline).


At some point around this time, the plan to limit FS builds to 1,000 changed.

Exactly how it has changed is still a bit of an unknown. What I do know, is that it has not changed to “build them as long as people buy them” and there is a nearish-term target, that is time based, at which point they aspire to flip over to opening non-FS configurations.


All the above stated, as to what has gone on, does not yet address the separate matter as to why it has gone on or arrived at this place.

On that point, first things first: reasons for these sorts of things are almost always multi-factorial. There are an overlapping and synergistic bucket of reasons to do it a particular way, counterbalanced by a second bucket of reasons to not do it that way. Then the decision is made based on how those two counterbalancing buckets weigh against one another.


So, because there can be overlapping reasons to have changed the plan away from 1,000, I won’t and couldn’t disagree that among the reasons was the either ancillary or primary reasoning that people here are often stating: eg, that Tesla gets more $ for an FS build, etc.

But I don’t think I’ve seen anyone emphasizing the the other brand of reasons that could cause Tesla to essentially be forced to do it.

Here are some of the types of reasons that could essentially force Tesla to expand past 1,000, which can all collectively be true at once and add up to a list of reasons to go past 1,000:

• parts constraints: what if eg the “base” wheels and Pirelli AS tires are not ready to be sold/offered, and so without them Tesla cannot open non-FS configuration for a trim selection that comes in below $80K.There are other such “base” trim features that could, for all we know, be having parts and/or QC constraints.

• regulatory constraints: we still have not seen, eg, finalized EPA numbers for the Cybertruck. They don’t need finalized EPA numbers to sell the Foundation units, but they DO need them to sell normal retail units. For all we know, Tesla and the EPA are still in the background battling over Tesla’s attempt with the CT to apply its most aggressive EPA adjustment factor in history (0.82), and the EPA is pushing back (they’ve done it before). There are other such regulatory hurdles that, for all we know, simply still aren’t finalized, and as a result the FS units are the only ones Tesla can continue to sell until those regulatory constraints are resolved.

• accounting/financial reporting constraints: it still remains the case that these FS configurations may allow Tesla to continue various accounting gymnastics such that their financial reporting doesn’t yet require the realization of Cybertruck related CapEx/OpEx to hit their books. That all changes the moment they begin to sell the non-“special edition” versions of the Cybertrucks.

(on this last point, I still haven’t since Wed had time to dive into the financials from the Q4 call, but on a quick glance it does not seem like Tesla has yet moved these expenses to the revenue-offsetting side of the ledger.)


the three categories of constraints above may not be the only such constraints at play here. But these three are possible if not probable.

At the end of the day, it’s these types of constraints that might be either the necessary or sufficient explanations to the reason why Tesla moved away from the 1,000 FS build plan. And yes, if that were the case, there would be ancillary “silver linings” to that consequence, such as selling more FS units at the higher price.


but that “higher price” folks are making WAY too much of.

they’re acting like that “higher price” is all found upside which Tesla would see none of if they were instead selling non-FS units. That’s simply not the case.

if Tesla was selling non-FS units, they’d STILL be having people buy floor mats, upgrade to the premium wheels, upgrade to the Goodyear ATs, buying home chargers, buying light bars, and yes - even buying FSD!

So is it a nice perk that the FS units basically require people to buy all these accessories and FSD? Sure!

But it is NOT the case that the $20K premium on FS units is all just *found* money. there is *some* forced upside and additional revenue. But there are still COGS in all these things (other perhaps than FSD), offsetting that $20K. There is also offsetting that $20K the fact that many people would be buying some or many of these accessories regardless if they were “forced” to.

hell, it seems that half the people buying Foundation units are only doing so based on the rationale that they would have “bought ALL this stuff anyways,” so the $20K isn’t even a premium for them. Then shy of that, are universes of people that would have bought, “most” of this anyway, and shy of them “some” of this anyway, etc.


End of the day, people are VASTLY overstating the idea that selling these Foundation units are some windfall to Tesla, causing Tesla to sell more than 1,000 of them in order to grab all that *found* money.

and people are VASTLY underestimating the concurrent reasons that Tesla may be essentially constrained into NEEEDING to keep selling Foundation units, because - to put it bluntly they’re not as far along in the ramp/preparation to sell non-FS units as they intended to be.

Which all told is essentially next instantiation of people possibly giving Tesla more credit than the reality behind the curtain.

Hell, just like they’re not dripping out Cyberbeasts because it’s part of some master plan. They simply can’t build the damn things because of supply chain constraints on the rear drive motors.

Excellent post. Thank you. Once again I think your analysis is spot on.

 

[CYBEAST]

I’ve stated elsewhere and will repeat here for posterity:

Well before and by the time of the Nov. 30 delivery event, the widely-known (internally) and official plan was to produce only 1,000 FS units. This wasn’t just a misunderstanding at margins, or one or two rando employees that stated it and it took on a life of its own. This was the official plan, internally. As reflected in the build plan (and detailed variously in this thread) from VINS 000000-001219.

Within that build plan, they began with the MC units, before ever building a saleable unit. The MC build units were, in the build plan, slotted VINS 800-999 (200 reserved MC units). These were not Foundation builds. Based merely on how MC allotments work, they were able to stop line validation builds after building only 110 MCs.

Once they were done with the MCs, they very next thing they built were the specially configured showroom units. Which in the build plan were VINS 1200-1219 (20 reserved showroom unit VINs). Which were not foundation builds. So they skipped ahead to build VINS 1200-1219, which were not Foundation builds.

Now finished with with both MC and showroom builds, there remained in the build plan exactly 1,000 VINs between 000000-1199

and as we can now see today (based on my prior post above), of those 1,000 VINs in the build plan, exactly 420 of them were allotted for FS Beast builds, while the remaining 580 were allotted for FS AWD builds.

Having completed the MC and showroom non-FS builds, they then backed up to the beginning of the VINs, and began building the FS units intended for the delivery event. (They did not at first start with eg 000000, or 000001, etc., because those and a few of the other earliest VINs were reserved for the you-know-who’s … but they needed to first build the delivery event units so that they could have them for the Nov 30 deadline).


At some point around this time, the plan to limit FS builds to 1,000 changed.

Exactly how it has changed is still a bit of an unknown. What I do know, is that it has not changed to “build them as long as people buy them” and there is a nearish-term target, that is time based, at which point they aspire to flip over to opening non-FS configurations.


All the above stated, as to what has gone on, does not yet address the separate matter as to why it has gone on or arrived at this place.

On that point, first things first: reasons for these sorts of things are almost always multi-factorial. There are an overlapping and synergistic bucket of reasons to do it a particular way, counterbalanced by a second bucket of reasons to not do it that way. Then the decision is made based on how those two counterbalancing buckets weigh against one another.


So, because there can be overlapping reasons to have changed the plan away from 1,000, I won’t and couldn’t disagree that among the reasons was the either ancillary or primary reasoning that people here are often stating: eg, that Tesla gets more $ for an FS build, etc.

But I don’t think I’ve seen anyone emphasizing the the other brand of reasons that could cause Tesla to essentially be forced to do it.

Here are some of the types of reasons that could essentially force Tesla to expand past 1,000, which can all collectively be true at once and add up to a list of reasons to go past 1,000:

• parts constraints: what if eg the “base” wheels and Pirelli AS tires are not ready to be sold/offered, and so without them Tesla cannot open non-FS configuration for a trim selection that comes in below $80K.There are other such “base” trim features that could, for all we know, be having parts and/or QC constraints.

• regulatory constraints: we still have not seen, eg, finalized EPA numbers for the Cybertruck. They don’t need finalized EPA numbers to sell the Foundation units, but they DO need them to sell normal retail units. For all we know, Tesla and the EPA are still in the background battling over Tesla’s attempt with the CT to apply its most aggressive EPA adjustment factor in history (0.82), and the EPA is pushing back (they’ve done it before). There are other such regulatory hurdles that, for all we know, simply still aren’t finalized, and as a result the FS units are the only ones Tesla can continue to sell until those regulatory constraints are resolved.

• accounting/financial reporting constraints: it still remains the case that these FS configurations may allow Tesla to continue various accounting gymnastics such that their financial reporting doesn’t yet require the realization of Cybertruck related CapEx/OpEx to hit their books. That all changes the moment they begin to sell the non-“special edition” versions of the Cybertrucks.

(on this last point, I still haven’t since Wed had time to dive into the financials from the Q4 call, but on a quick glance it does not seem like Tesla has yet moved these expenses to the revenue-offsetting side of the ledger.)


the three categories of constraints above may not be the only such constraints at play here. But these three are possible if not probable.

At the end of the day, it’s these types of constraints that might be either the necessary or sufficient explanations to the reason why Tesla moved away from the 1,000 FS build plan. And yes, if that were the case, there would be ancillary “silver linings” to that consequence, such as selling more FS units at the higher price.


but that “higher price” folks are making WAY too much of.

they’re acting like that “higher price” is all found upside which Tesla would see none of if they were instead selling non-FS units. That’s simply not the case.

if Tesla was selling non-FS units, they’d STILL be having people buy floor mats, upgrade to the premium wheels, upgrade to the Goodyear ATs, buying home chargers, buying light bars, and yes - even buying FSD!

So is it a nice perk that the FS units basically require people to buy all these accessories and FSD? Sure!

But it is NOT the case that the $20K premium on FS units is all just *found* money. there is *some* forced upside and additional revenue. But there are still COGS in all these things (other perhaps than FSD), offsetting that $20K. There is also offsetting that $20K the fact that many people would be buying some or many of these accessories regardless if they were “forced” to.

hell, it seems that half the people buying Foundation units are only doing so based on the rationale that they would have “bought ALL this stuff anyways,” so the $20K isn’t even a premium for them. Then shy of that, are universes of people that would have bought, “most” of this anyway, and shy of them “some” of this anyway, etc.


End of the day, people are VASTLY overstating the idea that selling these Foundation units are some windfall to Tesla, causing Tesla to sell more than 1,000 of them in order to grab all that *found* money.

and people are VASTLY underestimating the concurrent reasons that Tesla may be essentially constrained into NEEEDING to keep selling Foundation units, because - to put it bluntly they’re not as far along in the ramp/preparation to sell non-FS units as they intended to be.

Which all told is essentially next instantiation of people possibly giving Tesla more credit than the reality behind the curtain.

Hell, just like they’re not dripping out Cyberbeasts because it’s part of some master plan. They simply can’t build the damn things because of supply chain constraints on the rear drive motors.

In your opinion, when do you think they will ramp up the beast production? Any insight on where those motors are coming from? Why they can’t get them? Someone in here has to work for whoever builds them lol

 

[Axtrader]

I understand the estimated delivery is still posted on the web page, I may be mistaken, but on other threads I've read people say that their order confirmation EMAIL had an estimated delivery date such as it's listed on the web page or that during their configuration it also had a similar statement. I'm pretty sure mine didn't have that during configuration, nor does my email have an estimated delivery. Just to be clear I've read plenty of statements from people getting estimated delivery on the AWD, I was referring to CYBERBEAST. Again, I may be mistaken, I don't mean to spread misinformation, I'm just telling you my experience, I can't back it up with screenshots because I was too excited making the order. But I remember flipping back and forth trying to look for an estimated delivery for the CYBERBEAST and did not find it.

I ordered the Cyberbeast about an hour after receiving 7:30PM PST email on Dec 8th. While I screenshot most of the order screens, I failed to capture the delivery window screen. I remember vividly debating the Dec-Mar AWD delivery versus the Jan-Mar Cyberbeast delivery window.

No picture for proof, but remember the dilemna clearly. Went with the Beast and hoping it is delivered in the next 8 weeks.

 

[Bkb13]

I ordered the Cyberbeast about an hour after receiving 7:30PM PST email on Dec 8th. While I screenshot most of the order screens, I failed to capture the delivery window screen. I remember vividly debating the Dec-Mar AWD delivery versus the Jan-Mar Cyberbeast delivery window.

No picture for proof, but remember the dilemna clearly. Went with the Beast and hoping it is delivered in the next 8 weeks.

I also ordered on the 8th and I got the following screenshot.

 

[CyberFreak]

Strange how not a single purported Beast order with a “Jan - March 2024” estimate has a screenshot…?

 

[cvalue13]

In your opinion, when do you think they will ramp up the beast production? Any insight on where those motors are coming from? Why they can’t get them? Someone in here has to work for whoever builds them lol

Tesla is pretty clearly signaling it won’t break free anytime soon

early into FS invites, AWDs were getting an EDD of at-latest end of Q1, while Beasts were getting an EDD of at-latest end of Q4. That’s an up to 4X as long delivery window.

Meanwhile, using this forum’s order tracking as a good rough proxy, only ~1/3 of FS orders are for the Beast.

Together, that means Tesla thinks that it’ll take 4X as long to deliver only 1/3 the number of units.



If Tesla thought a breakthrough was around the corner, in say 5 months, and they’d have all the motors they need, they could just plan to at that time pause AWD builds and do an eg month of catch-up Beast builds.

never say never, but I take Tesla’s EDDs for the Beast relative to the AWD to mean that I wouldn’t bet on Beast builds speeding up materially anytime soon.

 

[CYBEAST]

Tesla is pretty clearly signaling it won’t break free anytime soon

early into FS invites, AWDs were getting an EDD of at-latest end of Q1, while Beasts were getting an EDD of at-latest end of Q4. That’s an up to 4X as long delivery window.

Meanwhile, using this forum’s order tracking as a good rough proxy, only ~1/3 of FS orders are for the Beast.

Together, that means Tesla thinks that it’ll take 4X as long to deliver only 1/3 the number of units.



If Tesla thought a breakthrough was around the corner, in say 5 months, and they’d have all the motors they need, they could just plan to at that time pause AWD builds and do an eg month of catch-up Beast builds.

never say never, but I take Tesla’s EDDs for the Beast relative to the AWD to mean that I wouldn’t bet on Beast builds speeding up materially anytime soon.

I figure at 20 beasts a week, I should get one in about 10-15 weeks. I’m fine with that.

 

[CyberNickOH]

Even though this is my third Tesla ordered, I've never followed the manufacturing numbers during the process until now. But I'm surprised they aren't building 7 days a week. But after reading the awesome post above by cvalue13, it could be numerous factors of not having parts, fine tuning the process and/or software, etc. But it seems more trucks on the road are needed for the software data needed.

Sponsored