4 ms·

I think it’s a good question to ask, but it doesn’t mean the milestone was meaningless. Several months ago this would have been unthinkable, and the 5000 deadli

I think it’s a good question to ask, but it doesn’t mean the milestone was meaningless. Several months ago this would have been unthinkable, and the 5000 deadline was arbitrary anyway.

meritt 8y ago
> Several months ago this would have been unthinkable Unthinkable? Their Q4-16 Shareholder letter [1] (Feb 22nd, 2017) stated: "Our Model 3 program is on track to start limited vehicle production in July and to steadily ramp production to exceed 5,000 vehicles per week at some point in the fourth quarter and 10,000 vehicles per week at some point in 2018." On July 2nd, 2017 Musk forecasted [2] 20,000 per month by December '17. [1] http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/1ff901ba-bb25-4264-9153-7aa4c477a5a7 http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/1ff901ba-bb25-4264-9153-7aa... [2] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/881757617416056832 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/881757617416056832
- annerajb 8y ago
  Right. And his whole timeline shifted right by 6 month when they didn't start production as they expected a few weeks afterwards. Giving this the new estimate is placed to summer 2018.
  - meritt 8y ago
    The first shift was 3-months, as of Nov 2017 [1]: "We currently expect to achieve a production rate of 5,000 Model 3 vehicles per week by late Q1 2018". When that was missed, it was pushed back again to Q2-18. It looks like those shifting goalposts have finally been met but for the above poster to call it "unthinkable" is absurd. It's the exact messaging we've been hearing for at least a year and a half. [1] http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/d68bddfe-6f2b-4f8f-bed0-94dd7a49cc0f http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/d68bddfe-6f2b-4f8f-bed0-94d...
- Latteland 8y ago
  Their timeline shifted to almost a year later, but it looks like they did get there.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    The company is losing $300 MILLION per quarter. Being late by a year on this figure means $1.2 Billion down the drain. That's the important thing. A lot of people are concerned about Tesla's ability to raise money and stay solvent. Tesla will not be profitable, or even cash-flow positive, until enough Model 3 cars are made. Every month Tesla fails to reach a high-degree of production, Telsa loses another $75 million. ----------- The worst part about this rampup effort is how bursty and unreliable it is. Its going to be a one-week hit of 5000. Next week, or even next month, Tesla's sustainted output will be well below 5000, and therefore Tesla will remain unprofitable for another few months at minimum. That's not even factoring in all the costs Musk threw down for these tents (Obviously a temporary arrangement, as a single storm will put those tents out of commission).
    - Latteland 8y ago
      They are bursty, and they probably won't keep up their last week of the quarter production, when I'm sure they killed themselves to get to 5k/wk. It doesn't really matter if they were 6k or 4k that last week. If we use the total over the quarter we can see if they were making progress overall, rather than one stupid week when they could do something trick to push up their numbers. But the thing is, they did triple their q1 production, going from 9.7 to 28.5k so they almost trippled, or went from an avg of 9/12 weeks to 28/12 weeks, a clear increase. The newly announced goal is 6k by the end of August. It doesn't matter if through super-human work they get one week that is good, we can just measure their performance by total production, so I'd guess at least 50k would be another significant increase. It won't be 6k*12 weeks in q3. Lost in this is the significant additional revenue they get. They aren't making their cheapest cars yet, so at 50k each, that last week alone was 250 million additional revenue. That 28.5 cars is about 1 billion more in revenue than q1. If they double that again, you are talking real money :-)
Someone1234 8y ago
> the 5000 deadline was arbitrary anyway. Wasn't it in multiple letters to shareholders? It is literally an update to debtors on the company's position, far from arbitrary. Were Tesla required to give an estimate? Nope. But doing so may be used to attract further investment into the company, so it is far from innocent.
- Robotbeat 8y ago
  Shareholders aren't debtors. It's still arbitrary, a goal they set for themselves.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    SEC likely wouldn't agree, and haven't agreed historically.
    - Kranar 8y ago
      What are you claiming the SEC would disagree with? The claim is that Tesla set a goal of 5000 vehicles per week. There are two things you could disagree with but you don't specify which. You can disagree that Tesla set this goal for itself, or you can disagree that the number 5000 is arbitrary. To disagree with the first part, you'd need to show that the 5000 figure came from an external party, do you have such a source for this? To disagree with the second part, you'd need to show that there is something significant about the number 5000. Is your claim that there is some significance to the number 5000? If you can't substantiate the claim that some external party gave Tesla the goal to make 5000 vehicles per week, and you can't substantiate the claim that the number 5000 has some fundamental significance when it comes to car manufacturing, then you have no grounds to refute the statement that Tesla set this arbitrary goal of 5000 for itself.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Wasn't it in multiple letters to shareholders? It is literally an update to debtors on the company's position, far from arbitrary. Debtors are people who owe you money. The word you are probably looking for is “creditors”, who are people you owe money (e.g., corporate bondholders.) But, while it's closer, stockholders aren't those, either.
make3 8y ago
I think that most people would agree that it was implied in the idea of the milestone that it would be sustainable for more than 7 days.

I think it’s a good question to ask, but it doesn’t mean the milestone was meaningless. Several months ago this would have been unthinkable, and the 5000 deadline was arbitrary anyway.

meritt 8y ago

> Several months ago this would have been unthinkable Unthinkable? Their Q4-16 Shareholder letter [1] (Feb 22nd, 2017) stated: "Our Model 3 program is on track to start limited vehicle production in July and to steadily ramp production to exceed 5,000 vehicles per week at some point in the fourth quarter and 10,000 vehicles per week at some point in 2018." On July 2nd, 2017 Musk forecasted [2] 20,000 per month by December '17. [1] http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/1ff901ba-bb25-4264-9153-7aa4c477a5a7 http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/1ff901ba-bb25-4264-9153-7aa... [2] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/881757617416056832 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/881757617416056832

annerajb 8y ago
Right. And his whole timeline shifted right by 6 month when they didn't start production as they expected a few weeks afterwards. Giving this the new estimate is placed to summer 2018.
- meritt 8y ago
  The first shift was 3-months, as of Nov 2017 [1]: "We currently expect to achieve a production rate of 5,000 Model 3 vehicles per week by late Q1 2018". When that was missed, it was pushed back again to Q2-18. It looks like those shifting goalposts have finally been met but for the above poster to call it "unthinkable" is absurd. It's the exact messaging we've been hearing for at least a year and a half. [1] http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/d68bddfe-6f2b-4f8f-bed0-94dd7a49cc0f http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/d68bddfe-6f2b-4f8f-bed0-94d...
Latteland 8y ago
Their timeline shifted to almost a year later, but it looks like they did get there.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  The company is losing $300 MILLION per quarter. Being late by a year on this figure means $1.2 Billion down the drain. That's the important thing. A lot of people are concerned about Tesla's ability to raise money and stay solvent. Tesla will not be profitable, or even cash-flow positive, until enough Model 3 cars are made. Every month Tesla fails to reach a high-degree of production, Telsa loses another $75 million. ----------- The worst part about this rampup effort is how bursty and unreliable it is. Its going to be a one-week hit of 5000. Next week, or even next month, Tesla's sustainted output will be well below 5000, and therefore Tesla will remain unprofitable for another few months at minimum. That's not even factoring in all the costs Musk threw down for these tents (Obviously a temporary arrangement, as a single storm will put those tents out of commission).
  - Latteland 8y ago
    They are bursty, and they probably won't keep up their last week of the quarter production, when I'm sure they killed themselves to get to 5k/wk. It doesn't really matter if they were 6k or 4k that last week. If we use the total over the quarter we can see if they were making progress overall, rather than one stupid week when they could do something trick to push up their numbers. But the thing is, they did triple their q1 production, going from 9.7 to 28.5k so they almost trippled, or went from an avg of 9/12 weeks to 28/12 weeks, a clear increase. The newly announced goal is 6k by the end of August. It doesn't matter if through super-human work they get one week that is good, we can just measure their performance by total production, so I'd guess at least 50k would be another significant increase. It won't be 6k*12 weeks in q3. Lost in this is the significant additional revenue they get. They aren't making their cheapest cars yet, so at 50k each, that last week alone was 250 million additional revenue. That 28.5 cars is about 1 billion more in revenue than q1. If they double that again, you are talking real money :-)

Someone1234 8y ago

> the 5000 deadline was arbitrary anyway. Wasn't it in multiple letters to shareholders? It is literally an update to debtors on the company's position, far from arbitrary. Were Tesla required to give an estimate? Nope. But doing so may be used to attract further investment into the company, so it is far from innocent.

Robotbeat 8y ago
Shareholders aren't debtors. It's still arbitrary, a goal they set for themselves.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  SEC likely wouldn't agree, and haven't agreed historically.
  - Kranar 8y ago
    What are you claiming the SEC would disagree with? The claim is that Tesla set a goal of 5000 vehicles per week. There are two things you could disagree with but you don't specify which. You can disagree that Tesla set this goal for itself, or you can disagree that the number 5000 is arbitrary. To disagree with the first part, you'd need to show that the 5000 figure came from an external party, do you have such a source for this? To disagree with the second part, you'd need to show that there is something significant about the number 5000. Is your claim that there is some significance to the number 5000? If you can't substantiate the claim that some external party gave Tesla the goal to make 5000 vehicles per week, and you can't substantiate the claim that the number 5000 has some fundamental significance when it comes to car manufacturing, then you have no grounds to refute the statement that Tesla set this arbitrary goal of 5000 for itself.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Wasn't it in multiple letters to shareholders? It is literally an update to debtors on the company's position, far from arbitrary. Debtors are people who owe you money. The word you are probably looking for is “creditors”, who are people you owe money (e.g., corporate bondholders.) But, while it's closer, stockholders aren't those, either.

make3 8y ago

I think that most people would agree that it was implied in the idea of the milestone that it would be sustainable for more than 7 days.