7 ms·
Model Y production ramp started in January, ahead of schedule. Deliveries expected to start before the end of Q1. Exciting stuff!
by dgritsko 7y ago
Model Y production ramp started in January, ahead of schedule. Deliveries expected to start before the end of Q1. Exciting stuff!
- new_realist 7y agoThe Y will mostly cannibalize 3 sales, but will be good for a few quarters’ pop.
- reaperducer 7y agoThat Model A is going to cannibalize Model T sales, but it will be good for a few quarters' pop. Ford is doomed.
- braythwayt 7y agoiPad started cannibalizing Macbook sales ten years ago. Apple is doomed, we'll see them fail RealSoonNow™️.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- xkjkls 7y agoFord was making a profit when the Model T existed. Tesla isn't.
- adventured 7y agoFalse. Tesla earned a net and operating profit this quarter and last and looks set to continue the trend toward consistent profitability as they roll out their more profitable position in China. They've reached a sales scale where their operating income is annualizing to well over a billion dollars per year. Operating income was $359 million this quarter, and $620 million combined for the two most recent quarters. Free cash flow for the quarter was a billion dollars. They're sitting on $6.2 billion in cash now.
- xkjkls 7y agoYou're quoting non-GAAP numbers. It isn't an achievement to make money just by paying people in stock. Cash flow is also inflated by the use of long-term leases. Tesla lost $800 million this year. That should be the focus.
- reitzensteinm 7y agoWhile you can easily make a good argument that Tesla will be profitable from now on based on extrapolation, given that they lost money ($862 million) in 2019 your declaration of "False." like it's an open and shut case is misplaced (and rude). Parent cherry picked the facts for his argument, you cherry picked yours, neither of you have objective truth on your side. FWIW, I lean towards your argument more than theirs.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- war1025 7y agoI thought the Y was most similar to the X? Am I missing something?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- QuotedForTruth 7y agoIts pretty in between as far as size goes. But it shares many parts with the 3 and most importantly is much closer to the 3 on price. The 3 Dual Motor Long Range is about $48k and the Y is $50k. The X Dual Motor Long Range is $80k. So if it will probably take some sales from both the 3 and X. But X sales aren't very significant compared to 3 sales anyway.
- xkjkls 7y agoIn terms of margin the X sales are still significant. S/X sales are still the only thing that provides any consistent profit to Tesla.
- nordsieck 7y ago> I thought the Y was most similar to the X? IMO, all Tesla vehicles (so far) are pretty similar to each other. On the one hand, Y is a less expensive X. On the other hand, Y is a bigger 3 with a hatch back. I'm not an expert in automotive consumer behavior, but I have to imagine that Y will cannibalize some amount of 3 sales. I also don't think that will matter that much - there is so much demand for Tesla vehicles that they are battery limited.
- pkulak 7y agoIf that was a bad thing, no auto manufacturer would have more than one model.
- jsight 7y agoI think so too, and I think they know that. It sounds like they are "only" planning to ramp US production from the current rate of ~400k total units per year to just over 500k per year. Of course, with China coming online, that still leaves a net increase. It sounds like they may have backed away from some of the more extreme high end projections for the Y. It looks like worldwide production may double within 1-2 years, though.
- damon_c 7y agoIt will ~cannibalize~ eat Toyota Rav 4 and Ford Escape sales as well.
- DennisP 7y agoI was happy to see they'd increased range to 315 miles.
- mikorym 7y agoThat's 507 km, which is starting to become an acceptable range in countries where you tend to travel longer distances.
- pedrocr 7y agoThe model 3 and S already have that range or more. You'll only get ~350km out of that at highway speeds though. The supercharger network makes it perfectly reasonable but it's not yet ideal. Other EVs tend to be far behind still. Most can't charge fast enough and even the ones that do don't have enough charging infrastructure in most places. We're getting very close to mass adoption but will still need 5-10 years more depending on location to get enough battery improvement and charging deployment to make it a no-brainer to get the EV over the pretty good plugin-hybrid models that exist right now.
- torpfactory 7y agoDepends on the definition of highway speeds a bit. At 60mph I hit the rated range pretty much dead on (500km/310mi). At 75mph it’s probably between 350 and 400km. Generally agree about the charging infrastructure. Personally I have fun trying to find where I can connect to the grid but I don’t think everyone would call that fun... Round numbers: I think when there are ~2-3x the number of supercharger locations (not chargers but locations), it will basically be at parity with the convenience of gas. I believe range (500km @ 60mph) is already acceptable and if the number of locations is increased it will be even less of an issue. Just my $.02
- pedrocr 7y agoSure, given the context being in kilometers instead of miles I was using the ~130km/h that is common in a lot of European highways. From experience that gets you less than 350, particularly in winter. Some places (and drivers) are quite a bit faster still. US highways have fairly low speed limits and so range is less of an issue. True parity with gas will take a much longer time. My previous diesel car had almost 4 times the range and could be refueled in 5 minutes. But there are other advantages that cover for that. Which is why my estimate is that 5-10 years depending on location is what will be needed for both the offer of models and the charging infrastructure to all be in place.