4 ms·

Disclaimer: Previously worked in Toyota's EV R&D division, opinions my own. > Remember, Tesla has to become bigger than Toyota to justify the stock price. It i

Disclaimer: Previously worked in Toyota's EV R&D division, opinions my own. > Remember, Tesla has to become bigger than Toyota to justify the stock price. It is not possible to do that at Tesla's current price points. It is not possible to do that at Tesla's current price points. Long term Tesla has to create a balance sheet and a narrative that convince people that it's current valuation is justified. Based on my time in R&D I think Tesla might achieve that through lower cost vehicles - they were taking some very bold steps in manufacturing that might be hard for others to catch up to - but could also achieve it through other means. One thing I was very aware of at my time at Toyota was how many of the nascent supplies of Lithium and Cobalt Tesla was snatching up directly or indirectly. Even if other companies can deliver a lower cost of production it may not matter if they can't supply the batteries. 3-5 years from now those investments might pay off substantially in lower costs for Tesla's rather than other vehicles even if the bets in manufacturing don't work out.

VBprogrammer 4y ago
What I want to see is Tesla come up with a sequel which is another hit. I feel like their car styling was comfortably out there when electric cars first came on to the scene but now it's become incredibly safe. Other companies, now they are building specific EVs rather than throwing some batteries in the back of an existing car and calling it an EV, are really starting to play with the concept and are making some great looking cars. Cars like the Ionic 5 and the Honda-E for example are making the Tesla's look old hat.
- mft_ 4y ago
  Well , there’s the Cybertruck…
  - VBprogrammer 4y ago
    Not a fan personally. Looks like someone tried to make a truck out of a table napkin.
    - mft_ 4y ago
      I was just pointing out that their next design isn't "safe", as you find their current designs.
- throwaway742 4y ago
  >Cars like the Ionic 5 and the Honda-E for example are making the Tesla's look old hat. Both those cars look hideous to me.
  - VBprogrammer 4y ago
    I would argue objectively that you are wrong, or at least that a significant percentage of the population disagree with you. The Ionic 5 at the moment has such a long waiting list that people are selling them second hand for more than they actually cost to buy new. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the Tesla aesthetic is due for a refresh. Whether they have to go as unconventional as some other manufacturers have is up for debate but that they need to come up with something new surely isn't.
hef19898 4y ago
As long as Tesla doesn't own the Li suppliers or mining rights, it doesn't matter how much Tesla got in the past, because going forward all other EV makers, or battery makers, will get their volumes as well. Prices will spike, in which case past contracts can help to buffer that. And assuming Tesla has a squezze on Li supplies, laws prevent the use of that control to hurt competitors. Braking these laws carries enough fines in all major markets that they will be adhered to.
- Hermitian909 4y ago
  > As long as Tesla doesn't own the Li suppliers or mining rights, it doesn't matter how much Tesla got in the past My understanding is that Tesla is leveraging long-term contractual lock-ins in various shapes. One particular one I heard was that in exchange for fronting some of the up-front cost for the mine Tesla would retain the right to buy X% of the mine's output at a maximum markup of Y% over cost to produce. This kind of contractual lock-in can achieve the desired goal without using either of the mechanisms you listed.
  - three_seagrass 4y ago
    These types of contracts are not new or innovative. They're usually used by mining companies to hedge future market variance, and are not exclusive to Tesla either. On top of other companies having these contracts in place as well, mining companies will pay to break these contracts if a high enough bidder comes along or flat out pays them to break it. With demand pricing spiking for batteries, these lock ins are not very strong.
    - Hermitian909 4y ago
      > These types of contracts are not new or innovative. Agreed. > On top of other companies having these contracts in place as well Yes, but scale is important. My analysis at the time was that Tesla was locking in significantly more material behind contracts than Toyota or other companies. > mining companies will pay to break these contracts if a high enough bidder comes along or flat out pays them to break it. This assumes the contract is written in such a way that Tesla does not have to consent to the contract being broken. My understanding was that Tesla was trying to get into as many contracts as they could without such clauses.

VBprogrammer 4y ago

What I want to see is Tesla come up with a sequel which is another hit. I feel like their car styling was comfortably out there when electric cars first came on to the scene but now it's become incredibly safe. Other companies, now they are building specific EVs rather than throwing some batteries in the back of an existing car and calling it an EV, are really starting to play with the concept and are making some great looking cars. Cars like the Ionic 5 and the Honda-E for example are making the Tesla's look old hat.

mft_ 4y ago
Well , there’s the Cybertruck…
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  Not a fan personally. Looks like someone tried to make a truck out of a table napkin.
  - mft_ 4y ago
    I was just pointing out that their next design isn't "safe", as you find their current designs.
throwaway742 4y ago
>Cars like the Ionic 5 and the Honda-E for example are making the Tesla's look old hat. Both those cars look hideous to me.
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  I would argue objectively that you are wrong, or at least that a significant percentage of the population disagree with you. The Ionic 5 at the moment has such a long waiting list that people are selling them second hand for more than they actually cost to buy new. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the Tesla aesthetic is due for a refresh. Whether they have to go as unconventional as some other manufacturers have is up for debate but that they need to come up with something new surely isn't.

hef19898 4y ago

As long as Tesla doesn't own the Li suppliers or mining rights, it doesn't matter how much Tesla got in the past, because going forward all other EV makers, or battery makers, will get their volumes as well. Prices will spike, in which case past contracts can help to buffer that. And assuming Tesla has a squezze on Li supplies, laws prevent the use of that control to hurt competitors. Braking these laws carries enough fines in all major markets that they will be adhered to.

Hermitian909 4y ago
> As long as Tesla doesn't own the Li suppliers or mining rights, it doesn't matter how much Tesla got in the past My understanding is that Tesla is leveraging long-term contractual lock-ins in various shapes. One particular one I heard was that in exchange for fronting some of the up-front cost for the mine Tesla would retain the right to buy X% of the mine's output at a maximum markup of Y% over cost to produce. This kind of contractual lock-in can achieve the desired goal without using either of the mechanisms you listed.
- three_seagrass 4y ago
  These types of contracts are not new or innovative. They're usually used by mining companies to hedge future market variance, and are not exclusive to Tesla either. On top of other companies having these contracts in place as well, mining companies will pay to break these contracts if a high enough bidder comes along or flat out pays them to break it. With demand pricing spiking for batteries, these lock ins are not very strong.
  - Hermitian909 4y ago
    > These types of contracts are not new or innovative. Agreed. > On top of other companies having these contracts in place as well Yes, but scale is important. My analysis at the time was that Tesla was locking in significantly more material behind contracts than Toyota or other companies. > mining companies will pay to break these contracts if a high enough bidder comes along or flat out pays them to break it. This assumes the contract is written in such a way that Tesla does not have to consent to the contract being broken. My understanding was that Tesla was trying to get into as many contracts as they could without such clauses.