Tesla Model 3 Production Woes, Company Reportedly Slashes Orders For Parts By 40%

Tesla Model 3


It’s believed that production of the Tesla Model 3 is way below expectations and that’s now causing an issue for some key suppliers.

Previous reports had pointed to suppliers for production issues, while some others had Tesla supplied products at fault (perhaps seat manufacturing, or Gigafactory issues).  The end result is apparently some pain for everyone involved as the timelines and volumes for the car are being scaled back.

Tesla Model 3

Tesla Model 3 Production

So, what’s really going on? Well, we’ve heard Tesla CEO Elon Musk comment on production hell time and time again, now those realities are materializing into real world consequences.

Taiwanese auto component maker Hota Industrial Mfg. Co has told the media that Tesla will reduce orders for key parts supplied by Hota by 40% starting in December. These parts are specifically for the Tesla Model 3 and are believed to include gears and axles, which are critical component.

As Reuters reports:

“Shares of the parts maker dropped nearly 9 percent after the Economic Daily News reported, citing Hota Chairman Shen Kuo-jung, that Tesla had told the firm orders would be cut to 3,000 sets per week from 5,000 sets starting December, due to a “bottleneck” in the production of Model 3.”

“Tesla may delay scheduled weekly shipments of 10,000 parts in March by a few weeks until May or June, the report added.”

Reuters reached out to both Hota and Tesla for comment. Neither responded prior to press time.

Source: Reuters

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

224 Comments on "Tesla Model 3 Production Woes, Company Reportedly Slashes Orders For Parts By 40%"

newest oldest most voted

Hubris + inexperience + cult-of-personality = train wreck

Hopefully they figure it out before implosion….

They either figure it out, or they implode in six months and their remnants get bought by a real car manufacturer. Hopefully that new manufacturer would continue/expand production and improve reliability.

I think it would be difficult to find a real car company…at these days when no ICE car company say the true REAL emission levels of their venomous vehicles. If it was not for the millions of jobs to be lost and an huge economic depression, all the “real” car companies should be shut downed and all their greedy boards put in jail…

A company that has made cars for decades probably has a lot more accumulated knowledge than one that just started a few years ago.

While I understand that lowering emissions is important to you, most people in the US don’t prioritize it very highly. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, it’s just the way it is.

So, if the endgame is to advance EVs, it’s better to point out their lower TCO and the reduced reliance on foreign oil from countries that hate the US. Saving the environment is a nice secondary benefit, for those who care.

If you’re not from the US, then ignore the above and figure out how to make EVs attractive to mainstream car buyers in your country.

Then it is a good thing that Tesla is a global company, and doesn’t rely entirely upon the US market. In fact, in a few recent quarters Tesla exports were higher than US sales.

A failure of US buyers to clue in to EV’s won’t kill Tesla. It will just move the bulk of their growth to outside the US. Sorry.

First, the issue is how to keep ICE cars attractive, as more own EVs. Superior tech usually wins.

RE: Pollution. Not even Republicans stood up for Porsche/Audi, like they did the BP oil spill. It’s hard to tell how much people care about the environment, once they feel defrauded.

Glad I leased a Bolt. By the time my lease is up this will be sorted out, one way or another.

Exactly my thoughts.

The Bolt has always been the best option to lease while waiting for a Model 3 reservation. Good choice.

@ Just Sayin said: “Hubris + inexperience + cult-of-personality = train wreck”

Lol… that’s very similar to what some members of the Apple BOD said about Steve Jobs to justify kicking Jobs out of Apple… and then a few years later Apple BOD literally begged Jobs to come back.

Apple has always been an exceptionally conservative company when it comes to products. It’s never the market leader. It never introduces a product until the category has had time to mature. Tesla is the opposite. Other than the fact that the two companies are structured like despotic banana republics, their cultures are night an day.

@Dan said: “Apple has always been an exceptionally conservative company when it comes to products. It’s never the market leader. ”

True post-Jobs’ death but not true during Jobs’ rule.

…as illustrated by:

2011 Forbs List – The World’s 10 Most Innovative Companies… #1 Apple


2017 Forbs List – The World’s 10 Most Innovative Companies… #2 Tesla (Apple didn’t make it on the 2017 list)


You should read the methodology of your own posts. In your link, Forbes defines innovation as:

“This number is the proportion of a company’s market value that cannot be accounted for from the net present value of cash flows of its current products in its current markets. Put another way, it’s the premium the stock market gives a company because investors expect it to launch new offerings and enter new markets that will generate even bigger income streams.”

In other words, Forbes is measuring the degree to which stock market enthusiasm is detached from the company’s fundamentals. That explains why TSLA is near the top.

For people who love technology, and the development of new stuff – Apple is not the company we like best. They have almost never developed anything new. They are very good at usinge technology others have developed, and matched it with usually nice design – and a smooth software experience. But the displays are bought from Samsung, LG or others. Processors are produced by Samsung or TSMC. Memory made by Samsung or stuff like that. Touch technology developed by HP or something like that. Batteries are usually made by Samsung. Then the metal parts are made by Foxconn in China, and assembled by the same company in China. Lately Apple has bought a company that redesigns ARM based chips. But the point is, Apple does not develop hardware. They do not work on development of core technology. I think that is a bit sad, that they can make billions without putting in the effort to benefit core technology development. IBM, AT&T, HP and others have developed a lot over the years. I would have hoped a company like Apple would invest their money in core technology developement, insted of storing billions offshore to avoid taxes (that pays for education, healthcare,… Read more »

Jobs and Musk have one thing in common, they both thought/think they command(ed) a “reality distortion field”.


The iPad entered the mature tablet market.

The iPhone entered the mature touch-screen smartphone market.

The Macintosh entered the mature all-in-one high-resolution graphical interface computer market, where everyone was already using 3.5″ floppy drives.


Cook’s Apple is but a pale shadow of Jobs.

The iPhone was so new it took competitors like Blackberry >years< to figure out they were dead already.

With Cook, they take away the headphone jack and call that innovation.

You forget that Blackberry was the company that defined the smartphone market. Apple came in after the hardwork was done to eat their lunch. Tesla is the blackberry of the EV market.

Blackberry didn’t pioneer touch screen smart phones.

They could have, but were complacent.

Really? Where is the Model S killer we’ve been promised since 2012? The thing about making a comparison to Blackberry is that there needs to be other companies that step up to the plate. Tesla brought the Model S to their first car show in 2009. Other car companies could have even beat them to market if they had tried. Nearly a decade after showing their first concept car, not a single car maker has brought their “Tesla killer” they keep talking about to market. We have yet to see how Tesla would respond to an actual competitive car cutting into their sales, and how they will respond. Much less predicting they will get Blackberried. The thing is that if ICE car makers finally get their act together and start building BEV’s that beat out Tesla’s offerings, they probably won’t take the majority of their market share from Tesla BEV sales. Instead their BEV’s will be so good that they would cannibalize their own ICE sales instead. Because to beat Tesla, they would be beating their own ICE cars. The more people see that BEV’s crush ICE cars, the more it will validate ALL cars that are BEV’s, including Tesla.… Read more »
“You forget that Blackberry was the company that defined the smartphone market. Apple came in after the hardwork was done to eat their lunch. Tesla is the blackberry of the EV market.” That’s one of the most wrong-headed claims I’ve ever seen posted to InsideEVs, and that’s saying a lot! Yes, BlackBerry pioneered the smartphone market… but not by using a touch screen. That’s why Apple was able to come in with the iPhone and take over the market leadership from BlackBerry. Tesla is the Apple of the EV market, and Nissan is the BlackBerry. It was Nissan which pioneered the modern mass produced BEV, just as BlackBerry pioneered the smart phone. But both BlackBerry and Nissan got complacent about their first-generation tech, and allowed it to languish, while another company came in, using innovative design and superior “user friendly” integration of functionality to take over the market. Well, Tesla hasn’t actually taken over the market from the Leaf, but there’s a good chance the Model 3 will accomplish that. I don’t think most car reviewers have really put their finger on why Tesla owners love their cars so much. It’s the integration of features into an intuitively functioning whole… Read more »

Wow! Just Wow!
Apple I, Apple ][, Apple Mac, Apple Lisa, Apple Newton, just to name a few products. Those were way ahead of their time and real innovations and risks. Even in modern times the iPad was like nothing else. Maybe they are conservative now, but never in the past.
Imagine if Apple had of licenced their OS and hardware instead of sueing every one who made a clone, the PC World would be an incredibly different place today.

The Apple Lisa was a marketing failure, as was the Apple Newton. So was the Apple III, which I notice you didn’t mention. Some versions of the Mac flopped, too (Macintosh Portable, Power Mac g4 Cube).

I take your point that it wasn’t so much the hardware which made the iPod and the iPhone such spectacular marketing successes; it was the software running on those devices, making things much easier to use and, particularly for the iPod, much less expensive.

Tesla/Musk said he was betting the future of the company on the Model 3 so it is fair to say by Tesla’s own standard the future of the company is at stake. Musk’s failure to even identify the problem (“production hell” is a statement of not knowing the problem) is also disturbing. If Tesla could honestly and accurately identify the problem, I’d feel more optimistic of getting my AWD, 300 mile, air suspension $70K Model 3 at end of 2018. No it looks like 2019 but the question is can Tesla survive that long. Tesla fires a thousand employees, Tesla Model 3 cuts supplier orders. Tesla is taking drastic actions that are signs of serious trouble for any company. That Tesla is so desperate to cut costs that it fired employees vs. laying them off for lack of work is a further bad sign as the amount it might save on unemployment benefits is minuscule and by the fact that savings will likely not be realized as the “firings” are such an obvious cover up for lack of work that government will require Tesla up its unemployment contribution to cover the layoffs. Not only no savings but increased costs overall.… Read more »
M3 - reserved -- Niro/Leaf 2.0/Outlander - TBD

That’s problematic — cause when ramp up truly comes and Tesla is ready; suppliers will be once bitten and reluctant to increase again

Suppliers are contractually obligated to supply X number of parts/yr, so getting them to start back up again won’t be a problem. The issue is that those same contracts also promise the supplier a certain range of volume per year.

Sounds like Tesla has already received all the parts they’ll need for 2017 builds, meaning they could be required to pay a fee to the supplier to cover the unneeded orders.

The piece price that Tesla has negotiated is based on the supplier amortizing costs over time. If they makes less pieces than projected, the actual piece cost to the supplier increases and it takes a longer time to recoup capital investments in equipment.

Suppliers were excited to work on the Model 3, but they were concerned that Musk’s optimistic projections of sales would never come true. Pre-orders are not sales, so this saga will continue until we have a feel for actual sustained demand of the Model 3.

Yes, volume will determine price. Getting fewer parts will increase Tesla’s per part price.

This will already be specified in the contract, and contingencies for changing delivery numbers will already be in place in the contract.

But the early volume was always intended to be low in the early months, and a month or two delay in deliveries is not at all unusual in the industry and won’t be a big deal.

For example, missing a 1,500 part delivery for the entire month of Sept. would be just half a week worth of parts in Dec based on this story, and less than a day’s worth of parts by June 2018.

No first tier parts supplier is going to get huffy over what is projected (according to this story) to be a day’s worth of parts deliveries half a year from now. It just doesn’t make sense to worry about the peanuts when they can see the entire elephant right around the corner.

It might surprise you to hear this, but the number of parts and the short term delay means very little to first tier suppliers. These are suppliers who are used to stuff happening like GM cutting Spark production in half and having them bring down the line mid-year to increase Bolt production while gutting Spark production (or whatever car, I’m going from memory and don’t really care).

In fact, most Tesla suppliers really WANT to become Tesla suppliers for the long term, and are dying to brag about being a Tesla supplier and have a long-term view of the relationship. This is not going to be an issue.

“GM cutting Spark production in half and having them bring down the line mid-year to increase Bolt production while gutting Spark production (or whatever car…”

It was actually the Sonic, not the Spark. But as you say, that’s irrelevant to the point you’re making.

Thanks, I had a feeling my memory was failing me!!

@Nix “It might surprise you to hear this, but the number of parts and the short term delay means very little to first tier suppliers.”

A 40% cut in orders is going to mean a LOT to any supplier. For Tesla with such relatively small orders, it is not likely Tesla is dealing with many “first tier” suppliers who have enough other business they could shift resources when one customer goes down.

Musk alluded to this is Q1 2017 Wall St conference call when he mentioned Tesla move up the supplier food chain with the Model 3 quantities but his allusion was more to 2nd tier suppliers.

It will increase Tesla’s cost for parts as suppliers, no matter what penalties the current contract may have, will not trust Tesla’s order numbers and require higher prices and firmer orders.

No, because the early delivery numbers are tiny compared to 6 months from now. Cutting 40% of tiny by a few months is by definition tiny.

What the major suppliers care about is the 40K a month for the first gen Model S for half a decade. Then being the supplier for an additional 60K a month for the first gen Model Y for half a decade. Then more models and more generations after that.

A cut of a few thousand in parts for a few months absolutely is nothing in their long term outlook. This is how first tier suppliers work. They are in it for the long term. Not crying over a few months of small cuts in orders. They are used to seeing orders cut in the short term. All car makers do it.

@Nix “No, because the early delivery numbers are tiny compared to 6 months from now. Cutting 40% of tiny by a few months is by definition tiny.”

Except the number they are cutting is parts SIX MONTHS FROM NOW and they CUTTING THEM BY 40%. These are 2018 1st half parts which were supposed to when Tesla was RAMPING UP to 5,000 Model 3’s a week.

It is the 2018 production that Tesla is cutting and that was the going to be 350,000 cars and is now 200,000.

The firings/evil man’s layoffs, the lack of production, the cutting of parts for 2018 production, all pretty bleak stuff.

I would take 3000 per week in early 2018.
Same for 10,000 per week min June.

I would not bet on either of those.

Agreed. With most suppliers pricing is determined by order quantity. This might have just been the least Tesla could order without significant price increase on the parts. Suppliers have machines and people that have cost associated with them. Now they have idle time.

I’m thinking they should focus on US sales first (to avoid headaches, get quick feedback, and optimize service), and they don’t want to sell more than ~45000 in the US before April 2018 in order to extend the tax credit by 3 months.

So I’m thinking 2000/wk in Dec going up to 6000/wk at the end of March is a good pace to ramp up at. They can do a few trial attempts of 6000 before that for learning purposes.

The problem is Tesla is ramping DOWN, cutting employees and cutting supplies, not something you do if it is adjustment of a “few months”.

This is 2018 planning by Tesla so production of the Model 3 is going to be 40% of planned. Instead of 350,000 in 2018 Tesla is planning for 140,000.

That’s a $6B revenue hit in 2018. Tesla was already talking about “close to the bone” financing in 2018 and now it is going to be $6B short of that number.

Where will Tesla get the extra $6B?

Is that a serious question? So far the market seems more than eager to give them as much money as they want!

Any one can claim that they are suppliers to any one! How can we tell if it is true or not?

Really? I don’t think Reuters would be reporting on stock prices of the supplier dropping if it was all just a joke. There’s no incentive for the supplier to lie and have their stock take a 9% hit.

Could it be that Reuters is reporting on a company that is not telling the truth? I know a president that doesn’t tell the truth so why would it not be possible for a small company in a small country not to do like a BIG president in a BIG country?

The next thing we will hear is that this small company will come out and says “believe us we are liars”. In which case I will believe them.

No Tinfoil after labor day

This Korean supplier is likely not small at all. If they’re exporting to Tesla, chances are that they supply similar parts to Hyundai and Kia domestically, at a minimum. If they’re familiar with export requirements and dealing with US customers and knowledgeable about the PPAP process, chances are they supply to most of the major OEMs.

Korea and Taiwan are different countries with no connection in economies. Taiwan does not provide components to Hyundai and Kia, dumbass.

Sure, suppliers love to hurt their own business 100% be caught just to stick it to Tesla.

Don’t worry. Trump will release the secret FBI documents to expose the fake news and support your conspiracy theory!

I’m inclined to believe that Ted Cruz’s father is somehow behind it. 😉

Its ok, Obama is not in office anymore.

They aren’t going to lie about something like this, and they are likely disclosing because they have deemed it is material information for investors in their company. They probably otherwise wouldn’t have said anything if it were up to them, much less lie about something negative happening when it wasn’t happening.

“Any one can claim that they are suppliers to any one! How can we tell if it is true or not?”

We can be reasonable certain that if a supplier falsely claimed that Tesla was reducing its order by 40%, then Tesla would respond fairly promptly with a correction. Not only would letting such a lie hurt Tesla’s public image, but Tesla is a publicly traded company. Its corporate officers are financially responsible for the performance of the company, and that means to some degree that have a responsibility of correcting any false material statements which would affect their business.

Also, common sense indicates that with Tesla’s production of TM3 falling so far behind schedule, it only makes sense to reduce its order from suppliers. There’s no point in letting parts pile up that aren’t going to be used for months and months. In fact, Tesla would have to pay tax on such inventory, so there is a very sound financial reason to reduce the order now instead of later.

” there is a very sound financial reason to reduce the order now instead of later.”

But I don’t hear anyone suggesting it.
In simple terms even a High Roller is no longer given a free room in Vegas when it is learned they can no longer pay their bills.

Perhaps the stunt on the giga factory roof was a face saving stunt for a guy who ran out of credit ! He is dumping parts, employees and comforts, could be he’s broke or headed there.

“Perhaps the stunt on the giga factory roof was a face saving stunt…”

To quote an entirely relevant Tweet about a photo from the “Gigafactory rooftop campfire”:

youre jealous . And you should be . Hes elon f***ing musk. And youre not. You lose.

(Off topic: Nice to see that not everyone misspells that as “loose”. 🙂 )

Not likely, Remenber the last bond issue the first $600 million was presold?

Likely Larry Page won’t run out of money sny time soon.

Right, they’re going to lie about being a supplier so that they can see their share price drop 9%. Did you even read the article?

“Shares of the parts maker dropped nearly 9 percent after the Economic Daily News reported, citing Hota Chairman Shen Kuo-jung, that Tesla had told the firm orders would be cut to 3,000 sets per week from 5,000 sets starting December, due to a “bottleneck” in the production of Model 3.”

And Elon can’t fire that supplier, as it is supplying critical parts for the 3 (gears and axles).

I can’t wait to see how the TSLA zealots spin this one. Expect to see an official announcement of Model 3 delays in the 1 November earnings report.

Now someone find #EverythingIsFine dog! 😀

I don’t really care how they will twist things. They’ll find something, they always do.

I hope Tesla makes it (who doesn’t want an American manufacturer to succeed), but then I also hope Musk tempers his blovating.

“…who doesn’t want an American manufacturer to succeed…”

Everyone who’s shorting TSLA stock, that’s who. For example: Bro1999 and Tftf, if not others posting to this comment thread. I seem to recall that Tftf actually did admit to be a TSLA stock shorter, not that there was any doubt, since he posts Tesla bashing comments daily at Desperately Seeking FUDsters… er, Seeking Alpha.

TSLA stock shorters are literally betting on Tesla to fail. That’s why some of them spend so much of their time posting Tesla hating FUD, which is on full display in their many comments here.

There goes PP making up stuff again.

I own 0 TSLA stock in any capacity.

I owned a few shares worth until a couple of months ago. Bought @ $175, sold at $375.
TSLA stock was trading below $325 as of yesterday’s close, so I pat myself on the back for selling when I did. #winning

I hear you guys…… Just more of the same from the kindergartners.

My slant on it is the criticism toward GM for using POWERTRAIN Korean parts in the BOLT ev seems to be mysteriously lacking here as it is revealed that the gears, etc for the ‘3’ are ALSO made in Korea, by a company far less substantial than LG.

I shut down criticism of the argument against the BOLT by saying that, in view of LG’s reliability and design ‘maturity and prowess’, I consider an LG parts provider an ADVANTAGE.

And they are building a factory in Michigan so US workers…

bro1999 said:

“I own 0 TSLA stock in any capacity.”

Gosh yes, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that you’re a serial poster of exactly the same Tesla hater FUD that one sees daily from admitted TSLA stock shorters on stock investor sites such as Yahoo Finance and Seeking Alpha. /sarcasm

It never ceases to amaze me how gullible these serial Tesla FUDsters think their readers are. Dude, if you constantly lie then it’s unlikely people are gonna believe your latest lie. Apparently you never read the story of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”?

“TSLA stock shorters are literally betting on Tesla to fail. That’s why some of them spend so much of their time posting Tesla hating FUD, which is on full display in their many comments here.”

Right. Because posting a negative (i.e. realistic) observation of Tesla’s current state on InsideEVs.com is what is going to make Tesla fail, and make the shorters’ dreams come true of a giant windfall.

This whole pattern of fanboys calling a negative remark FUD, and the maker of such remarks “Tesla Shorts” is really old. Can’t we ever move past it and have reasonable conversations?

Not with 63 year old Kindergartners. BTW is that your new BOLT?

Yes, that’s my new Bolt. I need to adjust the pic though, since it comes up really dark as an avatar.

It’s similar to the picture I used to have of my Leaf. It was taken in the marina with my electrified sailboat in the background. My own personal EV fleet.

That’s right, I never asked you about your Yacht. Is that a 3 HP motor on it? How big a battery do you have for it?

Seriously. Do these TSLA zealots believe serious investors are reading insideevs.com? Lol

If I really wanted to try and short the stock, I’d write blog posts about Tesla or try and get my own pieces on Seeking Alpha (which I have 0 interest in doing).

They demonstrably are. Jay Cole’s production estimates are treated as gospel, as they are the best. Whether any attention is paid to user comments, though, I don’t know.

This is (unfortunately) true. And as a disclaimer, we only estimate the number as to best give an accurate snapshot of the monthly sales in the US…without Tesla, it would be pretty meaningless snapshot (and we might as well not do it). When Tesla started selling mass produced EVs in mid 2012 we really didn’t get much notice at all, but as some (frankly pretty wild) analyst estimates kept going out, and ended up being off by a decent margin, the attention grew as people noticed we had mostly hit the numbers, a few analysts started just using our numbers…or using our basic numbers then slightly rounding up or down the number to make it appear they are doing it (always just after we put it out, lol)…not that we care, it’s just amusing. For a year or so thereafter, the attention was mostly analysts suggesting why we were wrong in a current month or quarter…but then after writing to say as much (no clue why – but it was super annoying), and then coming up short/wrong on their own numbers, that all that pretty much went away (you can only be wrong so many times before you are ignored)…as… Read more »


I can’t imagine how much you must hate running numbers Jose…I don’t think I could take trying to run down all the country data each month and then correlating it up by model, lol.

I was thinking exactly the same weeks ago, PUPU’s default argument regarding any negative comments towards Tesla is beyond stale.

Surely even someone with the meanest of intelligence can come up with something better than that by now.

I see an opportunity to buy again and catch the next financial thermal up once the teething pain is fixed.

Brian said:

“Right. Because posting a negative (i.e. realistic) observation of Tesla’s current state on InsideEVs.com is what is going to make Tesla fail, and make the shorters’ dreams come true of a giant windfall.”

Yes, that’s what they actually believe, crazy as it seems! The anti-Tesla trolls are not only disruptive and anti-social, they are also stupid enough to actually believe their posts are going to have a measurable effect on the stock price.

If you doubt that’s true, then just visit Seeking Alpha and read all the Tesla related blog entries and the scores or hundreds of comments on them which appear every single day, with some of the shorters posting literally dozens of times every day. It won’t take many days of that before you realize that what I say here is 100% true, despite the utter lack of common sense on display by the FUDster trolls.

Also notice that some of the same names occasionally appear here (hello to tftf, Logical Thought, and Mark B. Spiegel!), as well as the exact same anti-Tesla FUD which we see posted here so frequently by bro1999 and others.

You didn’t actually think that bro1999 makes up this FUD all by himself, did you?

Another Euro point of view

Sometimes I am indeed tempted to short Tesla but I am not a stock investors as I find it too risky but rather a real estate investor. Now as I understood it it needs a lots of experience and technical knowledge to short a stocks and, above all it is apparently really really risky.
I really doubt that many commenters having time to waste on internet (thus by definition probably not really professionally focused) are shorters.
Now I am an accountant thus am able to read a balance sheet, that and only that make me a doubter. I believe there are a lot of accountant out there or people fluent in financial reports that are Tesla doubters.
I am also an European and it could be that we are less used (and more skeptical) to that flamboyant style of leadership than US citizens.

Sidenote: I’m not sure why anyone would want to take up any advanced trading schemes (such as shorting) in general in this environment, especially for all the time that TSLA has even traded.

~9 years ago the S&P was trading at a low of ~750 (Nov 9th), today it’s 2,580.

So even if you are the least competent trader and just stuffed money into an ETF, you gained 3.4x on your money between then and now on an investment, while inflation is has averaged 1.5% over the same time (monthly numbers here).

It certainly isn’t going to last forever, this has been a record run, but the ‘real’ wealth generation this past 9 years has been other-worldly, with nada for risk. Even some mildly competent oversight on your investment assets (pulling out the obv dogs/non-growth comps) netted you 4-5x on your money.

Couldn’t agree more Jay which is why it never ceases to surprise me how acknowledged Tesla shorters like Spiegel or even tftf have really missed the longs boat and instead lose money gambling.

I’m not saying other strategies don’t have value in certain situation or times (no one answer is ever the right one), goodness knows I’ve employed some hybrid butterfly spreads on more than few back in the day …but in this environment they just aren’t necessary. For anyone who has even mildly been paying attention the last ~9 years, its now about still participating, but also doing so in a way to take on less risk – because statistically its going to come to an end, and you want to be able to restart the process from where we were in 2008 all over again…but you don’t want to try and ‘time the market’ by places endless bets on when that might change. The results are banked for those paying attention, now just be happy going forward making ~3x-5x inflation (still super great) for the next 6 months, year, 2 years (whatever) in a more conservative/protected investment portfolio… knowing you won’t get caught (and you have ~30 years worth of gains crammed into 9), and you can now catch the next wave. Don’t think there is any rocket science in there, which is why you see a lot of ‘advanced’ systems/programs/hedge… Read more »

Tesla stock moves on emotions. Its a bad bet either way. I am out about $3,000 if this continues…

“I really doubt that many commenters having time to waste on internet (thus by definition probably not really professionally focused) are shorters.”

And yet, you’re one of the serial Tesla FUDster here more or less every day, posting untruths and wild exaggerations about Tesla and its cars.

I doubt you’re doing that because you see it as some sort of altruistic, noble endeavor. No, serial Tesla bashing is motivated by greed. That why the trolling never stops, as it would if it was just normal trolling. Normal trolls eventually get tired of trolling an individual forum and move on, but those motivated by greed just keep going and going, sometimes for years.

They are shorting the stock because it is overpriced and will adjust (when?) to a typical p/e ratio for an stable but innovative manufacturer, assuming Tesla survives, or becomes worth considerably less if Tesla financially fails and has to be sold.

Hm… well… 60% of 5000 a week is 3000 a week, right? Not that bad imho…

If Tesla believed the “bottlenecks” were just a short term hiccup, there would be no need to slash parts orders at all.

The fact that these parts order reductions potentially span a 6-7 month period suggests the bottlenecks aren’t just “short term hiccups” that Tesla has led us to believe.

Just because they reduce the amount to 3k/wk doesn’t mean they plan on building that many. That could have been a contracted supply minimum to avoid price increases on the parts. Also if they have been delivering at a 5k/wk rate Tesla has more than enough parts on hand to still make more than 3k/wk.

For most auto supplier contracts there is a “range” of projected volume. That’s probably what we’re seeing here, with 3000 being the minimum order Tesla must place to get the piece price that has been negotiated. They probably won’t need 3000/week for quite some time.

That’s too bad, I really hope they get this straightened out and producing tons of Model 3’s soon.

The fact remains that Musk has been far too optimistic in all his production targets, despite all evidence to the contrary from past runs, he still thinks he can meet lofty goals.

Ultimately it hurts their mission, frustrates their customers, and takes a huge toll on the quality of life of Tesla employees.

I hope in 6 months this is all just a blip to be forgotten.

Musk hasn’t grasped the “under-promise, over-deliver” concept. Or at least “deliver as promised”.

GM gets this. In Feb of 2015 (right after the Bolt was announced as going into production), GM execs were quoted as saying the Bolt was targeted to go into retail production fall of 2016, with deliveries by the end of 2016. Guess what? The Bolt went into production in Oct of 2016, and delivered in Dec 2016, just as promised. And they totally OVER-delivered on range, as not even the most optimistic fans (such as myself), thought the Bolt would have anywhere close to 238 miles….most people thought its range would have up to 220. And of course the GM bashers questioned if the Bolt would even have a city range of 200. Lol

Agree – but GM is a well established company who has done this hundreds of times and has many, many plants and suppliers. Not to mention their goal was to move a few thousand vehicles per month…

Tesla is new to the high volume auto game – and is targeting 10,000 cars PER WEEK – in a single plant – a totally different scale and complexity.

I think everyone thought Musk’s original schedule would be difficult to meet — even he said everything would need to go perfectly — and you know how often that happens….

HA! This is just wrong. GM promised a 50 state car at launch and then took a FULL YEAR to roll it out. That is precisely overpromised and under delivering!

In fact Bolts didn’t make it to my state until THIS MONTH.

That statement was twisted by Electrek so it could push out an article to please its Tesla audience.

GM never said the Bolt would launch nationwide in all 50 states at the same time. It said it would roll out to all 50 states by fall of this year, which it now has.

The Model 3 isn’t being launched in all 50 states either. Why aren’t you calling Tesla out for that? Oh, that’s right, because you are deep in with TSLA stock.

“HA! This is just wrong. GM promised a 50 state car at launch and then took a FULL YEAR to roll it out. That is precisely overpromised and under delivering!”

Yup. Bro1999’s flagrant lies are embarrassingly obvious to anyone who has been paying attention. Of course, he only aims his comments at the casual reader here, not those of us who actually read InsideEVs articles every day.

GM has badly bungled the rollout of the Bolt EV. In fact, it looked like Bozo the Clown was in charge of shipping and inventory control for the first few months! In my opinion, this shows how little GM really cares about the Bolt EV or its sales.

Not only is Bro1999 a serial FUDster and compulsive liar, he’s very bad at it! He could have picked almost literally any other non-Tesla mass produced BEV to compare the Model 3 rollout to, and would have embarrassed Tesla… instead of himself!
😆 😆 😆

Honestly, I think that something must break inside the brain of those who decide to become serial Tesla bashers. They all seem to forget that it’s always best to avoid lying unless you have to!

And here is the typical PP flipout that eventually happens in any Tesla IEVs post. Lol

Speaking of brain malfunctions, just look one post above this one.

Don’t feed the trolls, Bro!

Oh wait, I just did in a previous comment. Now I’m just asking for him to Pu-Pu me as well! D’oh!

Lol. ?? watch out for Nix, and Real, they are on their way to defend the Tesla church

To be fair, GM did layout the rollout plan pretty plainly and early. They said 50 states, but not from day 1.

This chart came out at the end of 2016 (which we published here in early January 2017), showing a schedule they mostly kept to religiously. So there was no expectation from would-be buyers of getting EVs at a certain point and then experiencing a delay or ‘miss’ in ETAs

…with that said, they wanted the Bolt EV out as soon as possible for the eyeballs and to hit their ~2 year earlier guidance. It might have been better in the long run to have build up a couple months stock and rolled it out nationally in ~April, but that is just a random opinion, (=

I seem to remember that GM beat a lot of those rollout dates too, getting some inventory into many of those states ahead of schedule. The Bolt certainly wasn’t a repeat of the 2016 Gen II Volt rollout. It has been on time.

@Jay: Well, color me confused. It was largely your own comments in the various Monthly Plug-In Sales Scorecard articles, over the period of February – August, which lead me to believe GM had bungled the rollout of the Bolt EV, and badly so. But of course you’re in a position to have a much better overview of the broad situation. From your comment above, I guess I developed an exaggerated view of the problems you reported about inventory control and sales below expectations. Perhaps you view these as less than major problems: From February: “Bolt EV sales fell to 952 moved during the month… And the sales slump didn’t have anything to do with inventory…” From March: “GM noted that inventory was fairly tight on dealer lots in March, with only around 14 days worth on hand. Still, with Bolt EV production having started last October and only ~3,600 sales since then, there was an issue someplace – either at the plant, or with GM management’s production allocation…” From April: “…we did note last month that ‘…there was an issue someplace’ – and that materialized in April. Despite inventories quadrupling, sales increased…but to just 1,292 units.” From May: “Thing improved… Read more »
Heeh, that is a lot of quotes. I was just saying above they hit their planned roll-out dates…hitting them with an appropriate inventory level month-to-month, on a state-by-state basis, is another issue entirely. Sidetnote: I think the inventory story was fairly straight forward/consistent story looking back. January (little to none) February (little) March (low) April (decently stocked) May, June, early July (way too much in local regions) August to November (GM has figured out the right net number, but has yet to be distributed evenly) Expectations for the Bolt EV going in was that it would be virtually sold out due to the low volume production out of Orion at least for the first wave of demand (6 months to a year) – which explains GM’s decision for the staggered roll-out plans over the first ~9 months, then once fulfilled, it would level off at ~2,500 a month. With that in mind, it really didn’t work out that way, and we just now crossed that 2,500 sales mark for the first time in September. GM was working with this 2,500 month target ever since started giving suppliers order targets in 2015, and once they got there in Q1 and the… Read more »

Actually Jay,

If I recall you ran an article stating GM was going to push forward (and apparently did) the first year rollout by one full month, due to lower sales than expected.

This has to be the reason why I purchased mine in NY State, in February 2017 – the very first Bolt purchase in Western New York. (HAHA dealership took my picture).

Oh come on! Do you really believe that a company who makes & delivers millions of cars per year couldn’t manage the rollout of a few thousand Bolts in their sleep? GM always said they would do a slow rollout, and that’s exactly what happened. It’s the smartest way to handle any brand new car rollout in case there are issues.

Complain about the Bolt being overpriced, too narrow, ugly, or having bad seats (all of which I agree with to some degree). But, claiming incompetence by GM at manufacturing & delivering a car is laughable.

Your state is the outlier. Most states either got their first Bolts either on time or ahead of schedule from what I recall.

The volume might have been small at first as inventory was heavily biased to California, but that isn’t that crazy since California is the biggest market for EV’s.

bro1999 said: ” Musk hasn’t grasped the “under-promise, over-deliver” concept. ”

@bro1999 hasn’t grasped the “set the goalpost seemingly impossible high and inspire your team to reach it… ignore the naysayers along the way” concept.

Yeah, that’s the whole deal. It’s a tactic.
He knows very well what he’s doing and until now it seems to be working. Only 5 years ago they started mass producing cars. Look at where they are now.

Same with SpaceX. Many delays, but still growing at an incredible speed and grabbing a huge market share in the launch industry.

The criticism is so cheap.

“…The fact remains that Musk has been far too optimistic in all his production targets,…”

This Stance has served Mr. Musk exceedingly well during his time in automobiles, ever since his Hostile-Takeover of Tesla. He personally made more money (15X) then any other Automotive executive.

It works exceedingly well in a BULL MARKET; as Musk has proven time and again.

One commenter last week said jokingly Musk can double his stock AGAIN by saying:

“The Tesla Semi will drive autonomously, and recharge in 15 minutes….sometime in the future”, so that all the ‘analysts’ will pump the stock some more after realizing the huge profitability of a 23 hour a day operating, driverless truck.

The fact that none actually currently exist is a mere irrelevancy to making money NOW.

Even 3000 sets a week sounds optimistic, when in Q3 the production rate was 21 cars per week.

Expect the reservation list to begin shortening rapidly, and mine might be one of them.

I hate to jump the gun, but the thought that this was in response to canceled reservations came to mind. Is there a way to verify current reservation count? I don’t mean inferred using financial statement which can be mired in bunch of things, but direct count.

As far as this year goes, it seems I was right; Only few dozen Tesla 3 for 2017.

Unless Tesla spits out the number, there is no way to truly know.

Tesla does have to report cash on hand from deposits, but that figure combines S/X/3 deposits, so there is really no good way to determine how many of those deposits are for the 3.

I guess you could compared the Q2 overall deposits $$$ with the Q3 number. If the Q3 number is significantly smaller than the Q2 figure, that could be an indication of 3 cancellations.

I know two people who canceled their M3 orders after the reveal. It took them both 6+ weeks to get their money back.

So, assuming that people started canceling when the bad news started rolling in and assuming the refund timeframe is still the same, it’ll be at least a month before Tesla actually shows the cash drain.

Or it could indicate catching up with Model X deposit backlogs. It really isn’t possible to know without access to the actual underlying numbers.

I highly doubt the drop in parts orders has anything to do with a drop in pre-orders for the car. Tesla could lose half the pre-orders they had at last count and still be swamped for the next year. Seems much more likely it’s a problem with tooling that needs to get replaced. They initially put in final tooling instead of “soft tooling” initially used to work out the kinks, and it’s going to take longer to get replacements as a result.

I was thinking over 75% cut in reservations projected in future. I wanted to see the trend, and that needs more accurate count.

One could say tooling problem, but how long does that take? I don’t think they’d reduce supply so much just for temporary tooling issue. Of course, it’s Tesla, company known for being late, so taking a year for tooling change wouldn’t surprise me.

We’ve already seen that Tesla is starting to pinch the pennies (no free Model 3 Supercharging of any kind, the “firings” that look more and more like they were actually layoffs, increasing credit line by $500 million). Slashing supplier parts orders to the minimum levels without triggering a price increase goes along with the penny pinching mode they seem to be in.

Elon said he expected 100-200k Model 3s to be produced in 2017…so we’re talking tens of thousands of 3’s delivered and paid for at a minimum. Now all that projected cash will not be in Tesla’s coffers, so it’s slashing time!

Exactly, and let’s not forget the short-term financial benefit of firing nearly 1000 employees this quarter between Tesla and Solar City.

Be careful, you are beginning to drool over the computers of all of us, with your thinking of your desirable dream of a Tesla tumbling is coming soon…
Seriously, people like you, only proves how immature our specie still is.
By the way, it’s true, they fired hundreds of ex-solarcity sales men…and are hiring hundreds of roofers at the same time and I would love to see the giant and so experienced GM with tens of factories all over the world and tons of cash, actually producing 3.000 Bolts a week now, for the thousands and thousands of people hungerly awaiting for them in Norway, Germany, France, Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada…not to speak about the UK, that will never see it…
For my part, if they hit 2.000 Model 3 a week production at the end of December, 5000 in June, and 10.000 at the end of 2018, it would be wonderful.

2000/week in December ?!?


And yet these revised supply contracts documented in this story show enough parts for 3,000 cars per week…..

So yes, it isn’t very probably that they are targeting only 2K cars/week. The evidence is for higher. Maybe as high as 3K/week.

Those reservations are for $40,000-$50,000 cars. Anybody who can afford that is not going to need their $1,000 back to pay bills.

“Tesla could lose half the pre-orders they had at last count and still be swamped for the next year.”

Thank you for that reality check!

As always, Tesla bashers are never satisfied with reporting actual facts and reasonable conclusions even when the news is bad for Tesla. The serial FUDsters always resort to gross exaggerations and outright lies, even when sticking to the truth would serve them better.

Why do you suppose that is? It’s almost as if they don’t actually believe their own predictions about Tesla’s inevitable and imminent collapse. It’s almost like they fully understand that Tesla is still a healthy and growing business, despite this temporary setback, and despite what the FUDsters always say!
😀 😀 😀

Meanwhile, the competition on the horizon creeps ever closer !


You must be talking about VW/Audi!!


No probs, Elon Musk will announce 20 more gigafactories and their smart investors will be satisfied. And to satisfy their smart customers he’ll promise some more easter eggs

Can’t be true.

Tesla is a tech company, not a car company.

Elon Musk said “100-200k Model3 in H2 2017”.

Also, tftf is always wrong.

PS: Sarcasm is free.

“Also, tftf is always wrong.”

Most of us don’t feel the need for any special validation when we say something which is actually true, Tftf. For most of us, that’s a matter of routine.

But I can certainly understand that for you, it’s a special occasion, so here’s your ?

“PS: Sarcasm is free.”

It helps if sarcasm has a point. Do let us know if you ever find one, but that’s pretty rare for a troll.

Actually, you are behind on your sarcasm payments. They are past due and are now collecting penalties.

You will be getting a call from the IRS to collect your back-payments. It will come right after your call from Microsoft support to address the virus you have on your computer.


Sounds like Tesla is going to be warehousing parts as they flow in from the suppliers that were ready for start of production in July and have been shipping at rates consistent with Musk’s guidance earlier this year.

This is going to create a huge logistical mess at Tesla, trying to build vehicles using some type of FIFO mentality and maintaining traceability of incoming lots of material to build dates.

Concerns about rust can also become a concern if parts arrives after sitting for a month on a boat, then sit around in a warehouse in CA for months before use. Oil-based RP is good, but has a finite shelf life.

This story says they are already adjusting for Dec inventory levels, so we are really talking about the extra parts from cars not built in Sept+Oct+Nov. Sept is 1500. For sake of argument, lets aggressively double that for Oct parts deliveries, and double again for Nov. That is enough parts for around 10,000 cars. Now this story is talking about delivering 10,000 parts EACH WEEK by June of next year. So we already know that Tesla is planning on having around that same number of parts get delivered to their factory each week next year. They certainly have already planned on having enough storage space for a week worth of parts. Storage space isn’t going to be a problem. They already have to have plans to store that number of parts for at least a week. As for rust, the highest risk parts would be unfinished and unpainted body panels. But Tesla is building those themselves, and they control that. All the rest of the parts certainly can survive a 3 month shelf life. When you go to your local auto parts store, the parts they get from their warehouse certainly could have spent at least that amount of time… Read more »
I think GM really threw a huge monkey wrench into Elon’s “Master Plan”. Think about it: if there was no Bolt, what would Tesla be “competing” against? Nissan’s underwhelming 150 mile range Leaf 1.75? VW’s army of concept I.D. vehicles? Ford’s fictional 300 mile SUV? Mazda’s 2030-something EVs? Lol If there was no Bolt, Tesla literally would have nothing on the horizon that would threaten the Model 3. Any REAL talk of an affordable, 200 mile BEV would be dominated by Tesla and the Model 3. But GM gunked up Elon’s plans. The Bolt DOES exist, and it is available NOW in all 50 states. IMO, with the Bolt on the ground, Elon was forced to speed up the timeline for the 3 so investors going “Uh….dinosaur GM launched a 238 mile, <$40k BEV….quicker and nimbler Tesla, where's the Model 3???". With his hand forced by GM, Elon decided to get the Model 3 on the roads and "delivered" as quick as possible (cya spaceship controls, AWD and performance versions, a finished UI, FM radio) so TSLA stock didn't start to get hammered. Unfortunately, as we are seeing in real time, the corner cutting is coming back to bite Tesla… Read more »

The Bolt? Oh please.

As much as the TSLA zealots don’t want to admit it, the 3 is being compared to the Bolt. You read any Model 3 article from a major publication, and it mentions the Bolt. Same with any Bolt-focused article….it’ll eventually mention the Model 3.

They are intertwined, just like the Volt and Leaf were in 2010, even though they were completely different vehicles.

Well in causation chain the Bolt is the reason for the rushed production of the M3, is what I glean from your comment, but what actually got it started, the Bolt, was Tesla coming out with evs in the first place.

Additionally the Bolt will sell just a pittance, what 20k this year, while though delayed a few months the M3 will surpass that early next year, and then produce at many times Bolt production.

While the Bolt may not directly compete with the M3, it’s the first affordable 200+ mile EV produced. So, comparisons are inevitable.

And a lot of the people making those comparisons are stock traders who don’t know anything about cars. Tesla needs to keep those people happy to keep the stock price up. That meant making it look like the M3 was ready for launch when it really wasn’t.

So, I agree that the Bolt influenced the premature delivery of the M3 to some degree. Tesla needing the sell junk bonds at low rates was another major driver.

I had been expecting that Tesla would start actual M3 sales from a fully functional assembly line by January. But, it appears they’re in a lot more trouble than I thought. I really don’t want to see an American manufacturer fail, so I do hope they can pull it together.

I hate to burst your bubbles, but if Bolt is the reason, we would’ve seen drastic drop off in Tesla 3 reservations in January. No such thing happened.

Supercharger network is the giant elephant in the room that GM does not address. Even if Bolt has such charging network, it is still higher priced, lower performing hatchback.

Let me also add that Bolt is less efficient than Tesla 3, at least from what we know now. Frankly, I am disappointed GM didn’t beat Tesla in this regard.

The Bolt is a tall hatchback. The Model 3 is a sleek (and lighter) sedan. Did you expect the Bolt to rewrite the laws of physics?

What I DO Expect, is for GM and its Press Bunnies to add more gloating over this pullback, talk from Ex GM Execs to trash Talk Tesla More, and GM never considering what an Asset the Voltec Plus the Bolt EV Drivetrains and Battery Pack Experiences could give them, in expanding blends of these two drivetrains into multiple 4WD Vehicles, both BEV & PHEV/EREV choices: SUV’s, Pickups, Full Size Vehicles, etc!! Basically, I Keep Harping, they could already make a 150 Mile Battery Range EREV, with another 300-400 miles range on gas, in 2 Wheel Drive, and in 4 Wheel Drive variations, with what they have their hands on today! And if BMW could make the BEVx from the i3 Rex, GM could do a similar game, just for California & Carb States, if nothing else, just for ‘Extra Carb Credits!’ A 4 Wheel Drive Ranger, with the Bolt EV Motor at the Rear End, a Voltec Drive at the Front, 40-45-50 kWh Battery, plus 6-10 Gallons of Gas, in an EREV config, with 3,000 Lbs Towing, could be a great play for them: taps into Pickup Sales, EV Buyers, and 4WD Crowd, plus, shows they are not Stagnant! It… Read more »


Because SparkEV being more efficient in 62 MPH than lighter BMW i3, yes, I expected GM to rewrite the law of Physics with Bolt as well.

Right. The Bolt is not head to head competition for M3. No way no how.

I’ll be amazed if the M3 is more efficient than the Bolt in real world usage.

GM has an excellent track record of EVs that easily exceed their EPA range and efficiency numbers.

The S/X, on the other hand, are horribly inefficient. There’s no excuse for a 100kwh battery not getting at least 400 miles of range.

Maybe the M3 will be better than the S/X since it’s smaller & newer. But, I won’t believe it until I see third party tests.

Bolt is EPA rated more efficient than SparkEV, but people report it being less efficient. As such, I’m not too hopeful it will be more efficient than Tesla 3.

As I said, that’s what we know as of now. Once there are more Tesla 3 available, hopefully Tony Williams will conduct the real world test (at 62 MPH). And if Tesla wishes to lend me a test vehicle (to test for 8 years or so), I’ll be happy to conduct the test. 🙂

It’ll be a while, if ever, before any EV from a mainstream manufacturer can beat the efficiency of the Spark EV. In warm weather I easily get 6mi/kwh in mine. In below freezing temps it drops to around 5mi/kwh.

I’m not sure why GM under-rated the Spark EV range and efficiency quite as much as they did. It’s an extreme case of under-promise, over-deliver.

LMAO, your statement shows how desperate you are as a troll to FUD against Tesla CC.

Model S/X are biased towards PERFORMACE to take on the ICE competition in this high-end segment and they are doing very well in that regard, you on the other hand-not so much.

I don’t manufacture EVs, so I’m not doing poorly or well. I do buy EVs, and I’ve done well with that.

We were talking about EV efficiency, not performance. Tesla does very well at making fast cars. They don’t do so well at making efficient cars. Hopefully the M3 will be different.

Personally, I’d rather have an efficient 7-second car, than an inefficient 4-second car. Others may prefer a different balance.

Bolt came out with figures first. It was Tesla’s position to try to beat the Bolt.

Honestly, given how Tesla felt they had to fall to wheel covers so ugly that people talk about how to remove them in order to compete with (and beat Bolt) on efficiency shows GM has nothing to be ashamed of.

Tesla had to move a long way just to catch up to GM. They even abandoned their namesake AC induction motor.

GM definitely made a lot of advances on this front. Seems like Tesla and Hyundai did too. And if you are talking about PHEVs then the Prius Prime also shows big advances in efficiency. A lot of companies moving forward. Smells like progress.

That’s because the vast majority of reservation holders still believed the 3 would start being delivered en-mass by the end of the year, based off what Elon has said.

When the 3 is officially delayed in the near future, we’ll see what happens. Delays of the 3 certainly won’t HURT Bolt sales any, that’s for sure.

Considering that M3 (a $35K luxury car) and Bolt (a 20K low-end car selling for 40K) really do not compete against each other, it would not matter if M3 was doing 5000/week today.
They are in very different markets. Heck, the accord is more competition for M3 than the bolt.


If the Bolt and Model 3 aren’t competitors, then why am I seriously considering a refund of my Model 3 reservation money so I can put it toward a Bolt?

It’s like saying you can’t book passage on the QE II because of some “retooling”, not a shutdown, and instead are offered a ticket on tramp freighter to Shanghai, (a slow boat to China). Some people might jump ship, but not many.

When you are linking events in a chain of causation yours tend to get weaker the further out you go. It’s true that that is usually the case, but in your summations it’s always so Henny Penny.
“The sky is falling.”

Darn Acorns!

Oh I don’t think any Model ‘3’ news is going to cause ANY cancellations of ANY reservations, as long as the reservists don’t need the $1,000. As far as comments like “THE BOLT ?!!! Oh, Please!” go, the lowly bolt might end up being more noteworthy than such comments suggest… Years ago, I thought GM’s production of a vehicle like the BOLT ev would be simultaneously released with the Model ‘3’, or else the Model ‘3’ actually PREDATING the Bolt… As it transpired, the ‘3’ is a full year behind the release of the BOLT ev, and therefore being a year newer – it will be expected that it is a more modern car, and moreover, while 20,000 copies might be viewed as a ‘pittance’, it might end up that the car has the last laugh. Seeing as there are 20 copies per dealership in ‘couldnt care less about ev’s Buffalo, NY’, its not supply constrained – especially since the ORION, Michigan GM plant had more layoffs than originally planned this year, mostly due to the Sonic but also the Bolt’s poor sales performance. GM’s dumping Vauxhill/Adam Opel didn’t help either since now its up to PSA Citroen to purchase… Read more »

Actually, the news that Tesla 3 can’t tow may (will) cause cancellations. If it’s official, I’m definitely out.

You ARE kidding, right?

I’m thinking the same thing, SparkEV.

I had hoped the Model 3 could be used for some modest cross-country towing. A recent experiment on Edmunds’ long term Model X showed that range is cut by some 50% while towing a light load.

That, plus the Model 3’s apparent inability to tow in the early going, means I’m losing interest.

The news that it can tow was only Musk on Twitter. And the information that it won’t was also Musk on Twitter.

There’s no reason to think it can tow including what Musk has said on Twitter. I’m not sure why you are still hanging on.

For anyone not seeing it, here’s the second tweet indicating no hitch.


On another note I saw a Bolt with a tiny hitch receiver on it the other day. Only a 1 1/4″ so probably only for a bike rack. Obviously GM doesn’t recommend even that tiny hitch.

Might want to talk to a doctor about this level of delusion.

No, I don’t think so. Tesla’s biggest enemy is itself. Tesla needs to seriously up its game to stay afloat. It is losing money hand over fist while sales has stagnated, that is not a good position to be in. Tesla absolutely needs a new car that is cheap enough to sell in large numbers. If it released another high-end number it would just cannibalize itself.

Personally I think Tesla’s has made 2 serious mistakes, the model X and the Gigafactory. It tried too hard with the model X and the delays and complicated technology bit Tesla in the backside. Doing a SUV on the S platform is a good idea in itself but Tesla should have kept it simple and released it much earlier.

The Gigafactory is too big a step to do at this time. Scaling is hard to do right, it’s easy to get overzealous and scale too hard in one go. The Gigafactory is supposed to produce cheap batteries but these batteries are only cheap if you actually use the full capacity of the factory. Otherwise the fixed costs will eat every advantage of having it.

There is no point in producing a car that is cheap enough to sell in large numbers if they can’t even churn out the one that is at a mid price point in any meaningful numbers as yet ?

They just need time to get it sorted out, the trouble is, time is not on their side from a financial stand point.

Lets see.
Tesla is selling batteries to homes, to puerto rico, Australia, USVI, and very likely all over coastal texas and florida.
You really think that GF is behind? Nope.
It is likely due to 2 things:
1) SOME of the part manufacturers are likely still either low production or QA issues. Im guessing that this IS an issue, but not the main one.
2) bringing the plant line up to speed and figuring out where all the issues are.
This is where every EXPERIENCED car maker has to focus for up to a year. As such, this is almost certainly the real issue.

Hopefully, Musk has MY nearly ready and will QUIETLY start the line for that once he has M3 up and running close to schedule.

Tesla is selling a tiny amount of batteries and at least in some cases they are using Samsung cells and not their own. Also, the Puerto Rican batteries are DONATED to PR so not only are they not profitable they are eating the profits of the other projects.

No, they were NOT donated.
Elon said let him install battery and solar and then they would haggle over price.
It will likely be at cost, which is a great deal for them.

It will probably be a mix. Tesla has already donated some stuff to get hospitals powered up, so they are doing some donations. But later projects will certainly have to be negotiated once critical emergency needs have been addressed.

2017 Tesla Model S/X combined sales are projected to be up around 30% from their 2016 total sales numbers of 76K. How is that flat sales? Most car companies would kill to be up 30% in 2017.

Most car companies are still down from 2016 highs, despite the late spike in sales due to hurricane losses. So Tesla’s 30% would actually represent even more than a 30% gain in market share.


Thing is, by doing a slooooowww ramp up, GM management is doing everything to ruin/delay the Bolt success and the good work of GM engineers, so we are left in a situation where we have a great EV (Bolt) that is being sabotaged by their own makers.

Tesla will be fine. The Bolt and Model 3 will co-exist.

My wife loves our Bolt but doesn’t want one of her own. She prefers a model 3. Different tastes!

It seems odd for you to gloat that they are a few months behind.

Even if they only produce 3,000 a week in december… GM is producing about 3,000 Bolts a month! That makes for 4 times as many Model 3s produced as Bolts for the month.

Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are under 2,000 a week in December. That is still over twice as many model 3s as Bolts over the same time frame.

Am I dissapointed in the delay? Yes absolutely. Am I surprised? Nope.

We have all been following Tesla for years. We knew this was a likely possibility.

Problems may run much, much deeper than what the Reuters story is telling.


You might want to have a source that isn’t so consistently anti-Tesla. 😉 The author of that article only cares about the stock.

Besides, I couldn’t possibly care less about stocks or stock holders. Investor interests ( long or short) are not in line with my interests.

Author says he has no positions in TSLA, nor plans to purchase TSLA.

Just because something is from Seeking Alpha doesn’t automatically make it some FUD piece. Sure, it is biased, but the points brought up are completely valid. Tesla is burning cash like a cash incineration machine rivaled by only perhaps Uber, and if it doesn’t start delivering 3’s en-mass VERY QUICKLY, it’ll spell bigtime trouble for the company.

Only the most hardcore TSLA fanatic will deny that.

Take a few seconds of looking at the authors other articles.

“Elin Musk Appears to be Taking Investors for Fools”

“Model 3 is MIA and Model S and X Stories Continue to Fall Apart”

Pretty clear agenda even if he isn’t shorting the stock.

I trust the author to be as reputable on Tesla news as electrek is on GM news. Probably less reputable!

Burning cash is not a problem.

All start-ups burn cash for a while. A manufacturing start-up has more to buy than say an Amazon start-up.

bro1999 said:

“Just because something is from Seeking Alpha doesn’t automatically make it some FUD piece.”

No, but the fact that you have gone to the trouble of linking to it certainly does automatically make it some anti-Tesla FUD article or blog post. You never post anything related to Tesla that isn’t FUD or bashing, usually blatantly so but sometimes subtly.

No doubt of that; your pattern of Tesla-bashing behavior is crystal clear, with no room for doubt and no exceptions.

This article is worth reading. I actually came to similar conclusions regarding inventory logistics, possible rust (even if they’re not stored outside), and contract volumes.

Knowing now that there are several suppliers stating similar order reductions, it does seem apparent that that Tesla expected to be producing at a rate of about 160K-200K vehicles per year, right about now.

That doesn’t match what this supplier is saying. This supplier is saying they will deliver enough parts for well over 300K in 2018, and enough parts for over 400K in 2019 if they continue the June delivery rate they claim for the next 18 months after June.

The Tesla comes with one advantage the others don’t have and that is the charging network. The Bolt is a fine car but until the charge infrastructure matures, I’ll choose Tesla.

…and the Bolt doesn’t need to sell 100K/yr to accomplish this goal of disruption. It just needs to EXIST and be available nationwide. Check!

“But GM gunked up Elon’s plans.”

You must really be in love with the sound of your own voice.

What a load of horse hockey! 🙄

The Model X is what gunked up Tesla’s Model 3 plans. That and the decision to wait until the Gigafactory was completely online before building the Model 3.

Those were the two things that tied up Tesla prior to starting the Model 3.

Tesla was never going to start building the Model 3 before the Gigafactory completed ramp-up by early/mid 2017, and Model X delays took resources away from the Model 3. What GM was doing with the Bolt was never going to change that.

If they are doing 3000 cars / week in dec, things will be good. At that time, they will likely be able to scale up to the expected time line rather quickly.

So 12k in Dec. averaging 3k a week? Yeah I am not sure they will make that. It will be like a light switch when it does fall into place.
From 10 cars a day to 110, then double that again in another month. They are suffering from a plethora of problems, which I tried to illustrate:

If they get 10k out(half my original est) by
Jan 1st, I would happy.

Apparently the mass production of cars is not that easy.

There are too many things that can go wrong.

Let’s see what information will be released on November 1st 2017. And the Q&A during the Conference Call will be very interesting to listen to.

Did delivery of your Model 3 just move from 2019 to 2020? I’ll have my 300 mile Ford BEV SUV by then.

Tex, only if you get your $5,000 Deposit in – Now!

So you are predicting that Ford will drop Magna building their EV’s for them, and have Tesla sell them Model Y’s for them to rebrand?


I wonder how real a possibility this would be if Tesla cannot right the ship and needs to be bailed out.

GM doesn’t really need anything Tesla has. If they wanted to they could produce equivalents of their cars in 12-18 months.

They used to own the plant, and they didn’t/don’t want it.

The only other thing of value is the SuperCharger network, which GM seems to have no interest in.

My bet would be a Chinese company buying Tesla’s carcass. That would be a shame.

I’d say they could use the name/cachet.
That’s probably the most valuable part of Tesla.

You sound like the head of Fiat. And not in any good way.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Well why not follow in GM’s footsteps and go to the goooooberment for a bailout and file for BK like your big boy GM did?

Then they can come out with a 90+ AER EV 4 years later…….lol

This story documents enough parts for 12,000 cars/month in Dec, and enough parts for 40,000 cars/month in June. How much taller do you want the ship to stand?

Honestly, I think these guys are running 9-12 months behind schedule, but no one wants to admit it. So, let’s flash forward to next Summer and assume they launch IN VOLUME at that time. What has changed? Sure, the stock takes a hit, but then rebounds massively because…the only competition is STILL the Bolt EV and even it doesn’t have supercharging (and likely half the demographic of EV buyers are willing to pony up the extra for the sleeker, more powerful, “cooler” Tesla anyway).

I mean if the Germans or anyone else really had a 200+ mile EV ready to launch next September, we’d like see it being previewed in some way, shape or firm early next year, but instead the only thing that isn’t a drawing on a piece of paper is the Jaguar iPace which will be super low volume and built by Magna Steyr for Jaguar. In short, the delays don’t seem to matter…

The problem is that Tesla will run out of cash if they don’t start selling the Model 3 in volume soon.

I think the issue is that Tesla would eventually run out of the ability to borrow more money at advantageous rates. Since they’re operating on borrowed money, and have been for years, I don’t know that the amount of cash on hand matters much.

And as far as whether or not that might happen soon… well, what qualifies as “soon”? A couple of quarters? A couple of years? Is anyone other than Tesla’s accountants and top executives really in a position to know?

“soon” is certainly a relative term, because we’ve been hearing that Tesla would run out of cash “soon” for over a decade.

Yes, they will need to raise cash in time for when they need it or they will run out. But there are no signs that Tesla has run out of people willing to invest into their future. In fact, the opposite is true. Tesla’s latest bonds sold more than expected at a better rate than expected due to demand greatly outstripping supply. Investors were lining up to buy Tesla bonds, even without any equity option, just straight interest.

According to this story, Tesla’s parts delivery is nowhere near 9-12 months behind.

Enough parts for 12,000 cars in Dec instead of the goal of 20,000 is not being 9-12 months behind.

Enough parts for 40,000 cars by June is not 9-12 months behind.

If they were 6 months behind, they would be getting enough parts for 30 cars in Dec. They are getting not enough parts for 30 a month, but 3000 a week.

A year behind would be enough parts for 30 cars in June, not 40,000 cars in June like the information in this story.

Your math doesn’t add up.

I think it should be pointed out that 3000 per week is probably not the build rate that Tesla is expecting, but rather the minimum contractual order volume.

High volume forging machines that make gears (for example) spit them out at about 1 pc per second. There’s a good chance that the supplier ran the equipment for one day and produced up to 24,000 pcs…just to but things into context. There are probably gears sitting at the supplier, on a boat, and stacked somewhere in a Tesla warehouse…all waiting to be used.

Thanks, JeremyK!

That is the discussion we ought to be having here; a discussion about the issue that actually matters, regarding Tesla’s business.

Too bad all the FUDster troll posts are sabotaging any chance for meaningful dialogue. 🙁

Likely. And that hurts Tesla even more. If you contract your suppliers to tool up to produce a lot of parts they will either require higher minimum orders or up front money to do so. If you then don’t need (or take delivery of) those parts you get hurt a lot financially (at least until you catch back up) because you have paid for parts that you now have no use for or paid extra money to make available more parts you now have no use for. Part of predicting your ramp rate properly is so you don’t end up paying for stuff you can’t use. If it takes 300 parts to make a car and you order 100,000 of each but then you can only get 3,000 of one of them you now have 97,000 of 299 parts that you cannot yet use. That’s capital tied up not producing (yet) any revenue. It’s one reason why you see other companies being less aggressive about their ramp-ups. Those other companies, to be honest, are better run than Tesla operationally. I do think Tesla will get through this, I’m not claiming they will meet their demise. But as long as they… Read more »

Well, every car company selling in US is better run than Tesla when it comes to manufacturing, especially on release of new models.

Unlucky, your assumption here is too kind: You assume that a company building products “predicts” a ramp rate. That’s not correct. You verify parts conformity and quality through PPAP and testing on Production intent vehicles for a bout 1M vehicle-miles. Those same cars were built with production tooling, using processes planned for the first run to be sold. There is NOT a “prediction of ramp rate”. There is an established commitment to an initial production rate based on measurements of process output. Do manufacturers miss these commitments sometimes? Yes. But not because they were sticking their thumbs in the air (or elsewhere) and estimating. It was because they screwed up, and even then they don’t miss by multi-fold factors or even worse an order of magnitude. Oddly you never hear that the 787 or now the Bombardier C-series is having trouble because they “misunderestimated* ramp rate”. We hear of specific problems with specific suppliers or processes. With Tesla it’s always vague and ultimately it’s YOUR fault that you don’t understand the ysterious exponential S Curve. Hilarious. (* TM GWB) Further you seem to imply that there is indeed a supply chain problem getting that “one part”. Other than Musk (again)… Read more »
Well, the one part was a hypothetical so I didn’t mean to state there was just one problem and that it was a problem with an external supplier not delivering. It was an example of how being aggressive in your assumptions can hurt you even if you and your suppliers do almost everything right and the one thing that didn’t go right wasn’t even in-house. Usually of course you will have more than one problem and plenty that are right in your kitchen. As to the rest, I think I agree with you on those statements too although I admit I’m a bit lost of some of the details. If I had to say it succinctly I would say that the way you decide how to allocate time for ramp up is a combination of past experience and learning from past mistakes in allocating time. Tesla has very little applicable past experience to go on. And they refuse (at least as a whole) to learn from past errors in allowing time for ramp up, so that makes their outcomes even worse. I don’t trust Tesla’s predictions of ramp times at all simply because they have never gotten them right in… Read more »

Actually, we heard tons about Boeing 787 delays in ramping up production. It took them years to ramp-up:


I’m not sure what your point is. Delays in ramp-up are pretty much standard in the automotive industry.

For example, GM put deliveries on hold for roughly two months after beginning production of the Bolt in October, until they started deliveries in earnest in December. The only difference is that GM wasn’t transparent about it.

Well Madbro, with 16 posts and counting here you are outdoing your normal mental OC infatuation with all things Tesla bashing and other irrational hatred of Tesla.

But your citing Seeking Liars shows just how desperate you are to push your agenda here and of course bounce off some of your hater buddies here like tftf, CCIE, TexasFFud, etc.

In any case, Tesla is ramping up slowly at this time and making adjustments accordingly.

They will work out the issues and get to large scale output and unlike the laggard OEMs they have overwhelming demand for their EVs whereas the laggards are not exactly pushing their EVs very much if at all because they conflict with their ICE profits.

Tesla certainly has its challenges and it shows but they also have the hands down best EVs and the demand for them reflects that.

So despite MadBros wet-dream, anti-Tesla fantasies, Tesla is fundamentally in the drivers seat for dominating the mid-high end compelling BEV market for the forseeable future.

Hey, thanks for the shoutout!

You know, I’m starting to understand why Bro feels the need to fight so rabidly against blind Tesla devotees. The only real EV bias I have is that I prefer to see US companies succeed over foreign companies. That includes Tesla, GM, and Ford.

But, anytime anyone here says anything negative about Tesla they’re automatically assumed to be a short-seller. That includes citing articles from neutral news sites that point out Tesla’s issues.

And somehow GM has become the arch-enemy of Tesla in the fanboys’ eyes. I guess because they managed to launch an affordable 200+ miles BEV way before Tesla without even breaking a sweat? If GM knows that, they must find it amusing that their EV side-project causes so much consternation among Tesla fanboys. Meanwhile they’re raking in profits on multiple Truck/SUV assembly lines while Tesla bleeds money trying to setup one line that can’t even properly weld steel.

I really do wish Tesla well. I might even buy one of their cars if reliability improves and post-warranty self-repair becomes more realistic. But, I’ll never believe they’re anything more than a company trying to make money, just like every other car company.

Yeah CC, my shoutout to you is that you are posing here as a “concern” troll who and relatively new username who showed up about the same time that MadBro started his ever-expanding ragings against Tesla here on InsideEvs.

Rational people can figure out that your multiple, (you are starting to challenge MadBro in the numbers) highly negative postings on everything Tesla exposes your lies that you supposedly “…really wish Tesla well.”

BTW, my family currently drives a Volt and a Bolt so I certainly don’t see GM as an archenemy but I do think they are more protecting their ICE profits then pushing their excellent PEVs.

You know nothing about Tesla’s M3 assembly line but you continuously pull FUD out your ass and repeat that of known Tesla haters.

You likewise massively and deliberately misrepresent Tesla’s quality on their S and X models as shown by their customer ownership ratings that lead the industry:


So basically everything you say here is misdirection and makes it likely that you are a short seller or in some way paid to bash Tesla or you are just a slightly more sophisticated hater then MadBro.

Well, at least I’m slightly more sophisticated!

I’ve been paying attention to EVs since 2007. Been reading Jay’s stuff since he was Statik at gm-Volt.com. So, I’m not new, I just didn’t have the time or inclination to post much here until the last 6-12 months.

I wouldn’t bet on Tesla’s stock one way or another. Far too volatile. So, no, I’m not a shorter.

I do appreciate what Tesla did and is doing. They forced the major manufacturers to acknowledge that EVs were possible. And their continued existence keeps the majors from killing off EVs.

The thing I don’t like about Tesla is the rediculous over-promising. And it’s annoying that Tesla fans accept and rabidly defend those unrealistic promises, even though the track record says they’ll be late and the product will have issues at launch.

We’ll know the truth in 3-6 months. Either they launch the M3 and everyone loves it, or they don’t and Tesla is done. I don’t care if you believe me, but I am rooting for the former option.

Ah! GM fanboi. Now it makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

“But, anytime anyone here says anything negative about Tesla they’re automatically assumed to be a short-seller. That includes citing articles from neutral news sites that point out Tesla’s issues.”

Funny, I seem to be able to criticize both Tesla and Elon when I feel they deserve it, and I’ve somehow managed to link to external articles about Tesla which were not “cheerleader” screeds… all while still being frequently accused of being both an Elon Musk “cultist” and a Tesla “cheerleader” or even, on occasion, a “shill”.

It may be, CCIE, that your perception is just as biased in the anti-Tesla direction as Get Real’s perception is biased in the pro-Tesla direction.

And it may be that what you’re describing as “neutral” is anything but.

While I wouldn’t lump you into the rabid Tesla fans, like Get Real or Nix, you do seem to lean in their favor.

I do tend to lean more toward GM, likely because I own and have had great experiences with the Volt and Spark EV.

But, I wouldn’t call myself anti-Tesla. I tend to view them like I view an evangelical church; they’re holier-than-thou attitude gets annoying and then at some point you find out they’re just as full of BS as everyone else when the pastor gets caught embezzling money.

I just want to know when the first Model 3 is delivered to a non-employee (or their friend/family).

I’d also like to know more technical details about the “bottlenecks”.

Another Euro point of view

It’s official now. Leaf 2 will sell better in 2018 (worldwide) than Model 3.

(provocative mode off now)

So suppliers killed themselves meeting unrealistic deadlines only to have their orders cut? That sounds like a recipe for a lot of very unhappy suppliers.

Bye bye to getting my Tesla this year. Probably end of next year.

It’s ok, I am spending that money on aircraft avionics upgrades.

All this “sky is falling on Tesla” talk seems pretty silly to me. You wanna know what would be really bad news for Tesla? If they were producing x000 per week and NO ONE WAS BUYING them. But the fact is that every M3 they make for the next year or more will be spoken for immediately.

By early to mid 2018 M3s will be churning out of Fremont, and Tesla will face its real problem: providing quality customer service to a fleet growing exponentially. Also keeping the supercharger user experience positive. These ramp-up headaches will be a footnote.

I kind of hope the Tesla Fudsters keep at it a while. Stock could get cheap enough that I’d consider buying some.

Tesla got away with shipping a lot of poorly built cars early on in the launch of the S. And it seems like the X still has issues. But, they were mostly selling to EV enthusiasts who had multiple vehicles and were willing to deal with the issues.

With the M3 I think Tesla will find they won’t get away with providing poorly built, unreliable cars. Especially once they start delivering to “normal” people who won’t overlook issues solely in the name of EV advancement. We’ll see how demand looks if the CR reliability ratings go down the drain. The CR “average” rating the M3 has now is a gift.

If overall Tesla quality was poor, they would never have got six figures in pre-orders. Also, CR reliability ratings for the S are going up, not down. Which is why CR awarded them an expected “average” reliability rating; CR is being conservative, but is basing the rating on past experience. The notion that Tesla reliability will go down over time is pure FUD.

Model S reliability got better after the first year. Model X reliability still isn’t great, mostly because of the doors.

I expect M3 reliability won’t be great the first year given the rush they’re in to get it into production. Should I prove second year. My point was that the buyers this time around will be less forgiving of that initial unreliability because they won’t all be EV enthusiasts.

CCIE said:

“We’ll see how demand looks if the CR reliability ratings go down the drain.”

Consumer Reports reliability ratings did drop, rather significantly, over a period of time on the Model S, before gradually coming back up again. Did that have a significant impact on Model S sales? No, I’m pretty sure it did not.

Tesla has consistently topped CR’s customer satisfaction scores for all auto makers rated by CR, since they first started giving a rating to Tesla. I think it’s safe to say that the mostly minor reliability issues in Tesla cars which CR seems so obsessed with, simply are not that important to most buyers. If they were that important, then Tesla would have a much, much lower customer satisfaction rating.

For example, the driver’s door handle stops auto-presenting when the driver approaches the car, so the driver has to use a smartphone app to open the door? Annoying until it’s fixed, but it doesn’t exactly make the car undrive-able, nor is it likely to cause the driver to stop loving his car!

Again, my contention is that they got a lot of free passes on the S/X issues because the buyers were EV enthusiasts. Then “normal” people buy the M3 I think they’ll be less forgiving. We’ll see…

wait, so the “bad” news is a supplier confirming: “3,000 sets per week … starting December” and “10,000 parts [per week in] May or June” So what if there are delays!! We already knew that Tesla was a month or two behind on ramp-up. Even after the delays are factored in, this implies up to 12,000 per month for Dec through May (60,000 total) plus up to 40,000 per month from June to the end of the year (280,000) That puts them on target EVEN WITH DELAYS to build upwards of 350,000 M3’s!!! With even a modest increase in Model S and Model X deliveries in 2018, they are within comfortable rounding distance of 500K units. Wow!!! That would be amazing! More than I certainly realistically expected. It would completely crush Wall Street estimates, and demolish the folks who claimed that the Model 3 wouldn’t go into mass production until 2019 or 2020. Everybody seems to be focusing on the bad news that this confirms what we already knew (Tesla has a month or two delay in ramp-up). But everybody seems to be ignoring the confirmation of enough parts to support a ramp up to somewhere near 12K/month, followed much… Read more »

Delaying part shipments before contract delay penalties activate is EXACTLY what Tesla should be doing.

Yes, it’s true that Musk said this as late as August 2nd at the Q2 Conference Call: “And we remain, we believe, on track to achieve a 5,000 unit week by the end of this year.”

And yes, that sort of nonsense makes you realize that his judgment about this sort of thing isn’t very good. But keeping the part stream running in the face of their significant product delays would be crazy. With ~($2B) in Cash Used by Operations by EoY’17, why keep piling up parts you don’t need? Moreover, with an unproved production line and basically beta/production intent vehicles still operating and providing performance and reliability input to the design team, which parts might need redesign? They don’t know, and tens (perhaps hundreds) of $M of excess/obsolete writeoff would be just a terrible additional impact.

Proper action by Tesla, IMO. Late in acting, and necessary all because of a reckless industrial strategy, but at this point the right thing to do.

FWIW, and probably not much since Musk projections are perishable, on 2 July jsut before midnight he Tooted:
“Looks like we can reach 20,000 Model 3 cars per month in Dec”
(I’m just imagining the look on the faces of Operations, Puurchasing and Engineering team members on reading that little jewel the next morning)

For a guy who can peg within 1000 exactly how many Boring Company hats are sold, he sure has trouble keeping up with the $Bs at risk on the Model 3 (ad)venture.

Since placing my reservation for a Model 3 on 3/31/16, I now have come to believe that either a car company other than Tesla will make that car or Tesla will fail and I will never see the car I reserved. BTW I own no Tesla stock and never have and never will. And I have no idea what FUD means.

Even 5,000 Tesla Model 3’s per week in the second half of 2018 would be a great achievement, I think.

24 weeks of production X 5,000 = 120,000

First six months? How about 60,000?

Total for 2017? 180,000

2018? Twice that number?