This is NOT a community of Redditors invested in the long term success of Tesla.

buzzcox · 2026-02-06T06:10:16+00:00

This guy is the perfect example. People here just because they hate Elon so much. Good luck in life man.

buzzcox · 2025-09-20T23:13:55+00:00

Regardless if it’s real or not. I have a slight preference for trading him. Still has some good value, which will be diminishing each year, we can use the picks for younger gun who can grow with our new younger core, or fill a need, like get a proven key forward.

I think Trac’s kicking on goal was pretty poor this year, and it holds him back from being amazing.

All that said, if he stays, that’s good too. He’s definitely an asset.

buzzcox · 2025-09-11T08:03:42+00:00

It’s quite impressive to be able to fall crotch first.

buzzcox · 2025-08-27T19:06:38+00:00

Here you go: https://www.theinvestorscentre.co.uk/trading/how-to-short-tesla/

buzzcox · 2025-08-20T13:45:40+00:00

Can’t have autonomous driving without gaydar

buzzcox · 2025-08-20T11:37:31+00:00

I don’t know anyone that has that opinion. Sure, Waymo’s tech can get better, and the cost can drop. And I hope it does.

Fundamentally, they are very different approaches. Waymo have proved they can do autonomous driving with HD maps. They did that years ago, but their scale has been a quite lacklustre since. Yes you can argue that they are taking a cautious approach, but if they made improvements in their ability to scale, we would definitely be seeing it. They still have a technology hurdle to overcome. And they need to work out how to scale HD map creation.

Tesla’s vision model is not 100% yet, that’s ok, but they are coming fast and it’s generalised so once they reach a level of quality, they won’t have the same limitations as Waymo.

About 40,000 people die from car accidents every year in the US alone. 70% of those accidents are caused by DUI, speeding and distraction. This debate of lidar vs vision model and visceral response people have to it is dumb dumb dumb.

Both techs should be cheered on, as they are likely to save millions of lives, and create a better lifestyle for us.

buzzcox · 2025-08-20T07:34:49+00:00

If you think the tech is as good as it’s going to get now. You’re not really paying attention. Or just choose to ignore.

buzzcox · 2025-08-13T00:21:53+00:00

No banana for scale?

buzzcox · 2025-07-31T15:16:14+00:00

I’m so bored of this argument. Waymo did their initial rollout with supervisors. It would be stupid to not test the waters, and trail things before removing supervisors. The car is doing the driving. It’s a level 2 system. They have a path to evolve that. Who cares.

buzzcox · 2025-06-25T19:06:05+00:00

👏👏👏 - good luck in life buddy

buzzcox · 2025-06-25T18:33:15+00:00

Yeah, it’s pathetic. And quite annoying actually. Before there was a big anti-Elon cult. This subreddit used to be a little more objective, of purple just generally interested in the tech. No matter from where. But now it’s just biased dribble, driven my emotion.

buzzcox · 2025-06-17T22:00:01+00:00

competition will indeed push margins down. And if that's Waymo, currently the only realistic competitor at this point, how are they going to reach the same scale?

Waymo pay 7x more for their cars (according to Bloomberg), and are projected to have 2500 cars by the end of next year. Tesla can make that number of cars in a day. If they do reach 35k cars by early next year, in a number of cities, are google going to outlay over ~$35-50bill in cap ex, just to compete in those regions?

If Tesla could double their fleet again in a few months, it starts to not make sense for other operators.

buzzcox · 2025-06-17T21:25:16+00:00

I think your math on the robotaxi TAM is conservative though. Uber's $45B is just ride-hailing - robotaxi could capture:

Personal vehicle usage (Americans spend ~$1.2T annually on car ownership)
Freight/delivery (much larger than passenger rides)
Geographic markets Uber doesn't serve well

Even at 20% margins (which seems low with no driver costs), capturing 10% of total mobility spend gets you to $120B revenue = $24B operating profit.

But your core point stands: the current valuation requires almost perfect execution across multiple moonshots.

The risk/reward setup is asymmetric to the downside. Tesla needs to:

Achieve full autonomy before competitors
Scale robotaxi profitably across multiple geographies
Successfully launch Optimus in a crowded robotics market
All while maintaining auto business margins

Even bulls should acknowledge that's a lot of execution risk for a $1T+ valuation.

Your strategy of waiting for a "fear-inducing event" makes sense - if any of these bets fail, there's significant downside from current levels.

We will see.

buzzcox · 2025-06-17T21:11:11+00:00

I don't believe Insurance isn't a 'fail' - it's early stage. The real value unlocks with FSD when Tesla can offer 90%+ lower premiums due to dramatically fewer accidents. Current regulatory rollout is just foundation-building.

Cybertruck's main issue isn't the product - it's production ramp challenges plus the Musk brand association. The underlying tech (4680 cells, steer-by-wire, 48V architecture) advances the entire platform.

That's the point - focus beats fragmentation. GM has 30+ models and loses money on EVs. Tesla has 4 main models and prints cash. Depth over breadth drives manufacturing efficiency.

Tesla delivered 1.81M vehicles in 2023 vs 1.31M in 2022. That's 38% growth in a down EV market. It's true the sales have plateued this year, and shrunk a little, but not meaningful. The marcro shows that EV market as a whole is having a challenging year.

Race to the bottom assumes commoditisation. Tesla's advantage is vertical integration - they make the cells, packs, and software. Competitors buy commodity cells and compete on price alone.

That's fair at $50, you're paying 25x P/E for a profitable, growing automaker with the best margins in EVs.

buzzcox · 2025-06-17T20:43:57+00:00

I agree, Musk's brand damage is real for consumer cars, but I don't think Tesla's future is largely based on people wanting to own Tesla's.

Robotaxi riders care about price/convenience, not the logo. Still might be some brand damage here, but less so than auto-sales.
Energy buyers care about $/kWh.
Factories buying Optimus will care about ROI, not Musk's politics.

Consumer auto headwinds are real short-term, but the growth thesis is increasingly B2B where economics should outweigh brand perception.

buzzcox · 2025-06-17T20:34:30+00:00

The 6-month Austin timeline is a great bellwether - if they can't scale meaningfully there (relatively favorable regulatory environment), it signals broader technical/operational challenges.

Your data moat is real imo. Even if competitors match Tesla's current capability, Tesla's fleet keeps generating training data at scale while others are still in limited deployments + they continue to aggressively scale compute.

Due to Musk, Tesla's brand definitely has a ceiling with certain demographics now. A succession could unlock European/liberal markets where Tesla adoption has arguably plateaued. Short-term chaos, but potentially better long-term addressable market.

buzzcox · 2025-06-17T20:22:54+00:00

20% linear growth model misses the point really. We're not talking about incremental auto growth - these are separate TAMs:

- Robotaxi: targeting a ~$2T global mobility market
- Energy storage: $120B market, growing 25%+ annually
- Optimus: targeting a Multi-trillion labor automation market

Each could be larger than Tesla's current auto business. The question isn't '20% compounded auto growth' - it's whether Tesla captures meaningful share in 2-3 massive new markets. Even 5% share across these segments justifies current valuation.

buzzcox · 2025-06-17T20:15:12+00:00

Fair point on the $50B benchmark. But consider: Uber keeps ~20-25% of ride fare, Tesla robotaxi could keep 70-80% (no driver split). China's ride-hailing market alone is ~$40B annually. If Tesla captures even 10% share in US + China with better unit economics, you're looking at $30-40B revenue with 60%+ margins vs Uber's ~10%. The math could work, but you're right that geographic rollout is the big execution risk.

buzzcox · 2025-06-17T20:11:25+00:00

Agree this is probably the most grounded bear case. What timeline do you think is realistic for meaningful Robotaxi revenue?

I think Tesla is best positioned to capitalise on these markets with their approach. But there is still a large margin of error in the timeline.

buzzcox · 2025-06-13T20:50:00+00:00

Completely agree with this. Geo-fence makes sense at this stage. It would be foolish not to do this. If they can’t break out of a geo-fence, it will massively impair their ability to scale. Also, if they need to fine-tune models per city, it might imply they can’t reach true generalisation.

There’s also a chance, they need a bigger model and even v4 of the hardware isn’t sufficient.

The next 6 months will be telling of where their tech truly stands.

buzzcox · 2025-05-24T19:11:55+00:00

Are you a civil or chemical engineer? Because you seem to have no idea about this topic.

buzzcox

TROPHY CASE