特斯拉 (TSLA) 2014 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Tesla Motors' second-quarter 2014 financial results.

女士們，先生們，美好的一天，歡迎來到特斯拉汽車公司 2014 年第二季度的財務業績。

(Operator Instructions)

（操作員說明）

I now will like to turn the call over to your host, Jeff Evanson. Please go ahead.

我現在想將電話轉給您的主持人 Jeff Evanson。請繼續。

Thank you, Patrick, and good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to Tesla's first -- second-quarter financial results Q&A webcast. I'm joined today by Elon Musk, Tesla's Chairman and CEO, JB Straubel, Tesla's Chief Technology Officer, and Deepak Ahuja, Tesla's Chief Financial Officer.

謝謝帕特里克，大家下午好。歡迎收聽特斯拉第一——第二季度財務業績問答網絡直播。今天，特斯拉董事長兼首席執行官埃隆·馬斯克、特斯拉首席技術官 JB Straubel 和特斯拉首席財務官 Deepak Ahuja 加入了我的行列。

We announced first -- second-quarter results today in our quarterly shareholder letter. The letter is available at this time as a link to our website at www.ir.teslamotors.com. There'll also be a replay of this webcast available later today at the same link.

我們今天在我們的季度股東信中宣布了第一 - 第二季度的業績。這封信目前可作為我們網站 www.ir.teslamotors.com 的鏈接獲得。今天晚些時候還將在同一鏈接上重播該網絡廣播。

Please note that certain financial measures used in this call, such as revenue and income, are expressed on a non-GAAP basis and have been adjusted to exclude the effects of lease accounting used on Model S sales with the residual value guarantee and charges related to stock-based compensation. Our GAAP results and reconciliations to non-GAAP measures can be found in the shareholder letter.

請注意，本次電話會議中使用的某些財務指標（例如收入和收入）是在非公認會計原則的基礎上表示的，並且已經進行了調整，以排除對 Model S 銷售使用的租賃會計的影響，其中包含殘值保證和相關費用基於股票的補償。我們的 GAAP 結果以及與非 GAAP 措施的對賬可以在股東信中找到。

During this call we may discuss our business outlook and make other forward-looking statements. Such statements are predictions based on Management's expectations as of today. Actual events or results could read differ materially due to a number of risks and uncertainties including those mentioned in our most recent filings with the SEC. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one at this time. And Patrick, why don't we turn it on over to the first question please.

在這次電話會議中，我們可能會討論我們的業務前景並做出其他前瞻性陳述。這些陳述是基於管理層截至今天的預期的預測。由於許多風險和不確定性，包括我們最近提交給美國證券交易委員會的文件中提到的風險和不確定性，實際事件或結果可能會有很大差異。如果你想問一個問題，請在這個時候按星一。帕特里克，我們為什麼不把它轉到第一個問題。

The first question comes from Adam Jonas from Morgan Stanley.

第一個問題來自摩根士丹利的亞當喬納斯。

Hey, everybody, first I had a question on your forward your guidance of 100,000 unit run rate by the end of 2015. Can you give us some sense of how much of that's coming from China?

大家好，首先我有一個問題是關於您對 2015 年底 10 萬輛的指導意見。您能告訴我們其中有多少來自中國嗎？

We understand that demand for your products in China is off the chart strong, but we're a little concerned about your ability to deliver and service the volume well focusing 100% on the quality and building the brand authenticity. So how many China stores or service centers would you need by this time next year that might be commensurate with that volume target?

我們了解您在中國對產品的需求非常強勁，但我們有點擔心您交付和服務的能力以及 100% 關注質量和建立品牌真實性的能力。那麼，到明年這個時候，您需要多少中國商店或服務中心才能與該數量目標相稱？

Sure, well and this is give you rough guesses on the 100,000 run rate at the end of next year, which I think is oddly one of the most interesting things in our newsletter which you picked up on. We're expecting to be roughly split between X and S, so we're talking a little over -- it's roughly 1000 units a week of each.

當然，好吧，這是對明年年底 100,000 次運行率的粗略猜測，我認為這是我們的時事通訊中你收到的最有趣的事情之一。我們預計將大致分為 X 和 S，所以我們說得有點過分了——大約每週 1000 個單位。

And when you look at the market demand for SUVs and sedans, that's about the split, it's almost exactly 50%/50%. In fact I think recently SUVs might have slightly edged ahead of sedans. So if we -- it's reasonable to expect that of one has -- I'll address the demand and then the servicing side of things.

當你看看市場對 SUV 和轎車的需求時，這就是分裂，幾乎正好是 50%/50%。事實上，我認為最近 SUV 可能略微領先於轎車。因此，如果我們 - 可以合理地期望一個人有 - 我將解決需求，然後是服務方面。

It's reasonable to expect that if we see a comfortable 1000 unit demand on the sedans side, well probably we should expect that similar number on the SUV side. My guess is we'll actually see slightly higher on the SUV side. I think the model X is going to be a phenomenal car.

可以合理地預期，如果我們在轎車方面看到舒適的 1000 輛需求，那麼我們很可能應該在 SUV 方面看到類似的數字。我的猜測是，我們實際上會在 SUV 方面看到略高一些。我認為 Model X 將是一輛非凡的汽車。

On the service front, we are spending a lot of money on service expansion. That's our primary -- in the sales and service arena, it's primarily service. The overall majority is service.

在服務方面，我們在服務擴展上花費了大量資金。這是我們的首要任務——在銷售和服務領域，主要是服務。總體上大部分是服務。

Good.

好的。

So it's not really -- our concern is not demand generation, but how do we make sure that that demand is well served. So in terms of number of stores by the end of next year, or number of service centers I should say by the end of next year, actually I don't have that offhand. But it's probably on the order of 100 in China alone I am guessing by the end of next year. And we are -- and probably worldwide it's on the order of 300, this is -- I'm speaking off the cuff here but probably north of 300 worldwide.

所以這不是真的——我們關心的不是需求的產生，而是我們如何確保很好地滿足需求。所以就明年年底的商店數量，或者我應該說到明年年底的服務中心的數量而言，實際上我沒有那個臨時的。但我估計到明年年底，僅在中國就有 100 台左右。我們 - 可能在全球範圍內大約有 300 個，這是 - 我在這裡說的是即興演講，但全世界可能在 300 個以北。

And actually I've been very impressed with the Tesla China team and the quality of people that we're attracting in China. I think the China team is smart and they work super hard. So the pace of progress is just amazing. So I feel pretty comfortable about being able to do good service in China, great service actually.

實際上，我對特斯拉中國團隊以及我們在中國吸引的人才素質印象深刻。我認為中國隊很聰明，而且他們非常努力。所以進步的速度是驚人的。所以我對能夠在中國做好服務感到很自在，實際上服務很好。

In fact the key metric we measure in service is the percentage of customers that are delighted which is a 10 out of 10 score, that's the primary thing we look at. And our goal is to get that worldwide to a majority of customers. And domestically I believe we're actually -- in the US we're about 70% of customers who experience service rated as perfect or -- yes 10 out of 10 essentially.

事實上，我們在服務中衡量的關鍵指標是滿意的客戶百分比，即滿分 10 分，這是我們關注的主要因素。我們的目標是讓全世界的大多數客戶都能享受到這一點。在國內，我相信我們實際上 - 在美國，我們大約有 70% 的客戶體驗到的服務被評為完美，或者 - 是的，基本上 10 分中有 10 分。

And another key metric we measure is the average time to service something. So our average is less than a day. So the car is -- so in most cases we can actually pick up your car, fix anything that's wrong with it and give it back to you without you even knowing it was gone. You just tell us my car is at my office and this is where it is and we'll pick up the car, fix it and get it back to you before you finished work.

我們衡量的另一個關鍵指標是服務的平均時間。所以我們的平均時間不到一天。所以這輛車是——所以在大多數情況下，我們實際上可以拿起你的車，修復它的任何問題，然後在你不知道它已經不見的情況下把它還給你。您只需告訴我們我的車在我的辦公室，它就在這兒，我們會在您完成工作之前取車、修好並把它還給您。

Our goal of service is invisible up, which is you don't even -- it's like elves service (laughing) you don't even see it, it happened so fast and when it's done you love it. There is an interesting opportunity to revolutionize service as well. It's not like do the same thing as before.

我們服務的目標是看不見的，就是你甚至都沒有——就像精靈服務（笑）你甚至都沒有看到它，它發生得如此之快，完成後你會喜歡它。還有一個有趣的機會來徹底改變服務。這不像做和以前一樣的事情。

There's a lot of lessons to be learned from the Formula One approach. So because we're not trying to serve customers for the most amount of money possible in a service, which is typical of the conventional auto industry. We want to get the job done super fast and then also make sure that you don't -- we want to anticipate issues so you don't have to come back again.

從一級方程式的方法中可以學到很多教訓。因此，因為我們並沒有試圖在一項服務中盡可能多地為客戶服務，這是傳統汽車行業的典型特徵。我們希望以超快的速度完成工作，然後確保您不會——我們希望預測問題，這樣您就不必再回來了。

So we actually bring the car in and we hit it with a pit crew, like a Formula One pit crew. So instead of having one person per bay, the car gets slowly worked on over several days, it actually comes in and a team attacks it. And we're constantly improving the tools and the metrics to say how can we get the car perfect as fast as possible?

所以我們實際上把車開進來，然後用維修人員來撞它，就像一級方程式維修人員一樣。因此，這輛車不是每個隔間只有一個人，而是在幾天內慢慢地工作，它實際上進來了，一個團隊攻擊了它。我們不斷改進工具和指標來說明我們如何才能盡快讓汽車變得完美？

We're actually bringing in people from Formula One to help with the training on this. And I think there's real opportunity there to revolutionize the way service works.

我們實際上是從一級方程式中引進人員來幫助進行這方面的培訓。而且我認為那裡有真正的機會來徹底改變服務的運作方式。

That's great color, Elon. Can I ask a follow up?

太棒了，埃隆。我可以問後續嗎？

Outside of BMW, any other parties -- can you say any other parties that have expressed interest in your patent sharing gesture? And I'm curious to think why the industry is moving towards hydrogen in this -- or so much of the industry seems to be pushing hydrogen like crazy in the past few months. Is this some (expletive) move to get carb to rewrite the rules on EVs or do they actually believe this stuff?

除了寶馬之外，還有其他各方——您能說一下其他各方對您的專利共享姿態感興趣嗎？我很想知道為什麼這個行業正在轉向氫 - 或者在過去的幾個月裡，這個行業的大部分人似乎都在瘋狂地推動氫。這是讓 carb 重寫電動汽車規則的一些（咒罵）舉措，還是他們真的相信這些東西？

And then finally, can you confirm the rumor that Mr. Burns tries to kill you by running you over in an i8? Thanks.

最後，你能證實一下關於伯恩斯先生試圖用 i8 碾過你來殺死你的謠言嗎？謝謝。

(laughter) He does intend to kill me in The Simpsons, but not in an i8.

（笑聲）他確實打算在辛普森一家中殺了我，但不是在 i8 中。

Maybe a Volt.

也許是伏特。

Well I don't -- as you know I'm not the biggest proponent of hydrogen. Our view, JB and my view and the rest of the team tells us that really if you take a theoretically optimal fuel cells car and compare that to a current in-production battery electric car on key metrics of mass, volume, complexity, cost, refueling infrastructure, it's a loss.

好吧，我不知道——你知道我不是氫的最大支持者。我們的觀點，JB 和我的觀點以及團隊的其他成員告訴我們，如果你將一輛理論上最優的燃料電池汽車與當前生產中的電池電動汽車在質量、體積、複雜性、成本等關鍵指標上進行比較，加油基礎設施，這是一種損失。

So if the best case, in our opinion, the best case fuel cell car, and obviously the current fuel cell cars are far from best case, cannot beat the current case electric car, well why even try? That makes no sense. Success is not one of the possible outcomes. JB, is there anything you want to elaborate on there?

因此，如果最好的情況，在我們看來，最好的燃料電池汽車，顯然目前的燃料電池汽車遠非最好的情況，無法擊敗目前的電動汽車，那為什麼還要嘗試呢？這是沒有意義的。成功不是可能的結果之一。 JB，你有什麼想詳細說明的嗎？

I think that really is pretty clear. The only real benefit that get toted for fuel cell and hydrogen vehicles are potentially range and refuel time.

我認為這真的很清楚。燃料電池和氫燃料汽車的唯一真正好處是潛在的續航里程和加油時間。

But both of those are not any of the benefits. When you look at where battery technology is today and certainly where it's going in a few years. So I think people make the mistake of comparing today's technology with future potential technology instead of two technologies at the same point in time.

但這兩者都不是任何好處。當您查看當今的電池技術以及幾年後的發展方向時。所以我認為人們錯誤地將今天的技術與未來的潛在技術進行比較，而不是在同一時間點比較兩種技術。

Even if you take a theoretical optimal -- a theoretically perfect fuel-cell car, I just don't think you --

即使你採用理論上的最優值——理論上完美的燃料電池汽車，我只是不認為你——

Then JB, why are they doing this? That's why ask if it is BS, is this a diversionary tactic or do they're just not on -- what's up?

那麼JB，他們為什麼要這樣做？這就是為什麼要問它是否是 BS，這是一種轉移注意力的策略還是他們只是不上 - 怎麼了？

We're quite confused about this.

我們對此感到很困惑。

It does not make a lot of sense. And we didn't even touch on the infrastructure challenges that hydrogen brings. But building out that infrastructure is substantially more expensive than building out any electric vehicle infrastructure and there's almost none of it today.

這沒有多大意義。我們甚至沒有談到氫帶來的基礎設施挑戰。但是，建設這種基礎設施比建設任何電動汽車基礎設施要昂貴得多，而且今天幾乎沒有。

Yes, I don't think people understand hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. So you have to create the hydrogen which is really inefficient because you either have to crack a hydrocarbon or electrolyze water.

是的，我不認為人們理解氫是一種能源載體，而不是一種能源。因此，您必須製造效率非常低的氫氣，因為您必須裂解碳氫化合物或電解水。

And if you want to do it renewably the water electrolysis route is really the only --

如果你想以可再生的方式做到這一點，水電解路線真的是唯一的——

Which is super inefficient, yes. And then hydrogen has very low density. So if you're going to pick a chemical energy storage mechanism, the hydrogen is a terrible choice. At least do methane CH4, lock up the hydrogen with one carbon atom or something. Anyway--

這是超級低效的，是的。然後氫的密度非常低。所以如果你要選擇一種化學能量儲存機制，氫是一個糟糕的選擇。至少做甲烷CH4，用一個碳原子什麼的鎖住氫。反正 -

You means answers the question.

你的意思是回答問題。

It doesn't make a lot of sense.

這沒有多大意義。

All right, thanks a lot Adam, we should get to the next caller, please.

好的，非常感謝亞當，我們應該去找下一位來電者。

Our next question comes from Andrea James with Dougherty & Co.

我們的下一個問題來自 Dougherty & Co 的 Andrea James。

The first one is about quality control, can you talk about the improvements you've made in quality control and where you think it needs to go, maybe with a nod toward what's going on with the drive train systems?

第一個是關於質量控制的，你能談談你在質量控制方面所做的改進以及你認為需要去哪裡，也許對傳動系統正在發生的事情表示贊同？

Sure. We definitely had some quality issues in the beginning for the early at least number of cars because we were basically figuring out how to make the model S. And I think we've addressed almost all of those for current production cars. Not all but the vast majority have been addressed in cars that are being produced today.

當然。對於早期的至少數量的汽車，我們在一開始肯定存在一些質量問題，因為我們基本上是在弄清楚如何製造 Model S。而且我認為我們已經解決了當前量產汽車的幾乎所有問題。除了絕大多數之外，並非所有問題都已在當今生產的汽車中得到解決。

And we're also getting better at diagnosing what's wrong because in some cases we, particularly with respect to the drive units, we think that something's wrong with a drive unit but there's actually something wrong with another part of the car. And then we'd replace the drive unit and that wouldn't solve the problem because the drive unit was not the problem.

而且我們在診斷問題方面也越來越好，因為在某些情況下，特別是在驅動單元方面，我們認為驅動單元有問題，但實際上汽車的另一部分有問題。然後我們會更換驅動單元，但這並不能解決問題，因為驅動單元不是問題所在。

And we had one particular case where there was vibration and it was due to a cable detaching itself and touching the drive unit assembly and causing vibration to be transmitted to the body of the car. And it was somewhat pernicious because if the cable moved a little bit so that it didn't provide a conductive path, the vibration would go away. So you'd replace the drive unit, you'd temporarily tuck the cable back and think the problem was solved but then the cable would vibrate itself down and transmit the energy.

我們遇到過一種特殊情況，其中存在振動，這是由於電纜自身分離並接觸驅動單元總成並導致振動傳遞到車身。這有點有害，因為如果電纜稍微移動一點，使其無法提供導電路徑，振動就會消失。所以你會更換驅動單元，你會暫時把電纜收起來，並認為問題已經解決，但隨後電纜會自行振動並傳輸能量。

So that, the cable thing, takes us -- it's nothing to fix it. It's virtually like a $3 cable tie to solve it. So there's a bunch of things like that which are misdiagnosis as problems that we've obviously addressed.

所以，電纜的東西，帶我們 - 沒有什麼可以修復它。它實際上就像一個 3 美元的紮帶來解決它。所以有很多類似的事情被誤診為我們顯然已經解決的問題。

There are a few items that will need -- a fair number of drive trains will need to be serviced on -- it's actually related to -- one in particular is related to the differential and we need to shim the differential. It doesn't require a drive unit replacement, it requires a technician to insert a shim. We're going to have to do that on a fair number of cars. But that's a $0.50 shim.

有一些項目需要 - 相當數量的傳動系統需要維修 - 它實際上與 - 一個特別是與差速器有關，我們需要對差速器進行墊片。它不需要更換驅動單元，它需要技術人員插入墊片。我們將不得不在相當數量的汽車上這樣做。但這是一個 0.50 美元的墊片。

So it's really -- I wouldn't assume that there's going to be a vast number of drive trains that will need to be replaced. But there's several service bookings that we'll be instituting at once, many of which we have instituted, to address the issue.

所以真的 - 我不會假設會有大量的傳動系統需要更換。但是，我們將立即制定多項服務預訂，其中許多是我們已經制定的，以解決這個問題。

And every week I have a product excellence meeting, which is to -- which is a cross functional group of engineering, service and production. And we go over all the issues that customers are reporting with the car and develop the action items that have to be addressed to get the car ultimately to the plutonic ideal of the perfect car. That's what we're aiming for. Because although I think we've got great service, the best service is no service. That's really what we want, is a car that never needs to be serviced and I think we're getting there quite rapidly.

每週我都會舉行一次產品卓越會議，這是一個由工程、服務和生產組成的跨職能小組。我們會檢查客戶報告的所有問題，並製定必須解決的行動項目，以使汽車最終達到完美汽車的深淵理想。這就是我們的目標。因為雖然我認為我們的服務很好，但最好的服務是沒有服務。這就是我們真正想要的，是一輛永遠不需要維修的汽車，我認為我們很快就會到達那裡。

Would you say you're satisfied or more so with the quality control function and team you have in place?

您對現有的質量控制職能和團隊感到滿意還是更滿意？

I think at this point we've got an excellent quality control team. And -- we weren't there in the beginning but I'm confident we're there now. Our aspiration is an order of magnitude better quality than any other car and we will keep at it unrelentingly until we get there.

我認為在這一點上我們有一個優秀的質量控制團隊。而且——我們一開始不在那裡，但我相信我們現在在那裡。我們的願望是比任何其他汽車的質量都要好一個數量級，我們將堅持不懈地堅持下去，直到我們到達那裡。

And to flip over to the Gigafactory, it says in the shareholder letter you've broken ground in Nevada. And I guess it's out there in the blogosphere that construction has paused. So my question is why slow it down and do you have a drop dead date for when you need to make sure you're really up and going?

再轉向超級工廠，它在股東信中說你在內華達州破土動工。我猜在博客圈裡，建設已經暫停。所以我的問題是為什麼要放慢速度，當你需要確保你真正起床並繼續前進時，你是否有一個截止日期？

We've essentially completed the creating of the pad, the construction pad for the Gigafactory in Nevada. So in terms of creating a flat pad and getting the rocky foundation that is substantially complete. There's still a little bit of work ongoing.

我們基本上完成了墊子的創建，這是內華達州 Gigafactory 的建築墊子。因此，就創建一個平墊和獲得基本完整的岩石基礎而言。還有一些工作正在進行中。

We're going to be doing something similar in one or two other states, which something I previously said we would do. Because I think it makes sense to have multiple things going in parallel.

我們將在一兩個其他州做類似的事情，我之前說過我們會做的事情。因為我認為讓多件事情並行進行是有意義的。

Before we actually go to the next stage of pouring a lot of concrete though, we want to make sure we have things sorted out at the state level. But that the incentives are there that make sense and are fair to the state and Tesla.

不過，在我們真正進入下一個澆築大量混凝土的階段之前，我們要確保我們在州一級對事情進行了整理。但是，激勵措施是有意義的，並且對州和特斯拉是公平的。

But I do want to emphasize, we're not -- Tesla is not going to go for a deal that is unfair to the state or unfair to Tesla. We want to make sure it's compelling for all parties. And so I think on the Nevada side -- but at this point the ball is in the court of the Governor and the State Legislature.

但我確實想強調，我們不是——特斯拉不會進行對國家不公平或對特斯拉不公平的交易。我們希望確保它對所有各方都有吸引力。所以我認為在內華達州方面——但在這一點上，球在州長和州立法機構的法庭上。

Is Panasonic having input into the site selection process?

松下是否參與了選址過程？

We're keeping them closely informed and so that they're aware of all the details. And they haven't volunteered advice necessarily. We'd certainly listen to their advice if they provided it, but they seem to be in accordance with our theory on location.

我們會密切通知他們，以便他們了解所有細節。他們不一定自願提供建議。如果他們提供建議，我們當然會聽取他們的建議，但他們似乎符合我們的定位理論。

Yes, and Tesla is managing all of the utilities and infrastructure at the Gigafactory sites so in that regard Tesla is basically aggregating the inputs and requirements from not just Panasonic but other potential partners as well. So it's primarily Tesla's role to be evaluating those sites.

是的，特斯拉正在管理 Gigafactory 站點的所有公用事業和基礎設施，因此在這方面，特斯拉基本上是在匯總來自松下和其他潛在合作夥伴的投入和要求。因此，評估這些站點主要是特斯拉的職責。

I appreciate it, thank you so much.

我很感激，非常感謝。

Our next question comes from Ryan Brinkman with JPMorgan.

我們的下一個問題來自摩根大通的 Ryan Brinkman。

Earlier in the year you had discussed a potential $4 billion to $5 billion investment in Gigafactory through 2020, is that still the number that you're working with? And I think too you had planned for the CapEx to be shared by the Gigafactory partners, in your press release this morning you mentioned that Panasonic will provide equipment, you the buildings, utilities et cetera. Do you think you're on track to sign suppliers on to provide $2 billion to $3 billion of investment and over what rough timeframe might we expect you to announce those partners and their respective investment commitments?

今年早些時候，您曾討論到 2020 年對 Gigafactory 的潛在投資 40 億至 50 億美元，這仍然是您正在使用的數字嗎？而且我認為您也計劃讓 Gigafactory 合作夥伴共享資本支出，在您今天上午的新聞稿中，您提到松下將為您提供設備、建築物、公用事業等。您認為您是否有望與供應商簽約以提供 20 億至 30 億美元的投資？我們預計您會在多長時間內宣布這些合作夥伴及其各自的投資承諾？

Sure, that $4 billion to $5 billion number is we think is probably accurate. I think particularly over through 2020, I think it'll be maybe closer to $4 billion, maybe slightly less than that before we get to initial high-volume production. But then as we do continued investments to improve output and improve the technology of the pack, is probably closer to be $5 billion over the 2020 timeframe. But probably less than $4 billion to get up to serious production.

當然，我們認為 40 億到 50 億美元的數字可能是準確的。我認為特別是到 2020 年，我認為它可能會接近 40 億美元，可能會比我們開始大批量生產之前的水平略低。但隨著我們繼續投資以提高產量和改進包裝技術，到 2020 年可能接近 50 億美元。但可能不到 40 億美元就可以投入大量生產。

And then of that number, we see Tesla probably providing 40% to 50% of the total. Panasonic probably about 30% or 40%. The state maybe 10% and other industrial partners about 10% maybe 15% to 20% depending on how vertical we go with the factory.

然後在這個數字中，我們看到特斯拉可能提供了總數的 40% 到 50%。松下大概在 30% 或 40% 左右。國家可能 10% 和其他工業夥伴大約 10% 可能 15% 到 20%，這取決於我們與工廠的垂直程度。

And with having signed the contract with Panasonic -- I was never really -- something I was in doubt from my standpoint, but I think some of those people take things that Panasonic says which are -- they're going to be fairly conservative in there words. But I think the actions are really what matter. And Panasonic has always taken the actions of an excellent partner.

與松下簽訂合同後——我從來沒有——從我的角度來看，我對此表示懷疑，但我認為其中一些人會接受松下所說的——他們會相當保守有話。但我認為行動真的很重要。而鬆下也一直採取優秀合作夥伴的行動。

So we feel confident that there will be the amount of money needed to reach the 35 gigawatt hour level at the cell -- at the cell level, and 50 gigawatt hour at the module impact level. The module impact stuff is all Tesla internal. And then we're expecting the precursor -- suppliers of the precursor materials from the anode-cathode separator, maybe the electrolyte to be also present in the factory.

因此，我們有信心在電池上達到 35 吉瓦時水平所需的資金——在電池水平上，在模塊影響水平上達到 50 吉瓦時水平。模塊衝擊的東西都是特斯拉內部的。然後我們期待前體 - 來自陽極 - 陰極隔膜的前體材料的供應商，也許電解液也會出現在工廠中。

Great, that's extremely helpful and reassuring too. Switching gears, last question, is there anything you can say at all on the trend to Model X orders? I know that you don't disclose backlog, but perhaps you could speak qualitatively to it? Maybe how it compares to when you first started taking Model S orders or how are maybe returning customers, is there any difference geographically and who is preferring an SUV versus sedan, where the orders are coming from, et cetera?

太好了，這也非常有幫助和令人放心。換檔，最後一個問題，關於 Model X 訂單的趨勢，你有什麼可以說的嗎？我知道你不透露積壓，但也許你可以定性地談論它？也許它與您剛開始接受 Model S 訂單時的情況相比如何，或者回頭客如何，在地理上是否有任何差異，誰更喜歡 SUV 和轎車，訂單來自哪裡等等？

Sure well first of all it's important to appreciate for the X that there are -- just to put the orders in context, there are no cars available for a test drive. There is no information about the cars in our stores because were only selling the S. In fact if somebody comes and wants to buy the X, we try to convince them to buy the S, so we anti sell it. And we don't really provide all that much information or details about the car or provide -- really dependant on when you can get it.

當然，首先重要的是要欣賞 X 的存在——只是為了把訂單放在上下文中，沒有可供試駕的汽車。我們店裡沒有關於汽車的信息，因為只賣 S。事實上，如果有人來想買 X，我們會試圖說服他們買 S，所以我們反對賣它。而且我們並沒有真正提供有關汽車或提供的所有信息或詳細信息 - 真正取決於您何時可以獲得它。

Despite all that, there is huge demand from all around the world for the X. Now I think that actually people are right even though they don't have enough -- they don't really have enough information to know they're right, but they are.

儘管如此，世界各地對 X 的需求巨大。現在我認為實際上人們是對的，即使他們沒有足夠的信息——他們真的沒有足夠的信息來知道他們是對的，但他們是。

Great, thank you.

太好了謝謝。

Our issue is not -- we will not have a demand issue, yes.

我們的問題不是——我們不會有需求問題，是的。

Thanks.

謝謝。

The next question comes from Colin Langan with UBS.

下一個問題來自瑞銀的 Colin Langan。

On the 100,000 exit rate on 2025, is that -- I guess that implies that the battery constraints that will be limited. And at what point should we think of the battery constraint limiting you until the Gigafactory comes online?

關於 2025 年的 100,000 退出率，我想這意味著電池限制將受到限制。在 Gigafactory 上線之前，我們應該在什麼時候考慮限制您的電池限制？

Sure, I think you can see -- we see a path to potentially 150,000 cars a year, maybe if you really push it 200,000 cars a year without the Gigafactory. So the Gigafactory is needed for that next -- that incremental 300,000 cars.

當然，我想你可以看到——我們看到了一條通往每年 150,000 輛汽車的道路，如果你真的在沒有 Gigafactory 的情況下每年推動它 200,000 輛汽車的話。所以接下來需要 Gigafactory——增加 300,000 輛汽車。

But we can probably -- I would guess that probably it could be pushed to a couple hundred thousand units of cars a year with the existing -- without the Gigafactory. That is probably a good guess. So yes, we'll see where that leads.

但是我們可能——我猜它可能會在沒有 Gigafactory 的情況下，用現有的每年推到幾十萬輛汽車。這可能是一個很好的猜測。所以，是的，我們會看看這會導致什麼。

And on the Gigafactory, is the chemistry going to be the same battery chemistry that you're currently using or is that part of the discussions that are going on with Panasonic?

在 Gigafactory 上，化學成分是否會與您目前使用的電池化學成分相同，或者是與松下正在進行的討論的一部分？

There are improvements to the chemistry as well as improvements to the geometry of the cell. So we would expect to see an energy density improvement and of course a significant cost improvement. JB --

化學方面的改進以及電池幾何形狀的改進。因此，我們期望看到能量密度的提高，當然還有顯著的成本改進。 JB——

Yes, that's -- the cathode and anode materials themselves are next generation. So we're seeing improvements in the maybe 10% to 15% range on the chemistry itself.

是的，那就是——陰極和陽極材料本身就是下一代。因此，我們看到化學本身可能有 10% 到 15% 範圍內的改進。

Yes and towards energy density.

是的，並且朝著能量密度方向發展。

Energy density. And then we're also customizing the cell shape and size to further improve the cost efficiency of the cell and packaging efficiency.

能量密度。然後我們也在定制電池的形狀和尺寸，以進一步提高電池的成本效率和封裝效率。

Right. We've done a lot of modeling of trying to figure out what's the optimal cell size? And it's really not much -- it's not a lot different from where we are right now, but we're in the roughly 10% more diameter, maybe 10% more height.

正確的。我們已經做了很多建模，試圖找出最佳的單元格大小是多少？它真的不多——它與我們現在的情況並沒有太大的不同，但我們的直徑大約增加了 10%，也許高度增加了 10%。

But then so it's a cubic function, so it effectively ends up being just from a geometry standpoint, probably a third more NG per cell. If you -- maybe 30% yes. And then the actual energy density per unit mass increases.

但後來它是一個三次函數，所以它實際上最終只是從幾何的角度來看，每個單元格可能多出三分之一的 NG。如果你——也許 30% 是的。然後每單位質量的實際能量密度增加。

Fundamentally the chemistry of what's inside is what really defines the cost position though. It is often debated what shape and size, but at this point we're developing basically what we feel is the optimum shape and size for the best cost efficiency for an automotive cell.

從根本上說，內部的化學反應才是真正定義成本位置的因素。人們經常爭論什麼形狀和尺寸，但在這一點上，我們基本上正在開發我們認為的最佳形狀和尺寸，以實現汽車電池的最佳成本效率。

Yes.

是的。

But the chemical formula will be the same, it's just shaped differently or --?

但是化學式是一樣的，只是形狀不同還是——？

No, no. (multiple speakers)

不，不。 （多位發言者）

Okay and one last question, it sounds like the Gigafactory might be very vertically integrated, how do you think about that for the assembly of the Model 3? Do you need to be highly vertically integrated or do you think you'll probably outsource more of that to reduce the cost of that model?

好的，最後一個問題，聽起來 Gigafactory 可能是非常垂直整合的，你如何看待 Model 3 的組裝？您是否需要高度垂直整合，或者您是否認為您可能會外包更多內容以降低該模型的成本？

I don't think outsourcing decreases the cost, it tends to increase the cost in our experience. Just like the reason we don't -- the reason we outsource stuff is because we have too many fish to fry otherwise. But it's almost always the case that when we've in sourced something, it got cheaper.

我不認為外包會降低成本，根據我們的經驗，它往往會增加成本。就像我們不這樣做的原因一樣——我們外包東西的原因是因為我們有太多的魚要炸。但幾乎總是這樣，當我們採購了一些東西時，它就會變得更便宜。

The thing that makes it really efficient if -- or for any given technology level is to say how far did that molecule move? And if the molecule is taking several round trips around the world, that's expensive.

如果——或者對於任何給定的技術水平，讓它真正有效的事情是說那個分子移動了多遠？如果該分子在世界各地進行多次往返，那就太昂貴了。

If it's moving from one station to the next, than that's obviously lower cost. And so the vertical integration just means that the molecule doesn't move as much, and it's not being put in a box and then put in a truck and then on a boat and then going through customs and stuff like that.

如果它從一個站點移動到另一個站點，那顯然成本會更低。所以垂直整合只是意味著分子不會移動太多，它不會被放入盒子中，然後放入卡車，然後在船上，然後通過海關和類似的東西。

So I think it's generally true that vertical integration and doing things at large scale results in cost reductions. I feel very confident about 30% cost reduction per unit of energy, we're obviously going to target something higher than that.

所以我認為垂直整合和大規模做事通常會降低成本。我對每單位能源的成本降低 30% 感到非常有信心，我們顯然會瞄準更高的目標。

Okay, all right, thank you very much.

好的，好的，非常感謝。

The next question comes from Brian Johnson with Barclays.

下一個問題來自巴克萊銀行的 Brian Johnson。

Could you maybe help us understand how you think about the gap or how we ought to think about the gaps between production and deliveries? It looks like typically production has been running 900 to 1200 units in recent quarters ahead of deliveries. Your 4Q guide would actually imply delivery to roughly equal or actually a little bit higher than production. So can you help us think through that?

您能否幫助我們了解您如何看待差距或我們應該如何考慮生產和交付之間的差距？看起來在交付之前的最近幾個季度，通常生產已經運行了 900 到 1200 台。您的 4Q 指南實際上意味著交付量大致等於或實際上略高於生產量。那麼你能幫我們考慮一下嗎？

Production in Q4 we saw significantly exceed deliveries. The timeframe when a car is produced to when it is delivered, it depends on the mix of domestic versus international because when cars are sent to Europe or China, they've got to obviously get on a boat and they're going to go through customs and it's a more lengthy process.

我們看到第四季度的產量大大超過了交付量。汽車從生產到交付的時間範圍，取決於國內和國際的混合情況，因為當汽車被送到歐洲或中國時，他們顯然必須上船並且要經過海關，這是一個更漫長的過程。

So our average time for delivery of a car in North America is about two weeks-ish. But for international deliveries, you've got to add probably another three to four weeks on top of that. And we're trying to tighten that down a little bit, but then if you blend the two, then maybe it's an average delivery time of four or five weeks. So if a car is made in October, they would all be delivered in Q4.

因此，我們在北美交付汽車的平均時間約為兩週。但是對於國際交付，您可能還必須在此基礎上再增加三到四個星期。我們正試圖稍微收緊一點，但如果你將兩者結合起來，那麼平均交貨時間可能是四到五週。因此，如果汽車在 10 月份製造，它們都將在第四季度交付。

(multiple speakers) Go ahead.

（多位發言者）說吧。

Yes, as we increase our overall production, there are two factors that drive that gap, what is the ramp of production increase. The other one is the mix of international markets.

是的，隨著我們增加整體產量，有兩個因素導致了這種差距，即產量增加的幅度。另一個是國際市場的混合。

And even if the mix is the same but we're increasing production, it creates a bigger gap each quarter. And then clearly as we're shipping more to right and drive markets and to China our international mix is increasing too. So each quarter it's a slightly different story but certainly there will be a gap as we continue.

即使組合相同，但我們正在增加產量，它每個季度都會產生更大的差距。然後很明顯，隨著我們向正確的市場和中國運送更多產品並推動市場，我們的國際組合也在增加。因此，每個季度的情況都略有不同，但隨著我們的繼續，肯定會有差距。

Okay, so the implication of that though is your production in 4Q would not be slightly higher than 1000 a week, that's more than slightly higher than 1000 a week?

好的，那麼這意味著您在第 4 季度的產量不會略高於每週 1000 台，而是略高於每週 1000 台？

Yes it'll be sufficiently high that we'd still deliver to our expectations of slightly over 35,000 cars this year.

是的，它足夠高，以至於我們今年仍能達到我們對略高於 35,000 輛汽車的預期。

At 1000 cars a week, 1000 cars a week steady state implies a 50,000 roughly delivery number in steady state. So it doesn't really need to be much -- all that much beyond 1000 to achieve our goal on average for Q4.

在每週 1000 輛汽車的情況下，每週 1000 輛汽車的穩定狀態意味著大約 50,000 輛穩定狀態下的交付數量。因此，實際上並不需要太多——超過 1000 即可實現我們第四季度的平均目標。

Okay and if you think about the difference between the roughly 500 to 600 deliveries per week this quarter and the 1000 a week rate you're talking about, what -- how would you waterfall the step up in terms of the contribution of the three key geographies, Europe, China, and obviously Hong Kong is part of that, and then North America?

好的，如果您考慮一下本季度每周大約 500 到 600 次交付與您正在談論的每週 1000 次交付之間的差異，那麼您將如何在三個關鍵的貢獻方面逐步提升地理，歐洲，中國，顯然香港是其中的一部分，然後是北美？

Long term I'd probably say -- well there's not just China and Asia of course. But I think long term we are probably looking at -- this is just a guess, but maybe 40% Asia, 40% North America, 20% Europe as a rough guess. And Asia is more than China for sure.

從長遠來看，我可能會說——當然不僅僅是中國和亞洲。但我認為從長遠來看，我們可能正在考慮——這只是一個猜測，但大概 40% 的亞洲、40% 的北美、20% 的歐洲作為粗略的猜測。亞洲肯定超過中國。

We think we'll do reasonably well in Japan and we're at some point going to Korea, Hong Kong. Hong Kong is being as a part of China of course, especially (inaudible). And Australia and New Zealand and that kind of thing.

我們認為我們在日本會做得相當好，我們會在某個時候去韓國和香港。香港當然是中國的一部分，尤其是（聽不清）。還有澳大利亞和新西蘭之類的。

So it's probably 40% Asia Pacific region. And then we tend to do very well in our home markets in North America, hence the 40% there. And then Europe, the demand is not generally as strong but Europe, but it's hard to say, Europe could be 25% or 30% of the mix, those are a rough guess.

所以它可能是亞太地區的 40%。然後我們往往在北美本土市場做得很好，因此那裡有 40%。然後是歐洲，需求一般不如歐洲那麼強勁，但很難說歐洲可能占到 25% 或 30%，這些只是粗略的猜測。

Okay, thank you.

好的謝謝你。

Our next question comes from Rod Lache with Deutsche Bank.

我們的下一個問題來自德意志銀行的 Rod Lache。

You brought up a few times the future case electric car and you also mentioned that you're comfortable even in the near-term with a 30% reduction in cost for batteries, for packs, most of which you said is logistics. I wanted to ask you two things on that.

你多次提到未來案例電動汽車，你還提到即使在短期內你也很舒服，電池和包裝的成本降低了 30%，你說的大部分是物流。我想問你兩件事。

One is, is that additional 10% to 15% that you talked about related to anode and cathode chemistry in geometry, is that incremental to the 30%? And if you took a step back and thought about the trajectory for this in the next 10 years rather than the next 3 years, what would you -- what do you see on the horizon? Is there a case for $100 per kilowatt hour pack in 10 years?

一個是，你談到的額外的 10% 到 15% 是否與幾何中的陽極和陰極化學有關，是 30% 的增量嗎？如果你退後一步思考未來 10 年而不是未來 3 年的發展軌跡，你會——你會看到什麼？ 10 年後每千瓦時 100 美元的情況下有嗎？

I would be disappointed if it took us10 years to get to $100 kilowatt hour pack.

如果我們花了 10 年才達到 100 美元的千瓦時電池組，我會感到失望。

So basically you're saying that within the next -- within that timeframe you would expect electric vehicles to reach cost parity and maybe even improve upon the cost of an internal combustion vehicle?

所以基本上你是說在接下來的時間內——在那個時間範圍內，你會期望電動汽車達到成本平價，甚至可能提高內燃機汽車的成本？

Yes.

是的。

That's interesting. Now another -- that's a pretty big statement.

那很有意思。現在是另一個 - 這是一個相當大的聲明。

But I correct something in your question you had, so let me correct it. So the 30% savings is not just due to logistics. Logistics is a big factor. We are --

但我更正了你的問題，所以讓我更正一下。因此，節省 30% 的成本不僅僅是因為物流。物流是一個很大的因素。我們是 -

It's not even the biggest though.

雖然它甚至不是最大的。

Yes, well but just if you consider the fact that it's going from one station to the next instead of going for multiple entities to multiple entities. But we're really -- when you get to the kinds of scale that we're talking about, you really get to design custom equipment that's much better at processing each step. And you really get to design the machine that makes the machine, not just do so with off-the-shelf equipment. Everything about it is going to get a whole lot better, so that's why we think the 30% number when the Gigafactory is at full production is a conservative number.

是的，但是如果你考慮到它是從一個站點到另一個站點，而不是從多個實體到多個實體。但我們真的——當你達到我們所說的那種規模時，你真的可以設計出更好地處理每一步的定制設備。你真的可以設計製造機器的機器，而不僅僅是使用現成的設備。它的一切都會變得更好，這就是為什麼我們認為當 Gigafactory 全面生產時 30% 的數字是一個保守的數字。

To get to those kind of targets beyond the 30%, is there some kind of breakthrough anode chemistries or things that you're looking at that you think are highly probable that are needed? Or is it just a bunch of incremental steps that you see playing out over the next years?

為了達到超過 30% 的目標，是否有某種突破性的陽極化學或您認為很有可能需要的東西？或者它只是你看到在接下來的幾年裡出現的一堆漸進步驟？

Well we're tracking things that I have a whole range of different horizons for implementation. But to get to -- to realize the Gigafactory and those cost targets, we don't need some fundamental breakthrough in chemistry or material science. That -- those understanding -- those things are pretty well understood and in front of us. In the long term, there are a lot of very interesting, long term being the 10 year perhaps you mentioned or more, there's many very interesting things in the horizon with reducing probabilities as you go further out.

好吧，我們正在跟踪我有一系列不同實施範圍的事情。但要實現 Gigafactory 和那些成本目標，我們不需要在化學或材料科學方面取得一些根本性的突破。那 - 那些理解 - 這些事情很好理解並且擺在我們面前。從長遠來看，有很多非常有趣的長期，可能是你提到的 10 年或更長時間，隨著你走得更遠，隨著概率的降低，未來會有很多非常有趣的事情。

Yes, absolutely. It's heading to a place of no contest with respect to gasoline, but we're trying to make it go there as fast as possible. Time is important here.

是的，一點沒錯。它正在走向一個在汽油方面無可匹敵的地方，但我們正在努力讓它盡快到達那裡。時間在這裡很重要。

The sooner this can be done, the sooner we can reduce carbon output and reduce the probability of a catastrophe. So yes, in the absence of Gigafactory, this progress will be much slower.

越早做到這一點，我們就能越早減少碳排放並降低發生災難的可能性。所以是的，在沒有 Gigafactory 的情況下，這個進展會慢很多。

Yes. Wanted to ask a quick near-term question. Now that it sounds like you're buttoning down a lot of things with regard to the Gigafactory and expansion of service centers and things like this. Can you share any high-level thoughts on how we should be expecting the trajectory of your CapEx, R&D and SG&A as we look beyond the year, some broad ranges into next year?

是的。想問一個快速的近期問題。現在聽起來你正在處理很多關於 Gigafactory 和服務中心擴展的事情，諸如此類。您能否分享一些關於我們應該如何預期您的資本支出、研發和 SG&A 的軌蹟的高層次想法，因為我們展望了一年之後，到明年的一些廣泛範圍？

Rod, we can share more details towards the end of the year as we look further out. But clearly given the huge ramp up in our deliveries and consequently our revenue, we should see a significant improvement in our operating expenses as a percentage of revenue as we go forward. And then we can provide you a little more granular guidance as we go further out.

羅德，我們可以在年底前分享更多細節，因為我們看得更遠。但很明顯，鑑於我們的交付量和收入的大幅增長，隨著我們的發展，我們應該看到我們的運營費用佔收入的百分比顯著提高。然後，隨著我們走得更遠，我們可以為您提供更詳細的指導。

Yes, I should also say in the past Tesla was -- we're showing all of our cards. So you -- people have gotten used to us showing all of our cards. We're not currently showing all our cards.

是的，我還應該說過去特斯拉是 - 我們正在展示我們所有的卡片。所以你——人們已經習慣了我們展示我們所有的卡片。我們目前沒有展示我們所有的卡片。

Okay, all right. Well thank you.

好吧，好吧。嗯，謝謝。

Our next question comes from Patrick Archambault with Goldman Sachs.

我們的下一個問題來自高盛的 Patrick Archambault。

A question on the cadence of sales, with the guide for deliveries of 78 for next quarter, it does appear that you are going to be in starving some demand there certainly which is going to clearly get allocated into the following quarter once the changeover is done. But I guess how do you think about the risks associated with hitting that target?

關於銷售節奏的問題，下個季度的交付指南為 78，看來您確實將在那裡餓死一些需求，一旦轉換完成，這些需求顯然會分配到下一個季度.但我想您如何看待與實現該目標相關的風險？

I guess if the math is right, I think you go from 78 to 13,000. It seems like an awful big ramp, maybe not in absolute units but certainly you think about it almost doubling. So how should we think about that and managing that?

我想如果數學是正確的，我想你從 78 到 13,000。這似乎是一個可怕的大坡道，也許不是絕對單位，但你肯定認為它幾乎翻了一番。那麼我們應該如何思考和管理呢？

Sure, we try to -- because I agree it does seem like a crazy leap. But we try to address that by pointing out that there's two weeks missing in Q3 because of the factory retooling. And those are two weeks at fairly high production. So you can add almost 2000 units to what Q3 really would be if we didn't have that two-week interruption.

當然，我們嘗試——因為我同意這看起來確實是一個瘋狂的飛躍。但我們試圖通過指出由於工廠重組而在第三季度缺席了兩週來解決這個問題。這兩週的產量相當高。因此，如果我們沒有兩週的中斷，您可以在第三季度的實際情況中增加近 2000 個單位。

So it would actually be more like 9500 units or something like that in terms of Q3 deliveries. And then it's, okay it's much more of a -- you can see how we get from 7500 to 9500 to 12,000, 13,000 whatever the case may be. The progression is much more sensible in that context I think.

因此，就第三季度的交付而言，它實際上更像是 9500 台或類似的東西。然後是，好吧，它更像是--你可以看到我們如何從 7500 到 9500 到 12,000 到 13,000，無論情況如何。我認為，在這種情況下，進展更為明智。

Yes, it certainly helps us understand in terms of the underlying cadence of purchases, if you will. I suppose even though we're talking about deliveries, but the -- I guess the one question I would have is how about in terms of the number of service centers and the logistics of actually being able to physically deliver these cars. Is that a constraint or risk in any way I suppose?

是的，如果您願意的話，它肯定有助於我們了解購買的基本節奏。我想即使我們正在談論交付，但是 - 我想我會遇到的一個問題是服務中心的數量和實際能夠實際交付這些汽車的物流。我認為這是一種約束或風險嗎？

No because we actually won't be delivering at the 1000 or 1000 plus per week rates at the end of Q3.

不，因為我們實際上不會在第三季度末以每週 1000 或 1000 以上的速度交付。

Okay understood. And then another related question, if you have any color on this, is if you go through what you've laid out there and hold the regional delivery rates constant with where they came in in Q2, most people have those through various sources. It does imply again that clearly you're starving one or more regions in Q3 in terms of demand that they'd want but can't get.

好的明白了。然後另一個相關的問題，如果你對此有任何看法，如果你仔細研究你在那里布置的內容，並保持區域交付率與第二季度進入的地方保持一致，大多數人通過各種來源獲得這些。這確實再次表明，就他們想要但無法獲得的需求而言，您在第三季度顯然正在挨餓一個或多個地區。

But for Asia, it implies something like maybe 5000 to 6000 units of deliveries, at least on our preliminary math. And I guess that's a similar number that you did initially in the US when you launched, and is that something that you've got a backlog for already? I'm imagining the answer is yes but was just curious.

但對於亞洲來說，這意味著大約有 5000 到 6000 單位的交付量，至少在我們的初步計算中是這樣。而且我想這與您最初在美國推出時所做的數字相似，而且您已經積壓了這個數字嗎？我想答案是肯定的，但只是好奇。

Demand will not be a problem. This is an interesting little item, how many stores are we building? Wow, we're building hardly any. Building lots of service centers.

需求不會成為問題。這是一個有趣的小項目，我們要建多少家商店？哇，我們幾乎沒有建造任何東西。建設大量服務中心。

We can drive demand up at will, but if we drive it up too much then people get upset with us because they wait to long for their car. And one guy in China got so upset that when he got his car, he bashed it which seemed self-defeating. But his stated reason for bashing the car was that we took too long to deliver it to him. I'm like okay (laughing).

我們可以隨意推高需求，但如果我們推得太多，人們就會對我們感到不滿，因為他們等著等車。而中國的一個人非常生氣，當他拿到他的車時，他猛烈抨擊了它，這似乎是弄巧成拙。但他公開抨擊這輛車的原因是我們花了太長時間才把它交給他。我還好（笑）。

But -- and when I was visiting China, the only unhappiness I saw was that was because customers were upset about waiting too long for their car. So it's like, boy we better not stoke demand in that situation.

但是——當我訪問中國時，我看到的唯一不開心是因為客戶因為等車太久而感到不安。所以就像，男孩，我們最好不要在那種情況下刺激需求。

And sales per square foot on our stores, I believe Apple is normally the leader on sales per square foot, our sales per square foot are double that of Apple's.

我們商店的每平方英尺銷售額，我相信蘋果通常是每平方英尺銷售額的領導者，我們每平方英尺的銷售額是蘋果的兩倍。

Thank you, that's helpful perspective. If I could ask one more building on Rod's question.

謝謝，這是有用的觀點。如果我可以在羅德的問題上再問一個問題。

As you think about OpEx, I know you're not giving guidance for next year Deepak, but clearly what you've laid out for your expansion of service and distribution obviously that's an expense that we expect to increase in a fairly steady way, how do we think about R&D in the shorter term? Obviously it's fairly elevated. I think the math implies more than $400 million this year if I'm doing it right.

當您考慮運營支出時，我知道您並沒有為明年的 Deepak 提供指導，但很明顯，您為擴展服務和分銷所製定的計劃顯然是我們期望以相當穩定的方式增加的費用，如何我們會考慮短期內的研發嗎？顯然，它是相當高的。如果我做對了，我認為今年的數學計算意味著超過 4 億美元。

Is that something that takes a little bit of a breather in terms of the growth rate? Or given the significant product ramp you've got it, it's something we should look to continue to increase in short order?

就增長率而言，這是需要喘口氣的事情嗎？或者鑑於您已經獲得了重要的產品增長，我們應該尋求在短期內繼續增加它？

Yes, we are doing a lot of product related actions at this point and that is creating an artificial bump and especially the Model X and other activities that are going on. That will slow down, but then we're going to work on so many exciting things.

是的，我們目前正在做很多與產品相關的行動，這正在創造一個人為的碰撞，尤其是 Model X 和其他正在進行的活動。這會放慢速度，但接下來我們會做很多令人興奮的事情。

I don't want to suggest that R&D will slow down. I think if there is one place you want to spend money, it's there and do more exciting stuff. So I think we'll provide information as appropriate further on.

我不想暗示研發會放緩。我認為如果有一個地方你想花錢，那就在那裡做更多令人興奮的事情。因此，我認為我們將進一步提供適當的信息。

Our CapEx and R&D numbers are better than they appear because there are things you don't know about.

我們的資本支出和研發數字比看起來要好，因為有些事情你不知道。

Well, okay. A lot of interesting stuff to look ahead to. Thanks for the color, guys.

哦，那好吧。很多有趣的東西值得期待。謝謝你的顏色，伙計們。

Our next question comes from John Lovallo with Merrill Lynch.

我們的下一個問題來自美林公司的 John Lovallo。

First question is, there's clearly a lot of excitement and anticipation about China. It seems the Chinese government is doing just about everything in their power to favor the domestic OEs, whether it's the 10% purchase tax avoidance that won't apply to imports, the charging station standards that at this point don't seem to be compatible with Tesla's technology. And even they're allowing or thinking of allowing non-OEs to have licenses to produce autos including the owner of Fisker and A123 might be in that race.

第一個問題是，顯然有很多對中國的興奮和期待。似乎中國政府正在竭盡全力支持國內的 OE，無論是 10% 的購置稅規避不適用於進口，充電站標准在這一點上似乎不兼容與特斯拉的技術。甚至他們正在允許或考慮允許非 OE 獲得生產汽車的許可證，包括 Fisker 和 A123 的所有者也可能參與這場競賽。

So I guess the question is how do you see this kind of environment developing? Do you think there's going to be increasing pressure from the Chinese government to favor the domestic guys?

所以我想問題是你如何看待這種環境的發展？你認為中國政府會施加越來越大的壓力來支持國內的人嗎？

Actually I've been pretty impressed with the Chinese government at all levels, the city level and the national level. They're actually -- they have done some parochial actions, certainly maybe quite a bit in the past, but I don't think that's going to be the path going forward for them.

事實上，我對中國各級政府、市級和國家級的政府都印象深刻。他們實際上 - 他們已經做了一些狹隘的行動，當然在過去可能很多，但我認為這不會是他們前進的道路。

And actually for the sales tax exemption, it does actually apply to non-Chinese cars. So I think you may be misinformed there.

實際上，對於銷售稅的豁免，它確實適用於非中國汽車。所以我認為你可能在那裡被誤導了。

There are -- we have to adhere to Chinese charging standards, but we are going to do so. The challenge was that those standards weren't defined until about a month ago, so it's a little tricky to adhere to something that is not yet definitively been announced. Now that it has, we're committed to meet those standards and we expect to fit within the sales tax exemption.

有——我們必須遵守中國的收費標準，但我們會這樣做。挑戰在於，這些標准直到大約一個月前才被定義，因此堅持一些尚未明確宣布的標準有點棘手。現在有了，我們致力於滿足這些標準，並且我們希望符合銷售稅豁免。

It's actually a very, relatively a simple matter to meet the Chinese standards, they're very familiar and quite close to the European standard.

符合中國標准其實是一件非常非常簡單的事情，他們非常熟悉，也非常接近歐洲標準。

Right, yes exactly. And we already meet the European standard, so we currently serve the US, the European standard and then we'll be serving the China standard which is, as JB said, (inaudible).

對，沒錯。而且我們已經達到歐洲標準，所以我們目前服務於美國，歐洲標準，然後我們將服務於中國標準，正如 JB 所說，（聽不清）。

Okay, that's very helpful. (multiple speakers) Sorry, go ahead.

好的，這很有幫助。 （多位發言者）對不起，請繼續。

Yes, in Shanghai we've got the exemption on the license plate fees which is on an imported EV. So it's not just for local EVs that those qualities are being applied. And we are having discussions in other cities where that's a possibility too. So I think so far it's been overall a positive reception that we have received, it's been good.

是的，在上海，我們可以免除進口電動汽車的車牌費。因此，這些品質不僅適用於本地電動汽車。我們正在其他有可能的城市進行討論。所以我認為到目前為止，我們收到的總體上是一個積極的接待，這很好。

Yes, yes. They're generally committed to electric cars and it's not just about favoring local manufacturers.

是的是的。他們通常致力於電動汽車，而不僅僅是偏愛當地製造商。

Okay, that's helpful. I guess the second question would be recently Edmonds put out a report on I guess there first year with the Model S, and obviously everyone has their own opinion on this. But there's been a lot of talk about quality on the call.

好的，這很有幫助。我想第二個問題是最近 Edmonds 發布了一份關於我猜 Model S 第一年的報告，顯然每個人對此都有自己的看法。但是有很多關於通話質量的討論。

And what the Edmonds was saying and you may have read it is that there were something like 28 to 30 service campaigns that were not part of the regular scheduled maintenance. And because of that they couldn't recommend the car. So I was curious how you guys might respond to that?

埃德蒙夫婦所說的，您可能已經讀到過，有 28 到 30 次服務活動不屬於定期定期維護的一部分。正因為如此，他們不能推薦這輛車。所以我很好奇你們會如何回應？

Well there's definitely some genuine issues Edmonds car, but that they had one of our early production units. And in fact, most of the problems that they've encountered there are not present in current cars.

嗯，肯定有一些真正的問題 Edmonds 汽車，但他們有我們早期的生產單位之一。事實上，他們遇到的大多數問題在當前的汽車中都不存在。

We also -- I think this maybe ended up being counterproductive, but the service team was ultra proactive with the Edmonds car. So they would -- they were doing their best to make Edmonds happy and I think unfortunately that resulted in changing things out that just on the off chance something might go wrong.

我們也 - 我認為這可能會適得其反，但服務團隊對埃德蒙茲汽車非常積極主動。所以他們會 - 他們正在盡最大努力讓埃德蒙茲開心，我認為不幸的是，這導致了一些事情的改變，只是在偶然的情況下可能會出現問題。

So and -- that drive unit issue I mentioned earlier, where the drive unit was sometimes replaced even though it wasn't a drive unit problem, that happened with them twice. So it's an unfortunate case but I don't think it's broadly correct and it's definitely not correct for cars made in the past year.

所以 - 我之前提到的驅動單元問題，即使不是驅動單元問題，有時也會更換驅動單元，這種情況發生了兩次。所以這是一個不幸的案例，但我不認為它是廣泛正確的，而且對於過去一年製造的汽車來說絕對不正確。

Yes, if I might add one thing on the drive unit replacements as well. I think it's important to note that the drive unit is a very complicated assembly of different components. And the pieces that have needed service and have failed internal to the drive unit are relatively not very expensive. And they're being replaced in order for expedience and to get the car back on the road for the customer in the minimum time.

是的，如果我也可以在驅動單元更換上添加一件事。我認為重要的是要注意驅動單元是由不同組件組成的非常複雜的組件。需要維修並且驅動單元內部發生故障的部件相對來說不是很貴。為了方便起見，它們正在被更換，並在最短的時間內讓汽車為客戶重新上路。

But going forward, we're looking at ways to repair them and give people back their same drive unit very, very quickly in about the same amount of time. If you had to replace your internal combustion engine every time something small went wrong --

但展望未來，我們正在尋找修復它們的方法，並在大約相同的時間內非常、非常快速地將相同的驅動單元歸還給人們。如果每次出現小問題都必須更換內燃機——

Every time you need a gasket or something. Especially like the small shim that I was mentioning is equivalent to replacing a minor gasket on an internal combustion engine and normally you wouldn't give someone a new engine for that. But our optimization was customer happiness. So until we knew exactly what to do, we just wanted to give people back their car right away.

每次您需要墊圈或其他東西時。特別是就像我提到的小墊片相當於更換內燃機上的一個小墊圈，通常你不會為此給別人一個新的引擎。但我們的優化是客戶滿意度。因此，在我們確切知道該做什麼之前，我們只想讓人們立即還車。

Thanks a lot, guys.

非常感謝，伙計們。

Just to add from a cost perspective since these are not significant, the overall impact on our warranty reserve has not been significant.

只是從成本的角度來看，由於這些並不重要，因此對我們的保修儲備的總體影響並不顯著。

Right. And we're going to be at it hard core until our car is 10 x better than any other car on the road.

正確的。我們將堅持不懈，直到我們的汽車比道路上的任何其他汽車好 10 倍。

Our next question comes from Ben Kallo with Robert W. Baird.

我們的下一個問題來自 Ben Kallo 和 Robert W. Baird。

As we look ahead to next year and the 100,000 unit by the end of next year, is the biggest production increase happening right now over these two weeks? Or is there some other step that has to take place next year to get you to that level?

當我們展望明年以及到明年年底的 100,000 輛時，這兩週內目前的產量增幅是否最大？或者明年是否需要採取其他措施才能讓你達到那個水平？

Well there is a big step that is expected to occur in Q1 next year which is the bring up of the body line, the SX body line. So what we did the past two weeks is the assembly line where it's basically the bits get put together. But then there's the -- the body line is where the body itself is welded together, welded and bonded together. So the core skeleton of the car is created.

好吧，預計明年第一季度將邁出一大步，那就是車身線的提升，即 SX 車身線。所以過去兩週我們所做的就是組裝線，基本上是把零件組裝在一起。但是還有——車身線是車身本身被焊接在一起、焊接和粘合在一起的地方。這樣汽車的核心骨架就創建好了。

And so you can anticipate probably -- well I'm not sure if -- if may or may not be -- actually so I take that back, we're going to bring the body line up in parallel with the current line. So unlike this case with the assembly, we had to -- we didn't have two complete assembly lines. We had to stop and retool in the case of a new SX body line, which is a line that's designed to be capable of 2500 units a week, maybe more than that, conservatively 2500 units a week at a lower cost point. We should be able to do that in parallel.

所以你可以預期——好吧，我不確定是否——如果可能會或不會——實際上，所以我收回這一點，我們將使身體線與當前線平行。因此，與裝配案例不同，我們必須——我們沒有兩條完整的裝配線。在新的 SX 車身生產線的情況下，我們不得不停下來重新裝配，該生產線的設計能力是每週生產 2500 輛，也許更多，保守地以較低的成本每週生產 2500 輛。我們應該能夠同時做到這一點。

Got it. And --

知道了。和 -

I should say -- sorry another thing that's going to be -- see a big upgrade, really big upgrade is the paint shop. So there are a few cases where advanced CapEx spending makes sense even though it's going to pay off in two or three years but it's such a big improvement that you want to do it even at a high discount rate. So our paint shop is being upgraded, it's going to be the most advanced automotive paint shop in the world. But it's expensive to do that.

我應該說 - 對不起，另一件事將是 - 看到一個大的升級，真正的大升級是油漆店。因此，在某些情況下，高級資本支出支出是有意義的，即使它會在兩三年內得到回報，但這是一個很大的進步，即使在高折扣率的情況下你也想這樣做。所以我們的噴漆車間正在升級，它將成為世界上最先進的汽車噴漆車間。但這樣做很昂貴。

And then we like watching Halle Barry every week, but can you give us any details on when we can see the Model X? And then there's slightly different language about the Alpha and Beta that I think is new, so could you tell us the difference between the Alpha model and the Beta model?

然後我們喜歡每週看哈莉巴里，但你能告訴我們什麼時候可以看到 Model X 的任何細節嗎？然後關於 Alpha 和 Beta 的語言略有不同，我認為是新的，所以你能告訴我們 Alpha 模型和 Beta 模型之間的區別嗎？

Yes, so the X that was produced, the show car or advanced prototype is pre Alpha. The Alpha itself is the production -- it's basically a production design. We're going to move very quickly from Alpha to Beta.

是的，所以生產的 X、展示車或高級原型是 Alpha 之前的版本。 Alpha 本身就是產品——它基本上是一種產品設計。我們將從 Alpha 快速過渡到 Beta。

So in this case for the Model S the Alpha was a lot more primitive than the X will be. Because of course we didn't even -- for the X we've got all of this chassis and power train stuff that's been done for the S that we can build upon, in the S case we didn't have that.

因此，在這種情況下，Model S 的 Alpha 比 X 更加原始。因為當然我們甚至沒有——對於 X，我們已經擁有為 S 完成的所有底盤和動力傳動系統，我們可以在此基礎上進行構建，在 S 的情況下，我們沒有。

So it's really a very advanced Alpha car that we are producing for the X. And we will move to Beta within three months. So it's a real fast Alpha to Beta and you can expect to see production cars, not in customer hands but on the road doing test and validation in Q1 next year. We'll have quite a few of those.

所以這確實是我們為 X 生產的非常先進的 Alpha 汽車。我們將在三個月內進入 Beta。因此，這是一個真正快速的 Alpha 到 Beta 版，您可以期待看到量產車，不是在客戶手中，而是在明年第一季度進行測試和驗證的路上。我們會有很多這樣的。

Great, thanks so much.

太好了，非常感謝。

Our next question comes from --

我們的下一個問題來自——

And something I do want to emphasize with the X is because we're moving very quickly into a high production mode as opposed to where the S. The S had a -- Model S had a long production slope, starting off very slowly and then taking six months to reach the 400 unit per week level. In the case of the X, we're going to try to move to several hundred units a week within three months of production.

我確實想對 X 強調一點，因為我們正在非常迅速地進入高產量模式，而不是 S。S 有一個——Model S 有一個很長的生產斜率，開始非常緩慢，然後需要六個月才能達到每週 400 個單位的水平。就 X 而言，我們將嘗試在生產後的三個月內每週提高數百台。

So it 's like half, maybe less than half the length. But because of that we really want to do serious validation on the car, test the heck out of it before going into volume production.

所以它就像一半，也許不到一半的長度。但正因為如此，我們真的很想對汽車進行認真的驗證，在量產之前對其進行測試。

Our next question comes from Colin Rusch from Northland Capital Markets.

我們的下一個問題來自 Northland Capital Markets 的 Colin Rusch。

I wanted to make sure I heard these numbers right. So we're going from 1000 to 2000 cars a week in 2015. So if I take the mid range of that, about 1500 cars a week or production levels of 78,000 cars per year.

我想確保我沒聽錯這些數字。所以我們在 2015 年每週生產 1000 輛到 2000 輛汽車。所以如果我採取中間範圍，每周大約 1500 輛汽車或每年 78,000 輛汽車的生產水平。

And if I heard correct on the delivery time frames, you're about two weeks in North America and something like five or six weeks overseas which you're trying to shorten up. So we'd be thinking about works in progress of roughly 10%. So are those numbers right in terms of how I'm thinking about targets for you guys for next year?

如果我在交貨時間框架上沒聽錯的話，你在北美大約需要兩週，而在海外大約需要五到六週，你正試圖縮短。所以我們會考慮大約 10% 的正在進行的工作。那麼就我對你們明年目標的看法而言，這些數字是否正確？

It's difficult for us to predict the slope of next year, so what is the slope, what is the exact curve of the production rise look like next year. We feel confident of [assuming] next year our 2000 units a week of production and demand, absent some macro economic shock. But it's hard to say exactly what the area under the curve looks like. But it's certainly more than 60,000 I would think, but -- yes.

我們很難預測明年的斜率，那麼斜率是多少，明年產量增長的確切曲線是什麼樣的。我們有信心 [假設] 明年我們每週 2000 台的生產和需求，沒有一些宏觀經濟衝擊。但很難確切地說曲線下的面積是什麼樣的。但我認為肯定超過 60,000，但是——是的。

Okay, that's perfect. And then can you talk about the weight reduction efforts that you've got going on right now with the vehicles? And how should we think about the cadence of pulling weight out of the vehicle and potential translation of that into extended range?

好的，這很完美。然後你能談談你現在對車輛進行的減重工作嗎？我們應該如何考慮將重量從車輛中拉出的節奏以及將其轉化為擴展範圍的潛在可能性？

The partial on weight versus range it's not super strong. There is an improvement, but it's not a huge improvement. The Model S has gotten steadily lighter over time.

部分重量與範圍的關係不是超級強。有進步，但不是很大的進步。隨著時間的推移，Model S 變得越來越輕。

It's really like a quarter pound here or a half pound there, but the Model S in production today is at least a few hundred pounds less then the starter production. And we'll continue to see improvements over time.

這真的就像這裡的四分之一磅或那裡的半磅，但今天生產的 Model S 至少比初始生產少幾百磅。隨著時間的推移，我們將繼續看到改進。

So to get to a step change on -- there's so many pieces in the car, you got the battery pack, the motor, the transmission or the gearbox, the tires and wheels, the seats. I think if you had a big improvement in any one of those items, maybe with the exception of the battery pack, it only changes the weight of the car by 1%, 2% or something. These are all good things but there's not like one big block of lead that's sitting in the car that one can remove, it requires whittling away at a whole bunch of things.

因此，要邁出一步——車上有很多部件，你有電池組、電機、變速箱或變速箱、輪胎和車輪、座椅。我認為，如果您在其中任何一項上有很大的改進，也許除了電池組之外，它只會將汽車的重量改變 1%、2% 或其他東西。這些都是好東西，但沒有像坐在車裡的一大塊鉛可以去除，它需要削減一大堆東西。

And the range impact is -- the weight is one fraction of that kind of range. So even smaller than the direct percentage of weight reduction.

範圍影響是 - 重量是這種範圍的一小部分。所以比直接減重的百分比還要小。

Yes, but it is getting slightly better over time. It's hard for people to perceive it from one month to the next, but if you look at it over the course of the year you'd notice.

是的，但隨著時間的推移，情況會有所好轉。人們很難從一個月到下個月察覺到它，但如果你在一年的過程中觀察它，你會注意到。

Great, thank you.

太好了謝謝。

The next question comes from Andrea James with Dougherty & Co.

下一個問題來自 Dougherty & Co. 的 Andrea James。

And Patrick, I should have mentioned that we probably need to cut the call off after this question, so have this be the last question, please. Go ahead, Andrea, sorry. I guess she is no longer in queue.

帕特里克，我應該提到我們可能需要在這個問題之後切斷電話，所以請把這個問題作為最後一個問題。去吧，安德里亞，對不起。我猜她不再排隊了。

So with that I guess we'll call it a day and thank everyone for joining the call and we look forward to talking with you for our third-quarter earnings release. Goodbye.

因此，我想我們將結束這一天，並感謝大家加入電話會議，我們期待與您就第三季度收益發布進行交談。再見。

Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for participating in today's program. This concludes the program. You may all disconnect.

女士們，先生們，感謝您參加今天的節目。程序到此結束。你們都可以斷開連接。