特斯拉 (TSLA) 2018 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Tesla Q1 2018 Financial Results and Q&A and Webcast Call. (Operator Instructions) As a reminder, this conference may be recorded.

女士們、先生們，大家好，歡迎參加特斯拉 2018 年第一季財務業績及問答和網路直播電話會議。（操作員指示）提醒一下，本次會議可能會被錄音。

I would now like to introduce your host for today's call, Mr. Martin Viecha, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Sir, you may begin.

現在，我想介紹今天電話會議的主持人、投資者關係高級總監 Martin Viecha 先生。先生，您可以開始了。

Thank you, Sherri, and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to Tesla's First Quarter 2018 Q&A Webcast. I'm joined today by Elon Musk, J.B. Straubel, Deepak Ahuja and Doug Field.

謝謝你，謝裡，大家午安。歡迎收聽特斯拉 2018 年第一季問答網路直播。今天與我一起參加的還有 Elon Musk、J.B. Straubel、Deepak Ahuja 和 Doug Field。

Our Q1 results were announced at about 1 p.m. Pacific Time in the update letter we published at the same link as this webcast.

我們的第一季業績在下午 1 點左右公佈。我們在與該網絡廣播相同的連結中發布了更新信，其中提到了太平洋時間。

During this call, we will discuss our business outlook and make forward-looking statements. These comments are based on our predictions and expectations as of today. Actual events or results could differ materially due to a number of risks and uncertainties, including those mentioned in our most recent filings with the SEC. (Operator Instructions)

在本次電話會議中，我們將討論我們的業務前景並做出前瞻性陳述。這些評論是基於我們今天的預測和期望。由於多種風險和不確定因素，包括我們最近向美國證券交易委員會提交的文件中提到的風險和不確定因素，實際事件或結果可能存在重大差異。（操作員指示）

Before jumping into Q&A, Elon has some opening remarks. Elon?

在進入問答環節之前，伊隆先說了一些開場白。埃隆？

I think our letter says most of it, but I think we're going to spend extra time on Q&A, try to answer as many questions as possible. I think we should really answer -- so we're going to go as long as there are good questions to answer.

我認為我們的信已經說明了大部分內容，但我認為我們會花額外的時間進行問答，嘗試回答盡可能多的問題。我認為我們應該認真回答——只要有好的問題需要回答，我們就會繼續回答。

The thing I'm most excited about is the rapid increase in output. We got -- just in the last 24 hours at Gigafactory managed to achieve a sustained rate of over 3,000 packs per day -- sorry, per week, and actually reached the peak hour with -- if extrapolated outward would be a rate of around 5,000 cars per week. And obviously, you can't take a peak hour and assume every peak is -- every hour is as good as the peak. But it's -- if you can -- if you're going to achieve it even once in an hour, then with continued refinement of the system and improved operational uptime of the machinery, it means that you can achieve that sustained rate with more refinement. So if we spend essentially a month or 2 improving the operational uptime and the system as a whole, we'll be able to do well over 5,000, I think.

最讓我興奮的是產量的快速成長。我們得到了 - 僅在過去的 24 小時內，Gigafactory 就成功實現了每天超過 3,000 包電池的持續生產率 - 對不起，是每週，實際上達到了高峰時段 - 如果向外推算的話，每週的生產率約為 5,000 輛。顯然，你不能以高峰時段為依據，假設每個高峰時段都和尖峰時段一樣好。但是，如果你可以的話，即使你一小時只能實現一次，那麼隨著系統的不斷改進和機器正常運行時間的提高，這意味著你可以透過更多的改進來實現持續的速率。因此，如果我們花一個月或兩個月的時間來改善運行正常運行時間和整個系統，我認為我們將能夠做得超過 5,000。

I mean, what's interesting is that, at least in the case of pack production, we were able to do this with minimal CapEx. And I think, in general, our understanding of production is improving dramatically -- exponentially, in fact, and we are seeing ways to achieve improved volume with dramatically less CapEx by simplifying the production line, by really engaging with our associates, no matter how junior, and improving the way that parts are made. It's amazing how everybody's got good ideas. Just need to solicit those ideas and implement them and then making ongoing design improvements so that when we discover that something is not well designed for manufacturing, that we will very quickly change that part design and introduce that into the flow.

我的意思是，有趣的是，至少在包裝生產的情況下，我們能夠以最少的資本支出做到這一點。我認為，總的來說，我們對生產的理解正在顯著提高——事實上是呈指數級增長，而且我們正在尋找通過簡化生產線、與我們的員工（無論多麼初級）真正接觸以及改進零件製造方式來大幅減少資本支出並提高產量的方法。令人驚訝的是，每個人都有好主意。只需要徵求這些想法並實施它們，然後不斷進行設計改進，這樣當我們發現某些東西的設計不適合製造時，我們很快就會改變該部分的設計並將其引入流程中。

One of the things we also found is that there are some things that are very well suited to manual operation and some things that are very well suited to automated operation, and the 2 should not be confused. So I should be clear that the vast majority of the Tesla production system is automated. However, as I mentioned in a tweet a few months ago, we did go too far in the automation front and automated some pretty silly things. One example would be we have this -- so this is sort of ironically foolish. We had these fiberglass mats on the top of the battery pack, but basically like -- they're basically fluff. So we tried to automate the placement and bonding of fluff to the top of the battery pack, which is ridiculous. Like so we had fluffer bot, which was really an incredibly difficult machine to make work. Machines are not good at picking up pieces of fluff, okay. Human hands are way better at doing that. And so we had a super complicated machine using a vision system to try to put a piece of fluff on the battery pack. That same -- and one of the questions asked was, "Do we actually need that?" So we tested a car with and without and found that there was no change in the noise volume in the cabin, so we actually had a part that was unnecessary that was -- of course, the line kept breaking down because fluffer bot would frequently just fail to pick up the fluff or put it in like a random location. So that was one of the silliest things I found.

我們還發現，有些東西非常適合手動操作，有些東西非常適合自動化操作，兩者不應混淆。所以我應該要清楚，特斯拉生產系統的絕大部分都是自動化的。然而，正如我幾個月前在推文中提到的那樣，我們在自動化方面確實走得太遠了，並且自動化了一些非常愚蠢的事情。一個例子是，我們有這個——所以這有點諷刺地愚蠢。我們在電池組的頂部放置了這些玻璃纖維墊，但基本上就像——它們基本上是絨毛。因此，我們嘗試將絨毛的放置和黏合自動化到電池組頂部，這很荒謬。就像我們有 fluffer bot 一樣，它確實是一種難以工作的機器。機器不擅長拾取絨毛，好。人類的手更擅長做這件事。因此，我們製作了一台超級複雜的機器，使用視覺系統嘗試將一塊絨毛放在電池組上。同樣地——其中一個問題是，「我們真的需要這個嗎？」所以我們測試了一輛裝有和沒有裝這個裝置的汽車，發現車廂內的噪音沒有變化，所以我們實際上有一個不必要的部件——當然，生產線不斷出現故障，因為絨毛機器人經常無法撿起絨毛或將其放在隨機位置。這是我發現的最愚蠢的事情之一。

We were also -- and this still remains to be fixed, but -- in a lot of cases, but we're overgeneralizing the design. So for example, the current battery pack has a port for the front-drive units, which we then put a blanking plate, a sealed blanking plate on. So essentially, we punched a hole in it and put a blanking plate at the hole and do that for all rear-drive unit cars, which is kind of crazy. We've added cost. We've added a manufacturing step, better failure mode, and for something that is unnecessary. So that is something that's -- or example of some things. That's changed. So -- and then result is we've had a radical improvement in production -- battery pack production went from taking 7 hours to make a pack 3 weeks ago to under [70] minutes now, so just to show that it's like really radical improvement. It's R&D possible.

我們也是 — — 這個問題還有待解決，但是 — — 在很多情況下，我們的設計過於籠統了。例如，目前的電池組有一個用於前驅動裝置的端口，然後我們在上面放置一個盲板，一個密封的盲板。所以本質上，我們在上面打了一個洞並在洞上放了一塊盲板，對所有後輪驅動的汽車都這樣做，這有點瘋狂。我們增加了成本。我們增加了製造步驟、更好的故障模式以及一些不必要的東西。這就是某些事物 — — 或某些事物的例子。情況已經改變了。因此，結果是我們的生產有了根本性的改進，電池組生產從 3 週前花費 7 個小時縮短到現在的不到 [70] 分鐘，這表明它確實取得了根本性的進步。這是可以進行研發的。

We also saw a modest improvement in Zone 4 of module production. This, I should point out, is a clearly automated zone, and we're able to also achieve a sustained rate of 3,000 vehicles a week. So we're actually slightly ahead in battery module and pack production than expected. And with some work at the Fremont vehicle plant, primarily in the general assemble -- general assembly area, I'm confident we will very soon exceed the 3,000 mark in Fremont. So we're already there in the body shop, which is also almost entirely automated, where we weld up the body. They were already capable of over 3,000 cars a week, and the general assembly, with some improvements, which will include reductions on -- reduction -- I should say, temporary reduction in automation in a few places, then we should be able to do 3,000. So basically I'm feeling really good about the Tesla production of Model 3, and I'm very proud of the work that the team has done. It's been an amazing amount of hard work and sacrifice by some very talented people to achieve this outcome.

我們也看到 4 區模組生產有所改善。我應該指出，這是一個明顯的自動化區域，我們還能夠實現每週 3,000 輛汽車的持續通行速度。因此，我們在電池模組和電池組生產方面實際上比預期略有領先。透過弗里蒙特汽車廠的一些工作，主要是在組裝領域，我相信我們很快就會在弗里蒙特突破 3,000 大關。我們已經在車身車間了，這裡也幾乎完全實現了自動化，我們在這裡焊接車身。他們每週已經能夠生產 3,000 多輛汽車，並且透過對組裝進行一些改進，包括減少——我應該說，暫時減少幾個地方的自動化程度，那麼我們應該能夠生產 3,000 輛汽車。所以基本上我對特斯拉 Model 3 的生產感到非常滿意，並且我對團隊所做的工作感到非常自豪。為了實現這一成果，一些非常有才華的人付出了驚人的努力和犧牲。

It's worth noting the -- you see a chart in the Model 3 market share versus competitors in midsized premium sedans. We are almost the best-selling sedan in the United States in this category and -- as of April, and we will certainly be there in May, unless something really odd -- I mean, be there in May, and then we'll really be there later this year, right. In the third quarter, it will -- I think there's a good chance Model 3 gets maybe close to majority market share of midsized premium sedans, 40 -- 30%, 40%, seems likely, and maybe a majority market share later this year. This is coming from a standing start against a lot of established brands who have far more sales outlets than we do, so this is very encouraging.

值得注意的是——您可以看到 Model 3 市場份額與中型高檔轎車競爭對手的比較圖表。我們幾乎是美國這一類別中最暢銷的轎車——截至 4 月份，我們肯定會在 5 月份達到這一水平，除非出現非常奇怪的情況——我的意思是，在 5 月份達到這一水平，然後我們真的會在今年晚些時候達到這一水平，對吧。在第三季度，我認為 Model 3 很有可能佔據中型高端轎車的絕大部分市場份額，40% 到 30%、40% 左右，這似乎很有可能，並且可能在今年晚些時候佔據絕大部分市場份額。與許多擁有比我們多得多的銷售網點的知名品牌相比，這是一個全新的開始，因此這非常令人鼓舞。

Okay. And yes, as this letter says, I'm feeling quite confident about achieving GAAP net income and positive cash flow in Q3. This is not, I'd say, a certainty, but it does appear quite likely in my view. We are going to conduct sort of a reorganization restructuring of the company in the next -- this month and make sure we're well set up to achieve that goal. And in particular, the number of sort of third-party contracting companies that we're using has really gotten out of control, so we're going to scrub the barnacles on that front. It's pretty crazy. You've got barnacles on barnacles. So there's going to be a lot of barnacle removal.

好的。是的，正如這封信所說，我對第三季度實現 GAAP 淨收入和正現金流非常有信心。我想說，這不是肯定的，但在我看來，這確實很有可能。我們將在下個月（本月）對公司進行某種重組，並確保我們做好充分準備來實現這一目標。尤其是，我們使用的第三方承包公司的數量已經失控，所以我們要清除這方面的障礙。這真是太瘋狂了。藤壺上長滿了藤壺。因此需要清除大量的藤壺。

All right. Any concern or make any comments?

好的。有任何疑慮或意見嗎？

Thank you, Elon. Sherri, let's go to the first question.

謝謝你，埃隆。謝裡，我們來討論第一個問題。

(Operator Instructions) Our first question comes from Brian Johnson with Barclays.

（操作員指示）我們的第一個問題來自巴克萊銀行的布萊恩·約翰遜。

Yes. Want to talk a little bit about some of the -- first of all, if we talk about the -- sort of all relate to the production ramp. If we talk about the 5,000 per week run rate, is that assuming 7/24 ? Or at what point do you think you'd get to sort of 5-day, 2-shift operation?

是的。想稍微談談其中的一些——首先，如果我們談論——所有這些都與生產提升有關。如果我們討論每週5000台的運行率，是假設每週7天、每天24小時運轉嗎？或者您認為什麼時候才能實現每週5天、每天2班的運行？

Well, first of all, I think a 5-day, 2-shift operation is a ridiculous way to operate because that would be a very poor use of CapEx. Nor is it the way that we have operated in -- for most of Tesla. So the module production -- the cell module and battery pack production and powertrain production have always operated on a 24/7 basis. And the exception has been general assembly, which has operated on typically 2 to 3 shifts, so about a 5- to 6-day, 20-hour shift; and paint, which has operated on kind of a 6-day basis. So I think it just makes sense to operate the whole company on the same basis, but a majority of Tesla is always operated -- a majority of Tesla production has operated around 24/7 basis since we started production.

嗯，首先，我認為 5 天 2 班次的運作方式是一種荒謬的營運方式，因為這對資本支出的使用非常糟糕。對於特斯拉的大部分業務而言，這也不是我們經營的方式。因此，模組生產——電池模組和電池組生產以及動力系統生產始終以全天候方式運作。例外的是總裝配，通常採用 2 至 3 班次，即大約 5 至 6 天，每班 20 小時；油漆則是按照 6 天一班次的方式進行。因此，我認為以同樣的方式經營整個公司是合理的，但特斯拉的大部分生產始終是全天候運作的——自從我們開始生產以來，特斯拉的大部分生產都是在全天候運作的。

Yes. And this is J.B. I can chime in. As Elon said, it really makes great use of the CapEx and the lines, and that's why we did it, starting way back at the beginning of S. But aligning everything to the same shift schedule makes it so much more efficient because we don't have the seesaw of inventory, the underlying inventory between the different shops.

是的。我是 J.B.，我可以插嘴一下。正如 Elon 所說，它確實充分利用了資本支出和生產線，這就是我們這樣做的原因，從 S 開始就一直如此。但是，將所有東西調整到相同的輪班時間表會使其更加高效，因為我們沒有庫存的蹺蹺板，即不同商店之間的底層庫存。

Exactly. And one of the key things to improving the capital efficiency of the system is reducing work in progress -- work in process. And if you don't have -- if the shifts are not aligned, then you have to build up inventory in kind of a storage warehouse and then -- yes. So it's pretty foolish to actually operate on a 5-day, 2-shift in any way. But it's -- this is sort of a -- we're using the chip fab approach to capital efficiency, so it's called (inaudible). I don't know where it says what. I'm not sure what it's called. But like this is something called...

確切地。提高系統資本效率的關鍵因素之一是減少在製品－在製品。如果你沒有——如果班次不一致，那麼你就必須在倉庫中建立庫存，然後——是的。因此，無論如何，實行 5 天 2 班的工作制都是相當愚蠢的。但它是 - 這是某種 - 我們正在使用晶片製造方法來實現資本效率，因此它被稱為（聽不清楚）。我不知道它在哪裡說了什麼。我不確定它叫什麼。但就像這樣的東西叫做......

Ultimate workweek.

終極工作週。

Ultimate work whatever, ultimate workweek. Yes. I think (inaudible) people work like 3 long days and then 4 long days ultimately, something like that.

無論如何，最終的工作都是最終的工作週。是的。我認為（聽不清楚）人們首先要長時間工作 3 天，然後最終要長時間工作 4 天，諸如此類。

(inaudible) crews on and just using overtime on weekends.

（聽不清楚）工作人員週末加班。

Yes, yes. Exactly.

是的，是的。確切地。

Right. So it seems like...

正確的。所以看起來好像...

It's not like one person working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There are like 4 or 5 shifts.

這不像一個人每週 7 天、每天 24 小時工作。大約有 4 或 5 個班次。

Yes. So if I just do the math, that would seem like 5,000 to get you to takt time of 2 minutes. And I go back to some of the prior conversations, I mean, that's -- my understanding is best in class is sort of 50 seconds to a minute. And I thought the whole going faster than grandma walker was actually targeted at blowing past that, but sounds like you're sort of 2x the takt time of other factories.

是的。因此，如果我進行計算的話，似乎需要 5,000 才能使您達到 2 分鐘的節拍時間。我回顧之前的一些對話，我的意思是——我的理解是課堂上最好的時間是 50 秒到 1 分鐘。我認為整個過程比步行者奶奶的速度更快實際上就是為了超越這一點，但聽起來你的節拍時間是其他工廠的兩倍。

The takt -- the number you're referring to is actually general -- the general assembly number.

節拍——您所指的數字實際上是總體——總體裝配數字。

Vehicles per minute, yes.

是的，每分鐘車輛數。

Yes, yes. It's general assembly number, not that other stuff, but...

是的，是的。這是大會編號，不是其他東西，但是......

You may have also not taken into account so-called OEE or the actual uptime of the line, which tends to make the takt time a little faster than the product cycles.

您可能還沒有考慮到所謂的 OEE 或生產線的實際正常運行時間，這往往會使節拍時間比產品週期稍快。

Let's say it could take us a minute then, because that would mean it's like over a 7-day, 24-hour workweek. Like we could also just say -- actually we did our peak pack production today was 32 packs in an hour, so we're under a minute -- under 2 minutes a pack and rising from there.

假設這可能需要一分鐘，因為這意味著它就像一個超過 7 天、24 小時的工作週。就像我們也可以說的那樣——實際上，我們今天的峰值產量是一小時內 32 包，所以我們每包的產量不到一分鐘——不到兩分鐘，並且從那裡開始上升。

Yes. And probably the numbers go up rapidly as we go to the subassemblies that are in higher unit quantity per car.

是的。隨著每輛車的子組件數量增加，這個數字可能會迅速上升。

Yes.

是的。

So 4x per module, and then we have smaller subassemblies still that are factors of 10 or 20, even higher than that.

因此每個模組為 4 倍，然後我們還有更小的子組件，其倍數為 10 或 20，甚至更高。

Yes. That said, I do believe that the path to manufacturing efficiency is velocity and density, and that is absolutely what we'll be working on rather than just trying to spend billions of dollars on duplicating a factory. If you make like -- if 2 companies are competing and one has to double its CapEx in order to double production and the other one can, with minor CapEx, can just speed up the line by double, it's a game over.

是的。話雖如此，我確實相信提高製造效率的途徑是速度和密度，這絕對是我們要努力的方向，而不僅僅是試圖花費數十億美元複製一個工廠。如果有兩家公司在競爭，其中一家必須加倍資本支出才能使產量翻番，而另一家只需花費很少的資本支出就能將生產線速度提高一倍，那麼遊戲就結束了。

Great. But in the meantime, the lines -- then I think what you're saying, some starts, some stops to get to the 5,000 per week?

偉大的。但與此同時，這些線路——那麼我想您說的是，有些線路開始，有些線路停止，以達到每週 5,000 條線路？

Yes. You can't -- like you can't have like 0 maintenance time and 0 -- like you have to do equipment upgrades. You have to do ongoing maintenance, so you can't just have it be operating at peak rates 24/7.

是的。你不能——例如你不能有 0 個維護時間和 0——例如你必須進行設備升級。您必須進行持續的維護，因此您不能讓它全天候以峰值速率運行。

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羅德·拉赫 (Rod Lache)。

Just wanted to follow along on that line of question. So to the extent that you're adding humans in certain automated processes, can you just help us interpret the extent to which these changes affect the economics on Model 3? And to the extent that you've done some competitive analysis, all of these efforts in the Tesla production system, how do you stack up competitively against other OEMs in terms of labor hours per vehicle or depreciation per vehicle?

只是想繼續追問這個問題。那麼，就您在某些自動化流程中加入人類而言，您能否幫助我們解釋這些變更對 Model 3 經濟性的影響程度？在您所做的競爭分析中，特斯拉生產系統中的所有這些努力，在每輛車的工時或每輛車的折舊方面，您與其他原始設備製造商相比如何競爭？

Well, I'll just say something -- so a few things, then I have -- Deepak can elaborate. Let's see. So the thing that I've noticed is, if you have a really complicated machine like the fluff bot that I was talking about earlier, in order to keep it operating, you have to have a ton of maintenance engineering. So you have like basically pretty expensive maintenance engineers that have to maintain the thing and fix it, like, basically 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. The cost of the maintenance engineer may not be incorporated directly into -- or fully incorporated directly into gross margin, but it's nonetheless a cost that far exceeds the labor cost of simply placing the fluff on the battery pack, which, as I said, that was unnecessary. So I think to actually -- I do not see this having a much of a long-term impact in our cost. I actually see it most likely our cost will decrease, or we consider the cost to producing the vehicles will decrease by getting rid of production stations that are really poorly suited to robotics because of the very expensive cost of robot technicians.

好吧，我只想說幾件事——然後我有幾件事——迪帕克可以詳細說明。讓我們來看看。所以我注意到的是，如果你有一個非常複雜的機器，例如我之前提到的絨毛機器人，為了保持它的運行，你必須進行大量的維護工程。所以你需要聘請相當昂貴的維修工程師來維護和修理設備，基本上每週 7 天、每天 24 小時。維修工程師的成本可能不會直接計入 - 或完全計入毛利率，但它的成本仍然遠遠超過簡單地將絨毛放在電池組上的勞動力成本，正如我所說，那是不必要的。所以我認為實際上——我認為這不會對我們的成本產生太大的長期影響。我實際上看到最有可能的是我們的成 本將會下降，或者我們認為透過擺脫那些由於機器人技術人員成本非常昂貴而實際上不適合機器人的生產站，生產汽車的成本將會下降。

Rod, we are very CapEx efficient, or let me just start from that point. And if we look at our depreciation cost on a per-unit basis at steady run rate of 5,000 or so cars per week, we are, in my mind, well below a lot of our -- I mean, most of our competitors, well below $2,000 per unit depreciation cost. And then overall, clearly there is some impact, as we have indicated in the letter, from the additional labor we've added, but it's temporary. And our expectation fully is a lot of this labor will come out once we stabilize production and then figure out smart ways of automating where it makes sense.

羅德，我們的資本支出非常高效，或者讓我從這一點開始。如果我們以每週 5,000 輛左右的穩定運行率來計算每輛汽車的折舊成本，我認為我們的折舊成本遠低於我們的許多競爭對手——我的意思是，我們的大多數競爭對手，每輛汽車的折舊成本遠低於 2,000 美元。總體而言，正如我們在信中所指出的，我們增加的勞動力顯然會產生一些影響，但這是暫時的。我們完全期望，一旦我們穩定生產，並找到在合理的地方實現自動化的智慧方法，大量的勞動力就會被釋放出來。

Okay. And just secondly, your comments in your letter on the advances in batteries were interesting. Could you give us some insight into how we can translate that into cost per kilowatt hour or some metric in terms of the gains that you're making?

好的。其次，您在信中對電池進步的評論很有趣。您能否向我們介紹如何將其轉化為每千瓦時的成本或您所獲得的收益的某些指標？

That's something -- I mean, every data point, Rod, that we look at internally suggests that we are best in class, but we don't...

這就是——我的意思是，羅德，我們內部查看的每一個數據點都表明我們是同類中最好的，但我們沒有…

We're the best, just not in class.

我們是最好的，只是不在同等級。

Yes. We're the best. Sorry.

是的。我們是最棒的。對不起。

Best in a class of one.

同類中最好的。

I think directionally, Rod, it's helpful to understand the different commodities and the trends that we're pursuing in the batteries. Being on a path to reduce cobalt usage, for instance, has been something we've been working on for literally several years now. And this has been extremely helpful in the overall cost per kilowatt hour, especially with recent commodity price movements. So I think we can't really be quantitative, but that, directionally, is a pretty good trend.

羅德，我認為從方向上看，了解不同的商品以及我們在電池領域追求的趨勢是有幫助的。例如，減少鈷的使用是我們多年來一直在努力的方向。這對於每千瓦時的總體成本非常有幫助，特別是在最近大宗商品價格變動的情況下。所以我認為我們無法真正量化，但從方向上看，這是一個相當好的趨勢。

Yes. We think we can get the cobalt to almost nothing.

是的。我們認為我們可以將鈷降至幾乎為零。

Our next question comes from Adam Jonas with Morgan Stanley.

我們的下一個問題來自摩根士丹利的亞當喬納斯。

Elon, so you repeatedly said, I think, in recent weeks that you do not need to issue equity capital at Tesla. I think many investors on this call would say it's better to raise capital when you don't need to. So I guess first question is...

伊隆，我想，最近幾週你一再說過，你不需要在特斯拉發行股權資本。我認為參加這次電話會議的許多投資者都會說，最好在不需要的時候籌集資金。所以我想第一個問題是......

I disagree.

我不同意。

Yes. You may not need to, but do you want to?

是的。您可能不需要，但是您想嗎？

No. I specifically don't want to.

不。我特別不想。

Perfect. Okay. My follow-up, Elon, is your cars produce really a large amount of data, and SpaceX gets into the satellite broadband business next year...

完美的。好的。我的後續問題是，埃隆，你的汽車確實會產生大量的數據，而 SpaceX 明年將進軍衛星寬頻業務…

Not next year, but it's probably 3 years.

不是明年，但可能是三年。

Okay, 3 years. Some argue that SpaceX could offer Tesla a resilient cybersecure pipe for this precious vehicle data and a potential competitive advantage. So Elon, isn't bandwidth an obvious domain for collaboration between Tesla and SpaceX one day?

好的，3年。有些人認為，SpaceX可以為特斯拉提供一個有彈性的網路安全管道來儲存這些寶貴的車輛數據，並帶來潛在的競爭優勢。那麼，伊隆，頻寬不是特斯拉和 SpaceX 未來合作的明顯領域嗎？

I mean, it might be. There's lots of interesting things we could do. Cars got a lot of computing power, and it's connected to the cell networks and WiFi and everything, or it's certainly connected to a LEO Internet constellation. I haven't really thought about it, but probably there is.

我的意思是，有可能。我們可以做很多有趣的事。汽車擁有強大的運算能力，並且連接到蜂窩網路、WiFi 等一切設備，或肯定連接到 LEO 互聯網星座。我還沒有真正想過這個問題，但可能是有的。

Our next question comes from David Tamberrino with Goldman Sachs.

我們的下一個問題來自高盛的 David Tamberrino。

Elon, you've talked about the downtime on the Model 3. You're going to take 2 planned periods this quarter. One has already occurred. The other is going to occur later in the quarter. What specifically have you addressed in Fremont so far? And what are you planning to address a little bit later? And are those the lone kind of remaining bottlenecks for you to get to the 5k within the Fremont plant?

伊隆，您談到了 Model 3 的停工期。本季您將有 2 個計劃停工期。其中一個已經發生。另一項將在本季晚些時候發生。到目前為止，您在弗里蒙特具體解決了哪些問題？您稍後會計劃討論什麼問題？這些是弗里蒙特工廠內 5k 產能唯一剩下的瓶頸嗎？

Well, the Tesla production system at this point is vast, so -- and we literally have the 2 biggest factories on Earth between the Gigafactory and Fremont. Giga is still slightly smaller than Fremont. I think -- well, maybe just -- yes, slightly smaller, but it will soon be bigger than Fremont. And Fremont is like the second-biggest building of any kind by footprint. So it's just like there's -- this is a vast -- the full answer to that question is a complex one. The -- I feel very confident about our ability to get to 5k very soon in a sustained rate at Giga, getting to -- essentially getting to 5,000 battery packs and motors and power inverters and charges and that kind of thing [installed] down at Giga by the end of next month. And battery production, no problem. General assembly is probably our biggest risk, and I'm really focusing on -- personally on that a lot in the next -- in the coming month. And then the -- our paint shop is maybe the second-biggest risk after general assembly, but these are all pretty -- these are all quite manageable. It's not like huge brain surgery to get these things right. It's a lot of work. I like to say it's a lot of -- just a lot of time and hard work, but it's very doable. And yes -- so it's really quite straightforward. It's not like a fundamental impediment here.

嗯，目前特斯拉的生產系統非常龐大，所以——我們實際上擁有兩個地球上最大的工廠：超級工廠和弗里蒙特工廠。Giga 仍然比 Fremont 略小一些。我認為——好吧，也許只是——是的，稍微小一點，但很快就會比弗里蒙特大。就佔地面積而言，弗里蒙特是所有建築中第二大的建築。所以，就像存在一個——這是一個巨大的——這個問題的完整答案是一個複雜的問題。我對我們很快就能在 Giga 以持續的速度達到 5,000 台電池的能力非常有信心，到下個月底，我們將在 Giga 安裝 5,000 個電池組、馬達、電源逆變器和充電器等設備。電池生產也沒問題。大會可能是我們面臨的最大風險，我個人將在接下來的一個月裡專注於這個問題。然後——我們的噴漆車間可能是繼組裝之後第二大風險，但這些都相當——這些都相當容易管理。要解決這些問題並不像進行大型腦外科手術那麼簡單。這需要做很多工作。我想說這需要很多——很多時間和努力，但這是可行的。是的——所以這確實非常簡單。這不像是一個根本性的障礙。

And many cases, we've seen huge gains through software that's in the car, software that controls the automation and connects to our central system. So in many cases, it's not even hardware upgrades that create substantial increases in velocity.

在許多情況下，我們看到了透過車載軟體、控制自動化並連接到我們中央系統的軟體所獲得的巨大收益。因此，在許多情況下，連硬體升級也無法帶來速度的大幅提升。

Yes, exactly. Doug makes a good point here, and I think that is -- that the production -- a really great production system is primarily a software problem. And there's no one in the auto industry that is remotely as good as Tesla -- at software as Tesla. We're -- I mean, Tesla is way better at software than any other car company. So if it is -- what I'm saying is true, that the biggest challenge in the production system is software, we are in a good position.

是的，確實如此。道格在這裡提出了一個很好的觀點，我認為那就是——生產——一個真正偉大的生產系統主要是一個軟體問題。在汽車產業中，沒有一家公司的軟體能與特斯拉媲美。我們——我的意思是，特斯拉的軟體比任何其他汽車公司都要好得多。所以，如果我說的是真的，生產系統中最大的挑戰是軟體，那我們就處於有利地位。

Okay. Maybe taking my next question in a different direction. What is your time line for launching the Model Y? And have you begun to spend for this, or that only begins to start hitting the P&L from an R&D and a CapEx perspective in 2019?

好的。也許我的下一個問題可以從不同的方向來回答。您推出 Model Y 的時間表是什麼？您已經開始為此投入資金了嗎？或者從 2019 年的研發和資本支出角度來看，這才開始對損益產生影響？

It will only start to become significant in 2019.

直到 2019 年，它才會開始變得重要。

Okay. So all of the CapEx spend for this year is associated with Fremont, Model 3, Gigafactory?

好的。那麼今年所有的資本支出都與弗里蒙特、Model 3、超級工廠有關嗎？

No, no. I mean, please take me literally. I said it will only start to become significant next year. It's not 0 right now, but it's not a big number. It's not a big number relative to our revenue.

不，不。我的意思是，請從字面上理解我的意思。我說它明年才會開始變得重要。現在不是 0，但也不是一個很大的數字。與我們的收入相比，這個數字並不算大。

In the early days of product development anyway, there's not much CapEx. CapEx becomes greater as you commit it to equipment and equipment starts to come in-house.

無論如何，在產品開發的早期階段，資本支出並不多。隨著您將其投入設備並且設備開始在內部使用，資本支出會變得更大。

Yes. Although it is remarkable -- although the amount of money spent in the beginning is really quite low in the beginning of a development program, decisions made at the beginning of a development program have massive implications for future CapEx. So it is better to spend a bit more time making the right design decisions and really thinking through the producibility of a product before racing ahead with CapEx decisions. There's no question we could have made the Model 3 much easier to produce than we have. Model Y, I think Model Y is going to be a manufacturing revolution. It will be, I think, incredible from a manufacturing standpoint because we do not want to go through this pain again, yes.

是的。儘管這很了不起——儘管在開發項目開始時花費的金額確實很低，但在開發項目開始時做出的決策對未來的資本支出有著巨大的影響。因此，在匆忙做出資本支出決策之前，最好花更多的時間做出正確的設計決策，並認真考慮產品的可生產性。毫無疑問，我們可以讓 Model 3 的生產變得比現在更容易。Model Y，我認為 Model Y 將會是一場製造業革命。我認為，從製造業的角度來看這將是令人難以置信的，因為我們不想再經歷這種痛苦，是的。

Our next question comes from Romit Shah with Nomura Instinet.

我們的下一個問題來自野村證券的 Romit Shah。

Yes. I just wanted to clarify the gross margin comments related to Model 3 that you put in the letter. You said a couple of things. You said, over the medium term, Model 3 gross margins would be below the target of 25%. You also said that in Q3 and Q4, that those gross margins would be highly positive. So I'm just trying to understand what's possible for Model 3 gross margins by the end of the year. Could we get to a number that's close to 20%?

是的。我只是想澄清一下您在信中提到的與 Model 3 相關的毛利率評論。你說了幾件事。您說，從中期來看，Model 3 的毛利率將低於 25% 的目標。您也說過，在第三季和第四季，這些毛利率將會非常高。所以我只是想了解到今年年底 Model 3 的毛利率會是多少。我們能得到接近 20% 的數字嗎？

What I'd say is that progressively, each quarter, we will be getting better.

我想說的是，我們每季都會逐漸變得更好。

Yes.

是的。

The answer is yes, and it'll come down to what other economics come into play from currencies to commodities, and how much more cost we take out from labor. So I don't want to give you a specific number, but probably close to it.

答案是肯定的，而這將取決於從貨幣到商品的其他經濟因素，以及我們從勞動力中抽取了多少成本。所以我不想給你一個具體的數字，但可能接近這個數字。

It's like -- yes, exactly. If not -- it's -- yes, exactly, very close to 20%, could be slightly below, could be slightly above.

就像——是的，確實如此。如果不是——是的，確實非常接近 20%，可能略低，也可能略高。

Okay. Fair enough. And then, Elon, can I just ask you about...

好的。很公平。然後，埃隆，我可以問你一下…

Sorry. Just thinking of going a little further forward than, say, Q4, we're very confident of the 25% gross margin.

對不起。只是考慮比第四季更進一步，我們對 25% 的毛利率非常有信心。

Thanks for clarifying that. Yes. We feel very good about that in the medium term.

感謝您澄清這一點。是的。從中期來看，我們對此感到非常滿意。

For next year, 25% is definitely what we would expect.

對於明年，25%肯定是我們所期望的。

So when you say medium term, you're talking 2018?

所以您說的中期是指 2018 年嗎？

Yes, exactly. That's why it was important to clarify what these things mean. Yes, Q4 is when we expect to be on or about 20%. Then by the middle of next year, 25% gross margin should be where we are. And then we'll also try to get to the high 20s by the end of next year.

是的，確實如此。這就是為什麼澄清這些事情的含義很重要。是的，我們預計第四季的增幅將達到 20% 左右。那麼到明年年中，我們的毛利率應該可以達到 25%。然後我們還將努力在明年年底前達到 20 多歲。

Okay. As a follow-up, could you just comment on Jim Keller's departure, a highly respected chief architect? What does it say, if anything, about the development of Tesla's custom silicon and Autopilot?

好的。作為後續問題，您能否對備受尊敬的首席架構師 Jim Keller 的離職發表評論？如果有的話，它對特斯拉客製化矽片和自動駕駛儀的開發有何啟示？

Well, Jim is a great guy. And the sort of dream he wanted to pursue for a long time to -- which is to kind of redesign how server architecture works, it's not something that I find a lot interesting, but it's something that Jim -- it's been a sort of a personal dream for Jim to do, and that's why he went to Intel. The Tesla -- the actual design of the Tesla hardware is primarily led by Pete Bannon. I should be clear, like the lead designer of that is Pete Bannon, who is still with Tesla, and then of course Andrej Karpathy is head of our AI team. So we don't plan to hire a replacement for Jim's position.

嗯，吉姆是個很棒的傢伙。他長期以來一直想追求的夢想是重新設計伺服器架構的工作方式，我認為這並不是很有趣的事情，但對 Jim 來說，這一直是一個個人夢想，這也是他加入英特爾的原因。特斯拉——特斯拉硬體的實際設計主要由皮特班農 (Pete Bannon) 領導。我應該說清楚，它的首席設計師是 Pete Bannon，他仍然在特斯拉，當然 Andrej Karpathy 是我們人工智慧團隊的負責人。因此我們不打算聘請人來取代吉姆的職位。

Our next question comes from Toni Sacconaghi with Bernstein.

我們的下一個問題來自伯恩斯坦的托尼·薩科納吉。

I just wanted to follow up on the previous question and the gross margin targets. I think you had said last quarter that once you got to 5,000 units, you felt that you could get to 25% gross margins on Model 3, so that feels like at least a 6- or 9-month delay relative to what you thought a quarter ago. And I'm trying to understand what the key drivers are. Is it really the labor for capital substitution? I don't think currency sequentially has changed much. I understand it can be a headwind. But I think relative to when you made those statements, it hasn't changed. So perhaps you can help us understand what has changed in terms of the gross margin ramp for Model 3 relative to what you thought before. And I have a follow-up, please.

我只是想跟進上一個問題和毛利率目標。我記得您上個季度說過，一旦產量達到 5,000 輛，您就覺得 Model 3 的毛利率可以達到 25%，所以感覺相對於您上一個季度前的想法，至少要延遲 6 到 9 個月。我正在嘗試了解其中的關鍵驅動因素是什麼。真的是勞動力替代資本嗎？我認為貨幣連續性沒有太大變化。我明白這可能是個阻力。但我認為相對於你發表這些言論時而言，情況並沒有改變。因此，也許您可以幫助我們了解 Model 3 的毛利率成長與您之前想像的相比發生了哪些變化。我還有一個後續問題，請回答。

Yes, it's along the lines of what we said in the letter. If we look at the combination of the recently imposed tariffs, Section 232 and countervailing duties plus commodity price increases as well as the weaker dollar, that is adding significant material cost. And then temporarily, we are using more labor. So when you combine those 2, that's what led to our guidance. And certainly, the material -- the labor cost piece, we will address and that will come out.

是的，與我們在信中所說的一致。如果我們綜合考慮最近徵收的關稅、第 232 條和反補貼稅，加上大宗商品價格上漲以及美元疲軟，就會發現材料成本大幅增加。然後暫時我們會使用更多的勞動力。因此，當你將這兩者結合起來時，這就是我們的指導方針。當然，材料和勞動力成本部分，我們會解決並最終解決。

Yes. But I mean, we're only talking about a 3% to 5% difference. So like -- and that's something that we'll solve like within 3 to 6 months later, so I don't -- it's not like it's some -- don't make a federal case out of it.

是的。但我的意思是，我們談論的只是 3% 到 5% 的差異。所以 — — 這是我們會在 3 到 6 個月內解決的事情，所以我 — — 這並不像某些 — — 不要把它變成聯邦案件。

And then separately, what, if anything, are you taking out in terms of your lowered CapEx projection for this year? And specifically, in spending less than $3 billion, where does that take you in terms of both battery and production capacity for the Model 3?

然後另外，如果有的話，您在降低今年的資本支出預測方面會扣除什麼？具體來說，花費不到 30 億美元，這對 Model 3 的電池和生產能力有何影響？

Yes, so we're just being much more smarter in many cases. As Elon said, we are not just spending money on automation. We're of course looking at the problem, simplifying it, and that's helped us reduce our CapEx on Model 3. And then we are also being critical about how we grow our infrastructure and line it up with our growth in our business. So we feel that these are the right decisions and there is still room for us to reduce it further if we wish to. So we are leaving ourselves some discretion here to go spend money where needed.

是的，所以在很多情況下我們都變得更聰明了。正如伊隆所說，我們不僅僅是在自動化上花錢。我們當然正在研究這個問題，並簡化它，這有助於我們減少 Model 3 的資本支出。然後，我們也在認真考慮如何發展我們的基礎設施，並使其與我們的業務成長保持一致。因此我們認為這些都是正確的決定，如果我們願意的話，我們仍然有進一步減少的空間。因此，我們給自己留一些自由裁量權，以便把錢花在需要的地方。

And so where specifically will you be in terms of capital requirement?

那麼，就資本需求而言，您具體處於什麼位置？

Boring bonehead questions are not cool. Next.

無聊的愚蠢問題一點也不酷。下一個。

Our next question comes from Joseph Spak with RBC Capital Markets.

我們的下一個問題來自加拿大皇家銀行資本市場的約瑟夫‧斯帕克 (Joseph Spak)。

The first question is related to the Model 3 reservations, and I was just wondering if you gave us a gauge as maybe some of the impact that the news has had. Like of the reservations that actually opened and made available to configure, can you let us know like what -- how -- what percentage have actually taken steps to configure?

第一個問題與 Model 3 的預訂有關，我只是想知道您是否能為我們提供一個衡量標準，也許可以說明該訊息可能造成的一些影響。就像實際開放並可供配置的預訂一樣，您能否讓我們知道有多少百分比實際上已經採取了配置步驟？

We're going to go to YouTube, sorry. These questions are so dry. They're killing me.

我們要去 YouTube，抱歉。這些問題太枯燥了。他們要殺我了。

Our next question is from Galileo Russell with HyperChange.

我們的下一個問題來自 HyperChange 的 Galileo Russell。

To represent retail investors, I was wondering with Waymo's plans to launch an autonomous taxi service in limited markets this year if you could give us an update on the Tesla Network and any details surrounding the launch date or geographic rollout.

作為散戶投資者的代表，我想知道 Waymo 計劃今年在有限的市場推出自動駕駛出租車服務，您是否可以向我們提供有關特斯拉網絡的最新信息以及有關發布日期或地理推廣的任何細節。

Sure. So I mean, that's -- thank you for an interesting question. The launch involve -- where things are obviously going towards is a shared electric autonomy model. So the -- in order for this to -- obviously for the whole sort of system to work, you need all the pieces in place. You need to have full autonomy, full 4 or 5, whatever you want to call it, and obviously a lot of cars in the road and then build the software infrastructure behind that to enable shared autonomy, so to help enable people to share their cars and be able to offer their cars as effectively kind of a robo Lyft or robo Uber. It's sort of like a combination of like, I guess, Uber, Lyft and Airbnb type of thing, where you can own your car and have a higher percent usage of an autonomous electric car. You can say it's available generally to anyone who wants to use it when you're not using it. You can recall it at will. You can restrict usage to only friends and family or only users who are 5-star. Like this is like the obvious thing that's going to happen. But in order for that to be in place, we have to obviously sell full autonomy, and we're making a really good progress on that front. I believe that the current production of -- the vehicles that we are currently producing are capable of full autonomy, but the only thing that would really be, like, might be needed or maybe is probably needed is a computer upgrade to have more processing power for the vision neural net. But that's a plug-in replacement, a thing that can be done quite easily. So I think we're really well positioned and are building the right -- the foundation for a -- having millions, ultimately tens of millions of shared autonomous electric vehicles. (inaudible) decide not to share if you don't want to. And then...

當然。所以我的意思是——謝謝你提出一個有趣的問題。這次發布涉及——事情顯然正朝著共享電動自主模式的方向發展。因此，為了使整個系統能夠正常運轉，顯然需要將所有部分準備就緒。你需要擁有完全的自主權，完全的 4 級或 5 級，無論你想怎麼稱呼它，顯然路上會有很多汽車，然後在其背後構建軟體基礎設施來實現共享自主權，從而幫助人們共享他們的汽車，並能夠像機器人 Lyft 或機器人 Uber 一樣有效地提供他們的汽車。我想，這有點像 Uber、Lyft 和 Airbnb 之類的結合體，你可以擁有自己的汽車，並且擁有更高比例的自動駕駛電動車的使用率。您可以說，當您不使用它時，任何想要使用它的人都可以使用它。你可以隨意回憶。您可以將使用限制為僅限朋友和家人或僅限 5 星用戶。就像這是顯而易見即將發生的事情。但為了實現這一目標，我們顯然必須出售完全自主權，而我們在這方面取得了非常好的進展。我相信，我們目前生產的車輛已經能夠實現完全自動駕駛，但唯一真正需要或可能需要的是電腦升級，以便為視覺神經網路提供更強大的處理能力。但這是一個插件替換，是一件可以輕鬆完成的事情。所以我認為我們確實處於有利地位，並且正在為擁有數百萬輛、最終數千萬輛共享自動駕駛電動車奠定正確的基礎。（聽不清楚）如果你不想分享，就決定不分享。進而...

And specifically on the timing, though, do you have any details about or when we could even expect to learn more about the timing of this service?

但是，具體到時間方面，您是否有任何詳細信息，或者我們何時可以了解更多有關此服務時間的信息？

Well, the hardest thing to predict about the timing is regulatory approval. The thing that's tricky with autonomous vehicles is that autonomy doesn't reduce the accident rate or fatality rate to 0 . It improves it substantially. But the reality is that even though we think our -- when we think autonomy, even car autonomy reduces the probability of a death by 30%, which would be incredible because this is like, if applied broadly, there's over 1 million, I think, 1.2 million automotive deaths per year. And how many do you read about? Basically none of them. However -- and but if it's an autonomous situation, you -- it's headline news. And the media fails to mention that, actually, they shouldn't really be writing the story. They should be writing a story about how autonomous cars are really safe, but that's not the story if you want a click on, so they write inflammatory headlines that are fundamentally misleading to the readers. It's really outrageous. So -- and this would be true like even if electric cars were -- I'm sorry, if autonomous cars were 10x safer. So instead of 1 million deaths, you have 100,000 deaths, there's still going to be people who will still sue and say, "Hey, you're responsible for the death here." And it's like, well, the 90% of people who didn't die are not suing. They're not -- they're still alive. You just don't know it, so you -- we've got to deal with that. And then obviously regulators respond to public pressure and the press. So if the press is hounding the regulators, and the public is laboring on misapprehension that autonomy is less safe because of that -- of misleading press, then this is where I find the things to -- the challenge of predicting it to be very difficult. And yes, it's really incredibly irresponsible of any journalist with integrity to write an article that would lead people to believe that Tesla -- that autonomy is less safe because people might actually turn it off and then die. So anyway, I'm really upset by those.

嗯，最難預測的時間是監管部門的批准。自動駕駛汽車的棘手之處在於，自動駕駛並不能將事故率或死亡率降至 0，而是大幅改善。但現實情況是，即使我們認為——當我們考慮自動駕駛時，即使是汽車自動駕駛也會將死亡機率降低 30%，這將是令人難以置信的，因為如果廣泛應用，每年有超過 100 萬，我想是 120 萬人死於汽車事故。您讀過多少？基本上沒有。然而——但是如果這是一個自主的情況，你——它就是頭條新聞。但媒體卻沒有提到，事實上，他們不該寫這個故事。他們應該寫一篇關於自動駕駛汽車如何真正安全的文章，但如果你想點擊的話，這並不是他們想要寫的文章，所以他們寫了一些煽動性的標題，從根本上誤導了讀者。實在太離譜了。所以 — — 這將是事實，即使電動車 — — 對不起，如果自動駕駛汽車的安全性提高 10 倍。因此，死亡人數不是 100 萬，而是 10 萬，仍然會有人提起訴訟，說：「嘿，你要為這場死亡負責。」 而 90% 沒有死亡的人卻沒有提起訴訟。他們沒有──他們還活著。你只是不知道，所以你——我們必須處理這個問題。顯然，監管機構會對公眾壓力和媒體做出回應。因此，如果媒體不斷騷擾監管機構，而公眾誤以為由於媒體誤導，自治不再安全，那麼我認為預測自治的挑戰就非常困難。是的，任何一位有正直品格的記者寫文章讓人們相信特斯拉的自動駕駛汽車不太安全，因為人們可能會關掉它然後死亡，這真的是極其不負責任的。無論如何，我對此感到非常不安。

Yes. Really interesting answer.

是的。真是有趣的答案。

I can personally say, from a technical standpoint, I think we'll probably be ready by the end of next year.

我個人可以說，從技術角度來看，我認為我們可能在明年年底做好準備。

Awesome. And then one more quick thing on production capacity and speed of the Fremont line because this is something you mentioned a lot, it seems. And in the last quarterly conference call, you mentioned the max capacity with 700,000 cars for Fremont or somewhere around there. And that was S, X and 3. And so we recently got a report form Reuters saying that Model Y production would start in November 2019 at Fremont. And so I'm just kind of curious, with the Semi and the Model Y launching next year, like where are you actually planning on assembling these vehicles?

驚人的。然後再簡單說一下弗里蒙特生產線的生產能力和速度，因為這似乎是您經常提到的問題。在上一季的電話會議中，您提到弗里蒙特或週邊地區的最大容量為 70 萬輛汽車。這就是 S、X 和 3。所以我們最近收到路透社的一份報告稱，Model Y 將於 2019 年 11 月在弗里蒙特開始生產。所以我只是有點好奇，Semi 和 Model Y 將於明年推出，您實際上打算在哪裡組裝這些車輛？

The Reuters report is based on nothing, like I don't know where that came from. We will not be starting production on Model Y at the end of next year. I would say it's probably closer to 24 months from now. So 2020 is more likely a prospect for Model Y, or early 2020. And the production location for Model Y has not been decided. We're really crowded here at Fremont. I don't know where we'd put the Model Y production. So it's difficult to imagine that. We just could not fit the Model Y production at Fremont. We are jammed to the gills here. So one thing I'm sure, it's not here. It is crazy packed, and we're -- yes. And so we'll try to figure out what the optimal location is for Model Y production, but it's not here, not here in Fremont.

路透社的報導毫無根據，我不知道它從何而來。我們不會在明年年底開始生產 Model Y。我想說可能距離現在還有 24 個月左右。因此，2020 年或 2020 年初更有可能是 Model Y 的上市年份。而Model Y的生產地點尚未確定。弗里蒙特這裡確實很擁擠。我不知道我們會把 Model Y 的生產放在哪裡。所以這很難想像。我們只是無法在弗里蒙特生產 Model Y。我們這裡擠滿了人。所以有一件事我很確定，它不在這裡。那裡擠滿了人，而且我們 — — 是的。因此，我們會嘗試找出生產 Model Y 的最佳地點，但不是這裡，不是在弗里蒙特。

Okay. And I'm not an expert in battery pack technology, but it seems that a lot of people are speculating that the specs for the Semi truck, even, I believe, the CEO of Daimler said it breaks the laws of physics. So I'm wondering is this just a linear...

好的。我不是電池組技術專家，但似乎很多人都在猜測 Semi 卡車的規格，甚至我相信戴姆勒的執行長也說它違反了物理定律。所以我想知道這是否只是線性的...

He doesn't know much about physics. I know him. I'm pretty happy you're engaged in a physics discussion with him. I actually studied physics in college.

他不太懂物理。我認識他。我很高興你和他進行物理討論。我實際上在大學學習的是物理。

So yes, my question is, is that just a linear improvement in your battery technology? Or is there some sort of new breakthrough or different platform that the Semi and Roadster are going to be built on?

是的，我的問題是，這只是電池技術的線性改進嗎？或者是否存在某種新的突破或不同的平台來打造 Semi 和 Roadster？

Like even if we didn't -- I mean, even if we didn't improve our battery technology at all, we could achieve a 500-mile range truck. At all. We're going to do better than 500 miles.

例如，即使我們沒有——我的意思是，即使我們根本沒有改進我們的電池技術，我們也可以實現 500 英里續航里程的卡車。一點兒也沒有。我們要做得比 500 英里更好。

Yes. This is J.B. I think the key point is it doesn't require some dramatic breakthrough that -- so there's a fundamental misunderstanding, I think, of what the current technology in our existing products can actually do. And maybe that's just a misunderstanding of the current status of the technology versus others in the industry. That could be where some of that's coming from. If they're benchmarking sort of the best battery pack they can buy from a supplier and then mapping that with what the Semi could do, it doesn't give you -- it doesn't solve. I think that's maybe where some of this is coming from. But we -- I mean, we basically have what we need in-house and understand how to do those specs today or better, as Elon said.

是的。這是 J.B。我認為關鍵點在於它不需要一些重大突破——因此，我認為，對於我們現有產品中的當前技術實際上能做什麼，存在著根本性的誤解。這或許只是對該技術相對於業界其他技術的現狀的誤解。這可能就是部分原因所在。如果他們對從供應商購買的最佳電池組進行基準測試，然後將其與 Semi 的功能進行匹配，那麼它不會給你答案——它不會解決問題。我想這也許就是部分原因。但是我們——我的意思是，我們基本上擁有我們內部所需的東西，並且知道如何在今天或更好地實現這些規格，正如埃隆所說的那樣。

We could do a 500-mile range Semi today. I think the actual production unit will be about 600-mile range.

我們今天可以製造續航里程為 500 英里的半拖車。我認為實際生產單位的續航里程約為 600 英里。

Awesome, great stuff. So I'm also wondering, are you guys going to let Porsche beat you to market with a 350-kilowatt hour Supercharger? Because I know you've mentioned a V3...

太棒了，很棒的東西。所以我還想知道，你們會讓保時捷搶先推出 350 千瓦時的增壓器嗎？因為我知道你有提到 V3...

We'll keep going until you ask questions that are not boring.

我們會繼續討論，直到您提出不無聊的問題。

Yes, I can keep going. So the 350-kilowatt charger from Porsche, like if they had mentioned they're rolling that out, on the lab call, J.B., you seemed to indicate that you guys were sort of going to keep the status quo with your Supercharger technology. But Elon, I know you've mentioned that there is a V3 Supercharger, so I'm just trying to get some clarity on whether you will be improving your Supercharger technology or not and if there is a V3.

是的，我可以繼續。因此，保時捷的 350 千瓦充電器，就好像他們在實驗室電話會議上提到他們正在推出這項技術一樣，J.B.，你似乎表示你們會保持超級充電技術的現狀。但埃隆，我知道你提到有 V3 超級充電器，所以我只是想弄清楚你是否會改進你的超級充電器技術，以及是否有 V3。

Well, we're definitely going to be improving our Supercharger technology. The thing about a 350-kilowatt charger is it doesn't actually make a ton of sense unless you've got a monster battery pack or have like a crazy high C-rate, in which case your energy density is going to be poor. So it's kind of cockamamie. Yes, I think maybe 200 -- on a -- also I don't know if you meant 350 kilowatts for a single car. That's really pretty -- you're going to frag the battery pack if you do that. There's no -- you cannot charge a high-energy battery pack at that rate unless it's a very high kilowatt-hour battery pack. So something along the -- yes, I think -- J.B., like a couple hundred -- 200, 250, maybe...

嗯，我們肯定會改進我們的增壓器技術。350 千瓦充電器的問題在於，它實際上沒有多大意義，除非你有一個怪物電池組或擁有瘋狂的高 C 率，在這種情況下你的能量密度會很差。所以這有點荒謬。是的，我想大概是 200 千瓦——另外，我不知道您的意思是一輛車的功率是不是 350 千瓦。這確實很漂亮——如果你這樣做的話，電池組就會損壞。沒有——你不能以那種速率為高能量電池組充電，除非它是一個非常高的千瓦時電池組。所以大概是 — — 是的，我想 — — J.B.，大概幾百 — — 200，250，也許…

Yes, I mean, that -- that's definitely sort of power level that we've discussed and explored. And some of it also comes down to an optimization around utility versus cost and trade-offs in the car itself. You kind of hinted at that, Elon, but there is a trade-off fundamentally between charge speed and essentially range or cost of battery. And we look at that pretty carefully. We understand the trade-off, and we could design cells in the pack that could charge it faster than 300, 400 kilowatts. But it's not a very useful trade-off to the customer. That's...

是的，我的意思是，那絕對是我們討論和探索過的某種功率水平。其中一部分也歸結為汽車本身的效用與成本的最佳化和權衡。伊隆，你暗示了這一點，但從根本上來說，充電速度和電池續航里程或成本之間存在著權衡。我們對此進行了非常仔細的檢視。我們了解其中的權衡，我們可以設計出充電速度快於 300、400 千瓦的電池組。但對於客戶來說，這並不是一個非常有用的權衡。那是...

Let's go to understand the difference between energy and power even, really. Energy -- obviously, energy's rate is essentially, at most, a range. And then power is kind of like your peak acceleration basically, the rate at which you consume energy. So really what -- it's more important to have long range than it is to have a superfast charge time. And you can sort of think about this in the devices that you use. Like would you rather have a cell phone that lasted 2 hours but had -- it could charge in 5 minutes or 10 minutes, let's say, but only lasted 2 hours. Or you'd like a cell phone that lasts 2 days and maybe takes 1 hour to charge.

讓我們真正去了解一下能量和功率之間的差異。能量－顯然，能量的速率本質上最多是一個範圍。那麼功率基本上就有點像你的峰值加速度，就是你消耗能量的速率。那麼實際上，長續航力比超快充電時間更重要。您可以在所使用的設備中思考這個問題。例如，您是否寧願擁有一部可以使用 2 小時的手機，但它可以在 5 分鐘或 10 分鐘內充電，但只能使用 2 小時。或者您想要一部可以使用兩天並且可能只需充電 1 小時的手機。

Our next...

我們的下一個...

Yes. I -- we'll keep going until we have quick questions on -- are still -- while they're interesting.

是的。我 — — 我們會繼續討論，直到我們得到一些簡短的問題 — — 這些問題仍然很有趣。

I have a couple more. For the Superchargers, I know you guys are not trying to profit off of Tesla owners with that infrastructure, but would you ever open that up to other automakers and try and generate revenue from that system?

我還有另外幾個。對於超級充電站，我知道你們並不是想利用該基礎設施從特斯拉車主身上獲利，但你們是否會向其他汽車製造商開放，並嘗試從該系統中獲取收入？

We've always said that we're -- this is not intended to be a walled garden, and we're happy to support other automakers and let them use our Supercharger stations. They would just need to pay the share of the cost proportionate to their vehicle usage. And they would need to be able to accept our charge rate or at least -- and our connector, at least have an adaptor to our connector. So this is something we're very open to, but so far none of the other car makers have wanted to do this. But it's like not because of opposition from us. This is not a walled garden. Trying to make a meritable share.

我們一直說，我們不想成為一個封閉的花園，我們很樂意支持其他汽車製造商並讓他們使用我們的超級充電站。他們只需支付與車輛使用情況相符的費用即可。他們需要能夠接受我們的充電率，或至少——我們的連接器，至少有一個適配器。所以我們對此持非常開放的態度，但到目前為止，其他汽車製造商都不願意這樣做。但這並不是因為我們的反對。這不是一個有圍牆的花園。盡力做出應有的貢獻。

Okay. And maybe could you clarify what's the strategy? Like it seems like that would be a very strong moat to have this, that work that you guys have been building globally for years. So why open it up, and why is that not a moat?

好的。您能否解釋一下該策略是什麼？看起來，這將是一條非常強大的護城河，你們多年來一直在全球範圍內致力於這項工作。那為什麼要開放它，為什麼這不是護城河？

Sorry. Can you repeat the question?

對不起。你能重複一下這個問題嗎？

I'm just wondering why that isn't a moat because as a long-term investor, I feel like the charging infrastructure you guys have built would take years and millions of dollars for another brand to replicate. So I'm just curious about the strategic thinking behind opening that up versus keeping it closed.

我只是想知道為什麼這不是護城河，因為作為一名長期投資者，我覺得你們建立的充電基礎設施需要花費數年時間和數百萬美元才能被其他品牌複製。所以我只是好奇開放和關閉背後的戰略思想。

First of all, I think moats are lame. I mean, they're like nice and sort of quaint in a vestigial way. But like if your only defense against like invading armies is a moat, you will not last long. What matters is the pace of innovation. That is the fundamental determinant of competitiveness. And for any given company, if the rate of innovation -- let's say, like our competitors, maybe they're -- they come out with something near every 6 years. We're maybe every 2 to 3 years. So if our innovation is, let's say, twice that of any given competitor, then it is simply -- this is true of, generally, of companies in any industry. Whichever company has the highest rate of innovation, unless that company is actively killed by its competitors in some way that's nefarious or shoots itself in the foot, it will, at some point, exceed those competitors. Like this is obvious that this would occur with Amazon or Walmart, because Walmart's rate of innovation was negligible and Amazon's was very high. The outcome was obvious a long time ago.

首先，我認為護城河是無用的。我的意思是，它們看起來很漂亮，而且有點古雅，就像是殘留的痕跡。但是，如果您抵禦入侵軍隊的唯一防禦手段是護城河，那麼您將無法堅持太久。重要的是創新的步伐。這是競爭力的根本決定因素。對於任何一家公司來說，如果創新速度——比如說，像我們的競爭對手，也許他們——他們大約每 6 年就會推出一些東西。我們可能每 2 到 3 年一次。因此，如果我們的創新是任何特定競爭對手的兩倍，那麼這很簡單 - 通常對於任何行業的公司來說都是如此。無論哪家公司的創新率最高，除非該公司被競爭對手以某種邪惡的方式主動扼殺或搬起石頭砸自己的腳，否則它最終都會超越那些競爭對手。很明顯，這種情況會發生在亞馬遜或沃爾瑪身上，因為沃爾瑪的創新率微乎其微，而亞馬遜的創新率非常高。結果早就顯而易見了。

And in terms of the Megacharger, I noticed you guys are going to be selling energy at a fixed price for those truck customers. So I'm wondering what the philosophy is there. Is it also you're going offer that at cost and reduce that energy price? Or are you thinking of that as a revenue stream for the company?

關於 Megacharger，我注意到你們將以固定價格向卡車客戶出售能源。所以我想知道其中的哲學是什麼。您是否也會以成本價提供該服務並降低能源價格？還是您認為這是公司的收入來源？

We haven't really talked about any of that and haven't finalized, frankly, any of that. It's -- we want to make sure that there's a very seamless and easy system to operate trucks wherever they need to go. And some customers may elect to work with us on the whole system or parts of it. But I think there's a lot of different ways that, that can be solved.

我們還沒有真正談論過這些事情，坦白說，也沒有最終確定這些事情。我們希望確保有一個非常無縫且簡單的系統來操作卡車，無論它們要去哪裡。有些客戶可能會選擇與我們合作開發整個系統或部分系統。但我認為有很多不同的方法可以解決這個問題。

Yes. I mean, for sure, with commercial trucking like a heavy-duty Semi, economics are fundamental to that situation. We're not making decisions based on aesthetics or consumer-related things. We're -- like we made our -- we're trying to make our Semi kind of cool and sexy just because we think that that's a good thing to do, not because it affects the buying decision of our customers in a meaningful way. It doesn't really move the needle. I mean, there was like a laughable lawsuit recently from some company ironically called Nikola. It's like Nikola is suing Tesla. That's hilarious. Fate loves the irony. And -- but they're like suing us because of the way the trucks look, which is absurd. Nobody's buying a Semi truck because of the way it looks or because it's got like a wraparound windshield or whatever, please. So the economics are incredibly important. And so we have to make sure that the Superchargers or Megachargers, whatever you call them, or the trucks are set up in a way that you'd have very low cost of electricity.

是的。我的意思是，對於重型半拖車這樣的商用卡車來說，經濟性是根本。我們不會根據美學或與消費者相關的事情來做決定。我們——就像我們製造的——我們試圖讓我們的 Semi 變得很酷很性感，只是因為我們認為這是一件好事，而不是因為它會以有意義的方式影響我們客戶的購買決定。它實際上並沒有起到什麼作用。我的意思是，最近有一家名為 Nikola 的公司提起了一起可笑的訴訟。這就像尼古拉起訴特斯拉一樣。太搞笑了。命運喜歡諷刺。而且——但他們卻因為卡車的外觀而起訴我們，這太荒謬了。拜託，沒人會因為半掛卡車的外觀或它有環繞式擋風玻璃之類的而購買它。因此，經濟學極為重要。因此，我們必須確保超級充電站或巨型充電站（無論你怎麼稱呼它們）或卡車的設置方式能夠使電力成本非常低。

I mean, one maybe slightly related point to that, that I think is super exciting about this is the potential to link up renewable energy generation at a very fixed and also very affordable cost to power future trucking fleets. Ultimately, that can give customers an incredibly deterministic cost per mile that will not change with the price of petroleum over decades, which is really, really an interesting proposition for a trucking customer. And that's something that we're pretty excited about.

我的意思是，與此可能稍微相關的一點是，我認為這是非常令人興奮的，即有可能以非常固定且非常實惠的成本將可再生能源發電連接起來，為未來的卡車車隊提供動力。最終，這可以為客戶提供非常確定的每英里成本，並且該成本不會隨著幾十年的石油價格而改變，這對卡車運輸客戶來說確實是一個非常有趣的提議。這讓我們非常興奮。

Yes, exactly. It's really worth emphasizing that. For trucking companies, like if the cost of diesel goes up a few cents, it just like destroys their business. And whereas with the sort of Megacharger situation, combining -- having basically a solar battery-powered Megacharger, we have -- there are constant costs and we know what they are; we bake them in. And yes, it's very predictable and lower cost per mile than a diesel truck. And fundamentally, it's like what is the cost per mile kilometer of cargo? And that drives the commercial trucking market. You can have the ugliest truck in the world and it still would be victorious.

是的，確實如此。這一點確實值得強調。對卡車運輸公司來說，如果柴油價格上漲幾美分，就會毀掉他們的生意。而對於 Megacharger 的情況，結合——我們基本上有一個由太陽能電池供電的 Megacharger——存在固定成本，我們知道這些成本是多少；我們將其計入。是的，它非常可預測，而且每英里的成本比柴油卡車更低。從根本上來說，這就像每英里公里的貨物運輸成本是多少？這推動了商業卡車運輸市場的發展。即使你擁有世界上最醜的卡車，它仍然會贏。

Yes. And building on that, do you have any thoughts on how the trucking market could change or potentially grow if you guys are actually able to deliver on dramatic cost reduction, especially with things like platooning?

是的。在此基礎上，如果你們真的能夠大幅降低成本，特別是透過車隊行駛等方式，那麼你們對卡車運輸市場將如何變化或潛在成長有何看法？

I think it will take away quite a bit of revenue from railway because the reason rail's heavily competitive is it's effectively just platooning with lots of railcars. And you need only a small crew to operate the train. However, trains don't go everywhere. So you have to like have a truck to deliver things to the train rail spur and then pick stuff -- pick it up. And then at the destination, the truck's got to pick it up from the rail spur over there. So you still have trucks plus train plus transfer. So I think platooning of trucks will quite dramatically affect the rail industry in a negative way.

我認為它將從鐵路部門奪走相當多的收入，因為鐵路競爭激烈的原因是它實際上只是由大量的火車車廂組成的車隊。而且只需要少數工作人員就可以操作火車。然而，火車並不是到處都去。所以你必須用一輛卡車把東西運送到火車軌道支線，然後取貨——把它撿起來。然後到達目的地後，卡車必須從那邊的鐵路支線上取貨。所以你仍然有卡車加火車加轉運。所以我認為卡車排隊將對鐵路行業產生相當大的負面影響。

Okay. Last one, I promise. On Tesla Energy, I assume that you guys are basically supply constrained, not demand constrained on that side of the business. So I'm wondering how you're prioritizing residential versus utility scale. And in particular, how has this successful project in South Australia sort of changed the industry's perception of what batteries can do?

好的。最後一個，我保證。對於特斯拉能源，我認為你們基本上是受到供應限制，而不是業務需求限制。所以我想知道您如何確定住宅規模與公用事業規模的優先順序。特別是，南澳大利亞的這個成功計畫如何改變了業界對電池功能的看法？

Yes, I think it's had quite a profound effect. The -- there's -- South Australia took a chance on doing the world's biggest battery. That's worked out really well. If you read the articles, it's worked out far beyond their expectations because the battery's able to respond at the millisecond level, far faster than any hydrocarbon plant. And so it's value and good stabilization is much greater actually than even a gas turbine plant, which can normally respond quite fast. So it's kind of like you get in a Tesla and you can -- you have that instant acceleration. Feels like you like have -- also like a mind meld with the car. It's just like the car is you. And then that same rapid response is true of the battery pack. So the customers that -- the utilities that worked with us thus far have really loved the battery pack. And I feel confident that we'll be able to announce a deal at the gigawatt-hour scale within a matter of months. So it's a 1,000 gigawatts -- megawatt-hours -- 1,000 megawatt-hours for [zeroing gigawatt-hours].

是的，我認為它的影響相當深遠。南澳大利亞州冒險建造了世界上最大的電池。效果確實很好。如果你讀過這些文章，你會發現它的效果遠遠超出了他們的預期，因為電池的反應速度達到毫秒級，比任何碳氫化合物工廠都要快得多。因此，它的價值和良好的穩定性實際上比通常響應速度相當快的燃氣渦輪機裝置要大得多。這有點像你坐進一輛特斯拉，然後你就能瞬間加速。感覺就像你與汽車的心靈融為一體。就好像汽車就是你一樣。電池組也具有相同的快速反應。因此，迄今為止與我們合作的公用事業公司客戶都非常喜歡這個電池組。我相信我們能夠在幾個月內宣布一項千兆瓦時規模的交易。因此，它是 1,000 千兆瓦 - 兆瓦時 - 1,000 兆瓦時 [將千兆瓦時歸零]。

Yes, maybe just for the first part of your question also, it is absolutely accurate that we are still -- there's more than enough demand. And we are still building under our demand backlog and actually increasing it slightly. And we're trying to do our best to prioritize customers between residential Powerwall and utility and commercial. I'd say our longer-term strategy is to shift a little bit of our focus and really catch up on our Powerwall demand backlog, which is quite -- it's too long right now. We know people are waiting too long. So that's -- I think that's generally the direction we're trying to take that. But Model 3 has taken a lot of focus in the last few quarters, and that trend is going to be reversing in the second half of the year.

是的，也許只是對於你問題的第一部分來說，這是絕對準確的，我們仍然有足夠的需求。我們仍在根據需求積壓進行建設，實際上還略有增加。我們正在盡力在住宅 Powerwall、公用事業和商業之間優先考慮客戶。我想說，我們的長期策略是稍微轉移一下我們的注意力，真正解決 Powerwall 需求積壓問題，而且目前積壓的時間太長了。我們知道人們等待的時間太長了。所以——我認為這就是我們努力的方向。但 Model 3 在過去幾季中吸引了大量關注，這種趨勢將在今年下半年發生逆轉。

Let's go to the next question, please.

請讓我們進入下一個問題。

Our next question comes from Phil LeBeau with CNBC.

我們的下一個問題來自 CNBC 的 Phil LeBeau。

Elon, question on the Tesla Semi. Can you give us some perspective in terms of how many reservations you guys have now, and where you guys are in the plan for developing it and rolling out the first model?

伊隆，關於特斯拉半掛卡車的問題。您能否向我們介紹一下您現在有多少保留意見，以及您在開發和推出第一個模型的計劃中處於什麼位置？

My apologies, sorry. We're just discussing something internally. Could you repeat that question?

抱歉，抱歉。我們只是在內部討論一些事情。你能重複一下這個問題嗎？

With the Tesla Semi, how many reservations do you guys now have approximately? And where are you in the process as far as the development and the rollout of the first model in terms of time line when you guys expect that to happen, et cetera?

就特斯拉 Semi 而言，你們現在大約有多少預訂？就第一款車型的開發和推出時程而言，你們目前處於什麼階段？你們預計什麼時候推出第一款車型？

I actually don't know how many reservations we have for the Semi. I don't think...

我實際上不知道我們有多少 Semi 的預訂。我不認為...

About 2,000.

大約2000。

About 2,000? Okay. I mean, we haven't really tried to sell the Semi. It's not like there's like an ongoing sales effort. So sales orders are -- for the Semi are like opportunistic, more like companies approaching us. It's just not something we really think about much. Our focus is on the Model 3. We need to get that to above 5,000 a week at a good margin. We need to become a profitable company. That is a good criticism that has been leveled at Tesla, an accurate one. It's high time we became profitable. And the truth is like you're not a real company until you are, frankly. So that's our focus right now. And then -- so we've got an awesome product road map. The Tesla Semi is one of those things. And I think we've got a really good idea for the -- the Model Y is going to be amazing. I'm really excited about that. Tesla pickup's going to be great. So the product road map -- I mean, we have like way more cool things than we know what to do. Like the idea is -- idea generation part to devoted to execute it. So we just need to stay focused and not divide our attention on too many products at one time.

大約2000？好的。我的意思是，我們還沒有真正嘗試銷售 Semi。這並不像是一種持續的銷售活動。因此，對 Semi 來說，銷售訂單就像是機會主義的，更像是公司在與我們接觸。我們並沒有真正考慮過這個問題。我們的重點是 Model 3。我們需要將其產量提高到每週 5,000 輛以上，並保持良好的利潤率。我們需要成為一家獲利的公司。這是對特斯拉的一個很好的批評，而且是一個準確的批評。我們現在是時候獲利了。事實是，坦白說，除非你是一家真正的公司，否則你就不算是一家真正的公司。這就是我們現在的重點。然後——我們就有了一個很棒的產品路線圖。特斯拉 Semi 就是其中之一。我認為我們有一個非常好的想法——Model Y 將會非常棒。我對此感到非常興奮。特斯拉皮卡將會非常棒。所以產品路線圖——我的意思是，我們擁有的酷東西比我們知道的要多得多。就像這個想法一樣——想法的產生部分要致力於執行它。所以我們只需要保持專注，不要同時將注意力分散在太多產品上。

And a follow-up. When -- given the fact that you're already packed to the gills in Fremont, when will you make a decision regarding a second manufacturing facility?

以及後續行動。鑑於弗里蒙特工廠已經人滿為患，您什麼時候會就第二家製造工廠做出決定？

So the -- that's probably later this year. It has to be later this year. So I'm not sure of the exact time, but I don't know, maybe next quarter but not later than fourth quarter for Model Y. And then we also expect to announce the location of the Tesla Gigafactory in China soon.

所以——那可能是在今年晚些時候。必須在今年晚些時候。所以我不確定具體的時間，但我不知道，也許是下個季度，但不會晚於 Model Y 的第四季。然後我們也預計很快就會宣布特斯拉在中國的超級工廠的位置。

And will that second factory, when you announce it, will it be in North America or is that going to be in China?

當您宣布第二家工廠時，它會建在北美還是中國？

Well, I just said it's in China.

嗯，我剛才說了它在中國。

So the Gigafactory's there, but the second manufacturing plant will be in China as well?

那麼超級工廠在那裡，但第二家製造廠也會在中國嗎？

Sorry. Oh, I mean, yes -- sorry. In the future, all Gigafactories will include vehicle production. So right now, we've got vehicle production and battery production -- like battery production and motor and power electronics and charger production are at Giga and they'll be at our Fremont car factory. But future Gigafactories will all incorporate vehicle production. Please add to the fact things like that -- that we appreciate -- we're appreciative of the fact that the government of China has announced that they will be allowing full ownership of manufacturing facilities in China. We still have to express an order of appreciation to the Chinese government in that regard. I should also -- Robin, is there anything that you'd like to say or anything?

對不起。哦，我的意思是，是的——抱歉。未來，所有超級工廠都將包括汽車生產。因此，目前，我們的汽車生產和電池生產——例如電池生產、電機、電力電子設備和充電器生產都在 Giga 進行，並且它們將在我們的弗里蒙特汽車工廠進行。但未來的超級工廠都將包含汽車生產。請補充這樣的事實——我們很感激——我們很感激中國政府宣布將允許中國完全擁有製造工廠。在這方面我們還是要向中國政府表達感謝的。我還應該──羅賓，你還有什麼想說的嗎？

Well, we're already in good discussion with the government, so we'll announce something when we'd like.

嗯，我們已經與政府進行了很好的討論，所以我們會在我們願意的時候宣布一些消息。

Okay. So Robin Ren's here with me. Robin is managing worldwide sales for Tesla right now. He was born and raised in China. Won the physics Olympiad in his circle. Anyway -- but we'll talk more about -- I think the next earnings call or next -- we'll have a lot more to say about that in the future.

好的。所以 Robin Ren 和我在一起。羅賓目前負責特斯拉的全球銷售。他在中國出生長大。在他的圈子裡贏得了物理奧林匹克競賽。無論如何——但我們會更多地談論——我認為下一次財報電話會議或下一次——我們將來會對此有更多話要說。

Our next question comes from James Albertine with Consumer Edge.

我們的下一個問題來自 Consumer Edge 的 James Albertine。

And if I can be brief, I wanted to ask, given the coverage that you've received as it relates to these high-profile accidents, one of the things we like most about your company is you have the most miles tested and continue to test daily from an Autopilot perspective. Can you give us any color from what you're seeing in your data as it relates to the confidence that your consumers have in the Autopilot functionality, whether they've used it more or less frequently in their existing vehicles or whether they've opted to purchase the functionality more or less in lieu of these accidents? Because we're really trying to get ahead a sense of consumer sort of -- the ability or the likelihood of consumers to adopt this technology over time. So this would be very helpful.

如果我可以簡短地問一下，考慮到你們對這些備受矚目的事故的報道，我們最喜歡你們公司的一點是，你們的測試里程最多，並且每天都在從自動駕駛儀的角度進行測試。您能否根據數據告訴我們消費者對自動駕駛功能的信心，他們在現有車輛中使用該功能的頻率是增加還是減少，或者他們是否選擇購買該功能以彌補這些事故？因為我們確實在努力了解消費者的某種意識——消費者隨著時間的推移採用這項技術的能力或可能性。所以這會非常有幫助。

We do see a steady increase in the number of percentage of miles driven with using Autopilot. As we roll out more functionality, as we make it better, we see a steady increase. I think it's something -- for cars equipped with Autopilot, something on the order of 1/3 of highway miles, maybe closer -- maybe 1/2 in some cases are -- in some regions are on Autopilot. But then, of course, when there's like negative news in the press, then that dips. And then I was like, "Okay, this is not good because people are reading things in the press that cause them to use Autopilot less, and then that makes it dangerous for our customers and that's not cool." That's why I get upset. And then we get accused of blaming the victim. I was like, "Look, we're not blaming the victim here, but it is important that people not be under the wrong impression." The statistics are unequivocal that Autopilots improve safety. No question. In fact, one thing I was going to mention, forgot to but also going to mention, is that we'll be publishing our safety statistics on a quarterly basis so people know exactly what Autopilot safety is. Is it getting better? Is it getting worse? And it's like, look, coloring those impressions is that when there is a serious accident on Autopilot, people, for some reason, think that -- or some of the articles think that it's because the driver thought the car was fully autonomous and it wasn't, and we somehow misled them into thinking it was fully autonomous. It is the opposite case. When there is a serious accident, it is almost always, in fact, maybe always the case that it is an experienced user. And the issue is what -- more one of complacency, like we get too used to it, that tends to be more of an issue. It's not a lack of understanding of what Autopilot can do. It's actually thinking they know more about Autopilot than they do, like quite a significant understanding of it, but there's less, [maybe less].

我們確實看到使用自動駕駛儀行駛的里程百分比穩定增加。隨著我們推出更多功能，使其變得更好，我們看到了穩定的成長。我認為，對於配備自動駕駛儀的汽車來說，大約是高速公路里程的 1/3，可能更接近——在某些情況下可能是 1/2——在某些地區啟用自動駕駛儀。但是，當然，當媒體上出現負面新聞時，這種趨勢就會下降。然後我就想，「好吧，這不太好，因為人們在媒體上讀到的東西導致他們減少使用自動駕駛儀，這會給我們的客戶帶來危險，這很不酷。」這就是我感到不安的原因。然後我們又被指責指責受害者。我當時想，「聽著，我們並不是在責怪受害者，但重要的是不要讓人們產生錯誤的印象。」統計數據明確表明，自動駕駛儀確實提高了安全性。毫無疑問。事實上，有一件事我想提一下，雖然忘了但還是想提一下，那就是我們將每季發布一次我們的安全統計數據，以便人們確切地知道什麼是自動駕駛儀安全。有好轉嗎？情況變得更糟了嗎？就像，你看，當自動駕駛儀發生嚴重事故時，人們出於某種原因認為——或者一些文章認為這是因為司機認為汽車是完全自動駕駛的，但事實並非如此，我們以某種方式誤導他們認為它是完全自動駕駛的。事實恰恰相反。當發生嚴重事故時，幾乎總是，事實上，可能總是有經驗的使用者發生這種情況。問題在於——更多的是自滿，就像我們太習慣它了，這往往是一個更大的問題。這並不是對 Autopilot 功能缺乏了解。實際上，他們認為他們對 Autopilot 的了解比實際情況要多，好像對它有相當深入的了解，但實際上了解較少，[可能較少]。

Just to clarify, Elon, so you've got 2 accidents spaced out pretty far. You've had dips during those periods when the accidents occurred. But to clarify your comments, you are increasing use -- you're seeing increasing usage and you've weathered those dips based on where we are today?

埃隆，需要澄清的是，兩起事故之間的間隔相當長。在事故發生的那段時期，你們的境況就有些低迷。但為了澄清您的評論，您正在增加使用量 - 您看到使用量正在增加，並且根據我們目前的情況，您已經度過了這些低谷？

That is correct.

沒錯。

Our next question comes from Ben Kallo with Baird.

我們的下一個問題來自貝爾德公司的本·卡洛。

So I remember the Barron's story, I don't know if it was fake news or not, which you hung up on about your battery cost. And I don't want to ask a mundane question, so -- but I think it's important because one of your stakeholders are shareholders right now. And so far, we've had a couple pushouts in production. And is there a way that you can update us when you get to that 3,000 number or 4,000 number per week? I mean, you -- you're active on Twitter. Can you just let us know? Because -- we're going to have a big vacuum here and there's a lot of news flow out there that makes volatility into the stock. It makes it hard for people to own even though you have a lot of believers out there. And so even though it would be in my office right now, I think it's very important to get those kind of updates. And so that's -- I think that's my question. Can you give us an update when you get to 3,000 and 4,000 per week on the Model 3?

所以我記得《巴倫周刊》的報道，我不知道這是否是假新聞，你對電池成本的問題一直耿耿於懷。我不想問一個平凡的問題，所以——但我認為這很重要，因為你們的利害關係人之一現在是股東。到目前為止，我們已經在生產中推出了幾款產品。當每週達到 3,000 或 4,000 個數字時，您能告訴我們最新情況嗎？我的意思是，你——你在 Twitter 上很活躍。你能告訴我們嗎？因為－這裡將會出現一個巨大的真空，而且有許多新聞流會為股票帶來波動。儘管有許多信徒，人們仍然很難擁有它。因此，即使它現在在我的辦公室，我認為獲取此類更新非常重要。這就是——我想這就是我的問題。當 Model 3 的周產量達到 3,000 至 4,000 輛時，您能告訴我們最新消息嗎？

Yes. Actually, the -- what's -- Tesla's such a leaky server of information that I think the news will leak pretty quickly. Also people track registrations very closely. So at most, any information that we provide would be 1 week or 2 in advance of what will become public knowledge just due to vehicle registrations and shipments that are tracked very carefully. So that really, the problem is like people get too focused on like what's happening in the space of a few weeks or a few months. This is -- it's an old maxim of investing, you should not be focused on short-term things. You should be focused on long-term things. We have no interest in satisfying the desires of day traders, like we couldn't care less. Please sell our stock and don't buy it.

是的。實際上，特斯拉的資訊伺服器非常容易洩露，我認為訊息會很快洩露。人們也會密切追蹤註冊情況。因此，由於車輛登記和貨運情況都會受到非常仔細的跟踪，因此，我們提供的任何資訊都會比公眾所知的資訊提前 1 週或 2 週。所以，真正的問題在於人們過度專注於幾週或幾個月內發生的事情。這是一條古老的投資格言，你不應該只專注在短期的事情上。你應該專注於長遠的事情。我們對滿足日內交易者的慾望不感興趣，好像我們根本不在乎。請賣掉我們的股票，不要買。

I completely understand your frustrations, and I'm frustrated too on how myopic we are right now. They also say that great years are made out of quarters and great decades are made out of years. So everyone's short-term focused in some ways ,and volatility has a way of taking people out even if they are strong and want to be there. And so anything you can to do to help in the near term on that, I think it's helpful for the stock.

我完全理解你的沮喪，我也對我們目前的短視感到沮喪。人們還說，偉大的年份是由幾個季度組成的，偉大的十年是由幾年組成的。因此，每個人在某些方面都注重短期利益，波動性會以某種方式將人們趕出市場，即使他們很強大並且想要留在市場。因此，我認為，在短期內你能採取的任何措施都會對股票有幫助。

I mean, I think that if people are concerned about volatility, they should definitely not buy our stock. I am not here to convince you to buy our stock. Do not buy it if volatility is scary. There you go.

我的意思是，我認為如果人們擔心波動性，他們絕對不應該購買我們的股票。我在這裡並不是為了說服您購買我們的股票。如果波動性令人擔憂，就不要購買。就這樣。

Okay. And let's go to our last question now.

好的。現在我們來討論最後一個問題。

Our last question comes from Alex Potter with Piper Jaffray.

我們的最後一個問題來自 Piper Jaffray 的 Alex Potter。

Not sure if this is going to be a hard question to answer. You mentioned Model 3 market share versus the 3 Series and others in that segment. To what extent do you think Model 3 is, I guess, changing the denominator, making that segment larger as a class versus what it used to be?

不確定這是否是一個難以回答的問題。您提到了 Model 3 的市佔率與 3 係以及該領域其他車款的市佔率。您認為 Model 3 在多大程度上改變了分母，使這個細分市場的規模比以前更大了？

I think it will probably increase the total number of sedans purchased, yes. Yes, I think so.

我認為它可能會增加轎車的總購買數量，是的。是的，我認為是這樣。

So you think you're pulling ex Accord buyers and Camry buyers into that class, as example?

那麼，您認為您正在將前雅閣 (Accord) 買家和凱美瑞 (Camry) 買家拉入這一類別嗎？

Yes, we know this because of the trade-ins. So we see quite a wide range of cars (inaudible) a lot of trading in the cars. They're not necessarily owners of a C-Class or an Audi A4 or a 3 Series.

是的，我們透過以舊換新知道這一點。因此，我們看到各種各樣的汽車（聽不清楚），很多汽車在交易。他們不一定是 C 級車、奧迪 A4 或 3 系列車的車主。

We saw signs of trade-in with Model S, so with Model 3 it's going to be even more prominent.

我們在 Model S 上看到了以舊換新的跡象，因此對於 Model 3 來說，這種跡象將更加明顯。

Yes, yes, exactly. And I think -- like also, once we get to like the shared autonomy, ride-hailing thing, we -- it could be as soon as the end of next year, but that's already technically ready. But then not long after that, I would expect some jurisdictions to give regulatory approval. The effective cost of ownership of a Model 3 or Tesla drops dramatically because you can share that car with others.

是的，是的，確實如此。而且我認為，一旦我們開始喜歡共享自動駕駛和叫車服務，我們可能最早在明年年底就能實現，但技術上已經準備好了。但不久之後，我預計一些司法管轄區將給予監管批准。由於您可以與他人共享汽車，因此 Model 3 或 Tesla 的實際擁有成本大幅下降。

Okay. Very interesting. Last one. You mentioned earlier, you think the Model Y production is going to be a true sort of production revolution. If you had to do the Model 3 over again, there are some things that you would have changed, and you hope to incorporate those learnings into the Model Y. What specifically would you do or what specifically do you plan to do?

好的。非常有趣。最後一個。您之前提到，您認為 Model Y 的生產將是一場真正的生產革命。如果您必須重新設計 Model 3，您將改變一些東西，並且您希望將這些經驗融入 Model Y 中。您具體會做什麼，或您具體計劃做什麼？

Well, I think let's save that for another time. Like we'll talk about that when we unveil the Model Y. But it's really going to be dramatically better. The design and production system, I think, really will be next level.

好吧，我想我們還是留到下次再討論吧。就像我們在發布 Model Y 時會談論這一點一樣。但它確實會變得更好。我認為設計和生產系統確實將會達到更高的水準。

(inaudible) bottom line.

（聽不清楚）底線。

All right. Thanks a lot. Thanks. Thanks, everyone. Appreciate the good questions.

好的。多謝。謝謝。謝謝大家。感謝這些好的問題。

Okay. It's unfortunately all the time we have, so thank you very much, and speak to you next quarter. Thank you very much, and goodbye.

好的。不幸的是我們的時間已經所剩無幾了，所以非常感謝您，我們下個季度再與您聯繫。非常感謝，再見。

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may all disconnect, and have a wonderful day.

女士們、先生們，感謝大家參加今天的會議。該計劃確實就此結束。你們都可以斷開連接，享受美好的一天。