[electrico]

According to Torque News Tesla Took 2 Important Steps Forward This Week and This Is When It Will Emerge as a Brilliant Car Company

First, the production number of Model 3 doubled and Tesla is producing about 2,000 Model 3 vehicles per week. Now they want to double that and get to 10,000 Model 3s per week. And that number will double again. If this happens, consider that Tesla is about 40% through the woods.


The second is the cache piece that the investors are concerned about in case Tesla runs out of cache. "That's not going to be the case, at least in 2018," says Munster in the video interview, which you can watch below. In other words, Tesla is knocking around the cache in 2018.

 

[brian_]

According to Torque News Tesla Took 2 Important Steps Forward This Week and This Is When It Will Emerge as a Brilliant Car Company

First, the production number of Model 3 doubled and Tesla is producing about 2,000 Model 3 vehicles per week. Now they want to double that and get to 10,000 Model 3s per week. And that number will double again. If this happens, consider that Tesla is about 40% through the woods.

Double 2,000 is 4,000. Double that again and you have 8,000... except at Torque News, where it is 10,000. Now that's creative math.

The article doesn't actually contain the quoted statement, so it must have been fixed after electrico quoted it. The text currently reads:

First, the production number of Model 3s doubled over the last three months and Tesla is now producing about 2,000 Model 3 vehicles per week. Tesla plans to double production again over the next three months to 4,000 cars per week. The production rate will continue to be increased until Tesla reaches their ultimate goal of 10,000 vehicles per week. When Tesla reaches this next goal of 4,000 cars per week, they will be considered as 40% through the woods towards their target rate.

 

[Emyr]

I wouldn't trust information from a writer who can't differentiate between "cash" and "cache".

 

[PhantomPholly]

I wouldn't trust information from a writer who can't differentiate between "cash" and "cache".

I believe the intent was to reference a cache (accumulation) of cash (money) in the bank (the original cash from successive rounds of fundraising).

Without a cache, you will have no cash!

 

[brian_]

I wouldn't trust information from a writer who can't differentiate between "cash" and "cache".

That's another error that was corrected between electrico's original post and now.

I believe the intent was to reference a cache (accumulation) of cash (money) in the bank (the original cash from successive rounds of fundraising).

Not a chance. The original wording is ridiculous, and the new wording eliminates all occurrences of "cache".

The quality of writing in Torque News is often very low.