Tesla's Next Gen Compact Vehicle // Stainless Steel vs Paint

Welcome back everyone, I'm Jordan Geisigee and this is The Limiting Factor. Since Tesla unveiled the unboxed process to produce their third-generation vehicle platform last year, there's been a lot of speculation about whether vehicles using that process and platform, such as the Robotaxian Compact Vehicle, would be painted or use stainless steel like the Cybertruck. That speculation intensified when Matthew Donnegan Ryan confirmed a couple of days later that he spoke with Tom Jew of Tesla and asked if the third-generation vehicles would be painted or stainless steel, to which Tom reportedly replied with a smirk and said, paint is expensive. And of course, beyond stainless steel or paint, there are also people who believe that plastic may be the best option for Tesla's future vehicles. So who's correct? Today I'll walk you through the positives and negatives of paint, stainless steel, and plastic, and which I think is the most likely based on factors like cost, manufacturing speed, scalability, and broad customer appeal.

大家好，欢迎回来，我是乔丹·盖西吉（Jordan Geisigee），这里是《限制因素》。自特斯拉去年公布了生产第三代车辆平台的未包装过程以来，关于使用该过程和平台的车辆，比如机器人出租车紧凑型车辆，是否会像Cybertruck一样涂漆或使用不锈钢，引发了许多猜测。当马修·多尼根·瑞恩（Matthew Donnegan Ryan）几天后证实他与特斯拉的汤姆·杰伊（Tom Jew）交谈，并询问第三代车辆是否会涂漆或使用不锈钢时，汤姆据说冷笑着回答说涂漆很贵。当然，除了不锈钢或涂漆，也有人认为塑料可能是特斯拉未来车辆的最佳选择。那么谁是对的呢？今天我将为您介绍涂漆、不锈钢和塑料的优缺点，以及我基于成本、制造速度、可扩展性和广泛顾客吸引力等因素认为哪种可能性最大。

Before we begin, a special thanks to my Patreon supporters, YouTube members and Twitter subscribers, as well as RebellionAir.com. They specialize in helping investors manage concentrated positions. There can help with covered calls, risk management, and creating a money master plan from your financial first principles. Additionally, for this video, I'd like to thank Scott Walter and Dr. Noedal for debating the advantages and disadvantages of these technologies with me on X. I highly recommend following Scott and Dr. Noedal on X if you're interested in engineering and manufacturing. I hope that each of us had different views on which material was the best for vehicle bodies, and that this video contains my conclusions after doing my own research. But as usual, I'll share my assumptions along the way so you can form your own view.

在我们开始之前，特别感谢我的Patreon支持者、YouTube会员和Twitter订阅者，以及RebellionAir.com。他们专门帮助投资者管理集中持仓。他们可以提供有关备兑认购、风险管理，以及根据您的金融第一原则制定财务规划。另外，在这个视频中，我要感谢Scott Walter和Dr.Noedal与我在X上就这些技术的优缺点进行辩论。如果您对工程和制造感兴趣，我强烈建议关注Scott和Dr.Noedal在X上的动态。希望我们每个人对哪种材料最适合车身有不同看法，本视频包含了我在做了自己的研究后得出的结论。但像往常一样，我会在过程中分享我的假设，让您自己形成看法。

Let's first look at how much it costs to paint a vehicle. A quick Google search usually returns this article from A's own materials as the first hit, which states that painting a vehicle makes up 30% of the production cost. But if that were true, it would mean that the paint job of the average Tesla would cost about $12,000 at the factory. That obviously can't be right because a showroom quality paint job at an aftermarket paint shop can cost as little as $2,500. A paint job from the factory should be cheaper because it's automated and uses high throughput high efficiency processes.

让我们首先看看给车辆喷漆的成本。通过快速的谷歌搜索，你通常会看到 A 公司的一篇文章，其中指出车辆喷漆占据了生产成本的30%。但如果这是真的，那意味着一个普通特斯拉的喷漆作业在工厂里大约要花费12000美元。显然这不可能，因为一个售后喷漆店的高质量喷漆作业可能仅需2500美元。工厂里的喷漆应该更便宜，因为它是自动化的，并且使用了高吞吐高效率的工艺。

For digging a bit deeper, I found a presentation published by Fraunhofer in 2011 that indicated a paint cost of 3-500 euros per unit. Fraunhofer is an industrial research institute, so that cost range is likely to be about as accurate as we can get. But given that it was in euros and over a decade old, I adjusted for inflation and converted to US dollars and arrived at $630 to $1,050 per unit. His third-generation vehicle platform is expected to include a robo-taxi that may or may not be sold to the public, and a vehicle that costs about $25,000 that is sold to the public.

为了深入了解一些细节，我找到了Fraunhofer在2011年发布的一份报告，其中指出每单位涂料成本为3-500欧元。Fraunhofer是一个工业研究所，所以这个成本范围可能是我们能得到的最准确的数据。但考虑到这是以欧元表示且已有十多年的历史，我考虑了通货膨胀并转换成美元，得出每单位为630至1050美元。 他的第三代车辆平台预计将包括一款可能或可能不会向公众销售的机器人出租车，以及一辆成本约为25,000美元的面向公众销售的车辆。

To keep things simple, given that both of those are likely to be low-cost, small vehicles, let's refer to them singularly as the compact vehicle. For a compact vehicle, we'd likely be looking at the lower end of the $630 to $1,050 range for paint cost. Let's say $700 per vehicle. However, Tesla's unboxed process should reduce the cost of painting the vehicle significantly. Why is that? In a conventional vehicle manufacturing line, the vehicle body is assembled into what you might call a box and then painted. The painting process typically takes about 10 hours, and there are over a dozen coating, drying, and baking steps as well as spot repairs and polishing.

为了简单起见，考虑到这两种车辆都可能是低成本、小型车辆，让我们把它们单独称为紧凑车辆。对于紧凑车辆，我们可能会看到涂漆成本在630美元至1,050美元的低端范围内。假设每辆车为700美元。然而，特斯拉的非装箱过程应该会显著降低涂漆车辆的成本。为什么呢？在传统的车辆生产线上，车身被组装成一种你可能称之为盒子，然后再进行涂漆。涂漆过程通常需要大约10小时，而且还有十几个涂层、干燥和烘烤步骤，以及点修和打磨。

Each of those steps involves working in and around that box-like structure that's mostly empty space, which reduces the manufacturing density and speed and increases energy usage because there's more empty space to heat when the parts go through the drying ovens. Tesla's unboxed process breaks the box down into pieces that are manufactured in parallel on several lines, which is why it's called the unboxed process. That means that for the painting process, the parts could be put onto racks that contain less empty space, which should increase throughput and energy efficiency in the paint shop. Fraunhofer indicates that the material cost for painting a vehicle is 20% of the total cost, so 80% of the cost of painting the vehicle is non-materials costs that have to do with throughput and energy consumption.

这些步骤每一步都涉及在那个类似箱子结构周围工作，这个结构大部分是空的，降低了制造密度和速度，并增加了能源使用，因为零件经过烘干炉时有更多的空间需要加热。特斯拉的非箱式流程将这个箱子分解成几个线上并行制造的部件，这就是为什么它被称为非箱式流程。这意味着在涂装过程中，零件可以放在包含更少空间的架子上，这应该提高涂装车间的产量和能源效率。弗劳恩霍夫指出，涂装车辆的材料成本占总成本的20％，因此涂装车辆的成本的80％是与产量和能耗有关的非材料成本。

With that in mind, in my view, it wouldn't be a stretch for Tesla to reduce the non-material costs of the paint shop to 40% by doubling the throughput of the paint shop. If we keep the materials cost at 20% and add the 40%, the total is 60%. 60% of the $700 paint cost I quoted earlier gives us a grand total of $420 to paint Tesla's compact vehicle using the unboxed process. The next question is, how much would a vehicle with a stainless steel exterior cost? This is where we enter into more speculative territory because as far as I'm aware, there's no publicly available information on the cost of a stainless steel vehicle body. The stainless steel Tesla uses has been described as ultra-hard 30x cold-rolled stainless steel, and we know it comes in coils thanks to Sandy-Mon-Rose tour of the Cybertruck body line.

考虑到这一点，在我看来，特斯拉通过将喷漆车间的吞吐量提高一倍，将非材料成本降低到40%并不难实现。如果我们将材料成本保持在20%，再加上40%，总成本将达到60%。之前我提到的每辆汽车$700的喷漆成本的60%是$420，用于喷漆特斯拉紧凑型车辆的总成本。下一个问题是，一个外观为不锈钢的汽车会花费多少？这就是我们进入更多假设领域的地方，因为就我所知，关于不锈钢汽车车身的成本没有公开信息。特斯拉使用的不锈钢被描述为超硬30倍冷轧不锈钢，并且我们知道它是以卷的形式存在的，这得益于Sandy-Mon-Rose对Cybertruck车身生产线的参观。

With rolled 300-series stainless steel coils, costs between $3,000 to $5,000 per ton. Despite the fact that Tesla's ordering a custom formulation of stainless steel specifically for the Cybertruck, let's say they're still getting their steel at the low end of the price range at $3,000 per ton. The outer body of Tesla's vehicles typically use mild steel, and steel costs about $900 per ton. So at the same production rate and material thickness, using ultra-hard stainless steel could cost about 3.3x as much. How much would that add to the production cost of a compact vehicle? For a vehicle that has a sticker price of about $25,000, the total production cost for a conventional painted body would be about $20,000.

随着300系列不锈钢卷的滚动，每吨的成本在3000美元至5000美元之间。尽管特斯拉为Cybertruck订购了定制配方的不锈钢，我们假设他们仍然以每吨3000美元的低价获得钢材。特斯拉车辆的外部车身通常使用普通钢，钢材成本约为每吨900美元。因此，在相同的生产速率和材料厚度下，使用超硬不锈钢成本可能会增加大约3.3倍。这将增加一辆小型车的生产成本多少呢？对于标价约25000美元的车辆，传统涂漆车身的总生产成本约为20000美元。

The materials cost for the body of that vehicle would be about $565. But of course, two-thirds of that would be body structures like the aluminum giga-castings. That leaves one-third of the cost of producing the vehicle body for components like the door rings and body panels. One-third of $565 is $186. Then we have to multiply 186 by 3.3 because that's how many times more expensive stainless steel is than mild steel. Which means that for a $25,000 vehicle, all else being equal, the materials cost for stainless steel would be about $614. For a vehicle like the Cybertruck, that works out well for two reasons.

那辆车身的材料成本大约为565美元。但当然，其中三分之二将用于车身结构，如铝合金大型铸件。剩下的成本是用于车身部件，如门环和车身板。565美元的三分之一是186美元。然后我们要乘以3.3，因为这就是不锈钢比普通钢昂贵的倍数。这意味着对于一辆价值25,000美元的车辆，在其他条件相同的情况下，不锈钢的材料成本大约为614美元。对于像Cybertruck这样的车辆，这有两个好处。

First, because the Cybertruck is a truck and people are willing to pay a premium for durability. And second, because using ultra-hard and ultra-thick sheet metal on the exterior of the vehicle allowed them to remove the weight and cost of a typical truck frame, so it somewhat balanced out. However, rigidity and towing capacity wouldn't be a requirement for a compact vehicle, so the cost premium wouldn't be worth it. That means if Tesla did use a stainless steel exterior for a compact vehicle, they'd have to use much thinner sheet metal to make it cost effective. Typically, the exterior sheet metal of a vehicle is about 0.9 millimeters thick, and stainless steel sheet metal is usually available as thin as about 0.25 millimeters thick.

首先，因为Cybertruck是一辆卡车，人们愿意为耐用性支付额外费用。其次，由于在车辆外部使用了超硬和超厚的钢板，他们能够去掉典型卡车框架的重量和成本，因此在一定程度上实现了平衡。然而，刚性和拖车能力对于紧凑车辆并不是必需的，因此成本溢价不值得。这意味着如果特斯拉为紧凑车辆使用不锈钢外壳，他们将不得不使用更薄的钢板以实现成本效益。通常，车辆外壳钢板的厚度约为0.9毫米，而不锈钢板通常可以达到约0.25毫米厚。

Let's say that Tesla's ultra-hard stainless steel is so strong that they're able to use steel that thin. 0.25 millimeters is 28% of 0.9 millimeters. As I said earlier, for a vehicle with a manufacturing cost of $20,000, the materials cost of moving to stainless steel would be $614. If that vehicle used stainless steel sheet metal that was 28% as thick as standard sheet metal, the materials cost would tally up to $172. Given that the materials cost of standard sheet metal was $186, that means the materials cost of using ultra-thin stainless steel. If that's possible, it's so close that it would be effectively the same. But it wouldn't need to be painted, which, as I said earlier, would be about $420. Does that mean a stainless steel compact vehicle would cost about $420 less than a painted vehicle to manufacture? Not necessarily.

让我们假设特斯拉的超硬不锈钢是如此坚固，以至于他们能够使用那么薄的钢板。 0.25毫米是0.9毫米的28％。正如我之前所说，对于一个制造成本为20000美元的车辆，转向不锈钢的材料成本将为614美元。如果该车辆使用的不锈钢板材比标准板材厚度的28％，那么材料成本将相加到172美元。鉴于标准板材的材料成本为186美元，这意味着使用超薄不锈钢板的材料成本。如果可能的话，这种成本非常接近，几乎可以看做是一样的。但是它不需要喷漆，而喷漆的成本大约为420美元，就像我之前所说的。这是否意味着不锈钢车辆的制造成本将比喷漆车辆节省大约420美元？并非如此。

We haven't yet taken into account the manufacturing costs for stainless steel and only looked at materials costs. Tesla's ultra-hard stainless steel is so hard that it has to be cut with lasers. That's as opposed to regular steel, which can be cut rapidly using blanking dies, which stamp out the metal parts like a cookie cutter. A process that uses laser blanking is typically slower than a process that uses blanking dies. But it also tends to have lower tooling costs. Taking all factors into account, the end result is that below 100,000 units per year, laser blanking is more cost effective. And above 100,000 units per year, blanking dies are more cost effective.

我们还没有考虑不锈钢的制造成本，只看了材料成本。特斯拉的超硬不锈钢非常坚硬，必须用激光切割。这与普通钢相反，后者可以使用裁切模快速切割金属零件，就像饼干模一样。使用激光裁切的过程通常比使用裁切模的过程慢。但它也往往具有较低的工装成本。综合考虑所有因素，结果是在年产量低于10万件时，激光裁切更具成本效益。而在年产量超过10万件时，裁切模的成本效益更高。

Some might point out that the Cybertruck line in Texas is expected to produce 125,000 units per year initially, and probably more like 250,000 or more units per year in the long run, which of course uses laser blanking. That is, the 100,000 unit per year rule of thumb doesn't seem to apply. That's true, but the Cybertruck is a premium vehicle that can afford the extra cost of laser cut body panels from a slower process. Tesla's upcoming compact vehicle is a different story. Every penny will count, and ultra-high production rates will be needed, because it will likely be produced at volumes of over 2 million vehicles per year. For reference, Tesla's Model Y lines are capable of topping out at 500,000 vehicles per year. So, I expect that the compact vehicle lines will be capable of at least 500,000 vehicles per year, and possibly up to a million vehicles per year. With production rates that high, blanking dies appear to be the way to go.

有些人可能会指出，德克萨斯州的Cybertruck生产线预计最初每年产量为12.5万辆，长期可能会达到25万辆甚至更多，当然是使用激光切割工艺。换句话说，每年10万辆的经验法则似乎不适用。这是事实，但Cybertruck是一款高档车型，可以承担更昂贵的激光切割车身板的成本，即使生产过程较慢。特斯拉即将推出的紧凑车型则是另一回事。每一分钱都很重要，而且需要超高的生产率，因为预计每年会生产200多万辆车。以参考，特斯拉的Y型车型生产线能够达到每年50万辆车的顶峰。所以，我预计紧凑车型生产线至少每年能够产量50万辆，可能会达到每年100万辆。在如此高的生产速率下，模切模具似乎是最佳选择。

Next, besides the costs associated with laser blanking, we also have to take into account the fact that although stainless steel doesn't require a paint shop, it still does in fact require dozens of robots and has some material costs. In short, some of the inner stampings such as the door rings have to be powder coated, and the customer-facing surfaces have their own finishing process. That finishing process involves laser cleaning the welds on the inside of the door panels, and a two-step abrasion and polishing process for the exterior panels to create an appealing surface finish. With all those cost variables in mind, in my view, it's unlikely that using stainless steel would save $420 per vehicle over a vehicle that was painted, and in fact would likely cost more. But even if there is a minor cost savings with stainless steel, there are other factors to take into account. The first one that comes to mind for me is that because the compact vehicle will be Tesla's highest volume vehicle ever, Tesla will seek to de-risk the supply chain as much as possible. As I said earlier, the stainless steel that Tesla uses in the Cybertruck is a custom formulation of their own invention. That means it can't just be purchased off the shelf and has to be special ordered. That's as opposed to the mild steel used in a conventional vehicle that's available on the open market as a commodity.

接下来，除了与激光空白消耗相关的成本之外，我们还必须考虑到尽管不需要油漆车间，但不锈钢仍然需要数十台机器人，并且会有一些材料成本。简而言之，一些内部冲压件，如门环，必须进行粉末涂层处理，而面向客户的表面也有自己的表面处理过程。这个表面处理过程包括清洁门板内部焊缝的激光清洁，以及对外部板材进行两步磨砂和抛光处理，以创造出吸引人的表面光泽。考虑到所有这些成本变量，在我看来，使用不锈钢不太可能比喷漆车辆每辆节省420美元，并且实际上可能会更昂贵。但即使使用不锈钢有一些微小的成本节省，也有其他因素需要考虑。我想到的第一个因素是，由于紧凑型车辆将是特斯拉有史以来产量最高的车型，特斯拉将尽可能规避供应链风险。正如我之前所说，特斯拉在Cybertruck中使用的不锈钢是他们自己独创的定制配方。这意味着它不能随便购买，而必须特殊订购。与传统车辆中使用的普通钢不同，后者作为商品可以在市场上随时购买。

As an interim summary, what all this means is that in my view, although Tesla could make the compact vehicle out of stainless steel, I don't see it as a strong possibility unless they can find a way to increase the throughput and reduce the cost of laser cutting. I don't see that as a showstopper, and it's obviously not an issue for the Cybertruck, but for a budget ultra-high production volume vehicle, the dynamics are different. Line speed and other factors like de-risking the supply chain become more important. With all that said, there's what I see as likely based on manufacturability, and then there's what's best based on the specific use case. Earlier, I said that the compact vehicle was actually two vehicles, a robo-taxi that may not be sold to customers, and a $25,000 budget vehicle that is sold to customers. Tesla could, for example, paint the budget vehicle and use stainless steel for the robo-taxi. That could work out well for several reasons. First, because a robo-taxi might benefit from the greater durability of stainless steel even at a greater cost. Second, the angular look of stainless steel might be too polarizing for most consumers as a vehicle they purchase, but for a robo-taxi, appearance and customization wouldn't matter as much, because people would be more likely to ride in a robo-taxi than own it. In fact, it might be better if the robo-taxi looks a little strange and iconic, so people know it's a robo-taxi. In contrast, for the budget vehicle, cost, aesthetics that have brought appeal, and customization would be a greater priority. Yes, a stainless steel budget vehicle could offer a wrap at the service centers, but it would be several times more expensive as just offering multiple paint color choices from the factory.

在我看来，所有这些意味着，虽然特斯拉可以用不锈钢制造紧凑型车辆，但我认为除非他们能找到一种增加吞吐量并降低激光切割成本的方法，否则这并非是一种强烈可能性。我认为这并非是一个阻碍因素，对于塞博卡卡，这显然不是问题，但对于一个预算超高产量的车辆，情况有所不同。线速度和其他因素，如降低供应链风险，变得更加重要。综上所述，基于可制造性，我看到的可能是，然后基于特定用例的最佳选择。我之前说过，这辆紧凑车实际上是两辆车，一辆可能不会销售给客户的机器人出租车，一辆售给客户的25000美元预算车。例如，特斯拉可以为预算车涂漆并为机器人出租车使用不锈钢。这可能会有几个原因很好地解决。首先，机器人出租车可能会因为不锈钢更大的耐久性而受益，即使成本更高。其次，不锈钢的角形外观可能会对大多数消费者来说太分裂了，他们购买的车辆，但对于机器人出租车来说，外观和定制并不那么重要，因为人们更可能乘坐机器人出租车而不是拥有它。事实上，如果机器人出租车看起来有点奇怪和标志性，人们会更容易知道这是一辆机器人出租车。相比之下，对于预算车，成本、吸引人的美学和定制将是更大的优先考虑因素。是的，一辆不锈钢预算车可以在服务中心提供包装服务，但与仅从工厂提供多个油漆颜色选择相比，它将昂贵几倍。

Now that we've covered painting and stainless steel as options for the exterior of the compact vehicle, it's worth covering plastic because I'm sure it'll come up in the comments. Plastic would be an excellent option for the compact vehicle, whether that's a robo-taxi or a $25,000 vehicle. That's because plastic is lightweight, durable, cheap, scalable, can offer more than one color choice and is recyclable. However, there are also some arguments against it. For example, why did Saturn abandon the use of plastic body panels after attempting to make them work for almost 20 years? According to Bob Lutz, a former GM executive, it was because the plastic panels actually took longer to produce than conventional stamped steel, and they would expand and contract when the temperature changed, which meant wide panel gaps had to be designed into the vehicle. Despite efforts to reduce the expansion and contraction issues, the problem was never resolved. There's a chance Tesla could solve the panel gap and production issues, but that would still leave other issues to be resolved.

现在我们已经讨论了涂装和不锈钢作为紧凑车辆外部的选项，值得讨论塑料，因为我相信这会在评论中出现。对于紧凑车辆来说，塑料将是一个很好的选择，无论是无人出租车还是一辆价值25000美元的车辆。这是因为塑料轻便、耐用、价格便宜、可扩展，可以提供多种颜色选择，并且可回收利用。然而，也有一些反对意见。例如，为什么土星在尝试使塑料车身板工作将近20年后放弃了使用塑料车身板？根据前通用汽车高管鲍勃·卢茨的说法，这是因为塑料车身板实际上生产时间比传统冲压钢板更长，并且它们会在温度变化时膨胀和收缩，这意味着车辆必须设计宽间隙的外板。尽管努力减少膨胀和收缩问题，但问题从未得到解决。特斯拉可能会解决外板间隙和生产问题，但仍需解决其他问题。

For example, with regards to recyclability, although Tesla could use recyclable plastic, that doesn't mean it would be recycled. Even for plastics that are highly recyclable, they're often just downcycled instead and still end up back in the environment. That's as opposed to steel, which is the most recycled material in the world because it's easy to reprocess and magnetically separate from other material. Yes, Tesla could put in place logistics to ensure the plastic panels did get recycled if the recycling market didn't take up the challenge, but is that an additional challenge that Tesla wants to take on? Lastly, although many people are happy to have a vehicle with plastic body panels, it's a turn off for some customers that perceive metal as being higher quality. What all this means is that although plastic might technically be the best material from an engineering standpoint, it might reduce product appeal and create logistics issues with recycling for and of life vehicles. Those are both important considerations if Tesla intends on making their compact vehicle the most manufactured vehicle in history.

举个例子，就回收性而言，虽然特斯拉可以使用可回收塑料，但这并不意味着它会被回收利用。即使对于那些高度可回收的塑料来说，它们往往只是被降级再利用，最终仍然进入环境中。这与钢材相反，钢材是世界上最容易回收的材料，因为它容易重新加工，并且可以通过磁力与其他材料分离。是的，如果回收市场无法应对挑战，特斯拉可以建立物流系统确保塑料面板得到回收利用，但这是否是特斯拉愿意承担的额外挑战？最后，尽管许多人乐于拥有车身塑料面板的汽车，但对于一些认为金属更高质量的客户来说可能会让他们失去兴趣。所有这些都意味着虽然从工程角度来看，塑料可能是最好的材料，但这可能会降低产品的吸引力，以及创建回收新车和废旧车辆的物流问题。这些都是特斯拉要使他们的紧凑型车成为历史上最多生产的车辆时需要考虑的重要因素。

Now that we've covered paint, stainless steel and plastic, what about Tom Joo's comment that paint is expensive? It's not uncommon for Tesla's executive team to make comments and for people to read way too much into them, or for those comments to end up being proved incorrect because Tesla changed their mind. For example, Tom Joo also said that Tesla was aiming for Gigamexico to be up and running faster than any other Gigafactory in the past. The reality is that Gigamexico may take longer than expected to build out because Tesla stated that they've decided to slow down investment in anticipation of a weak global economy. Beyond that, I'm not placing a lot of weight on Tom's comment because at Investor Day, Tesla went out of their way to mention the paint shop when discussing the unboxed process. They said, quote, what this means is that it's going to look something like this, where we build all the sides of the cars independently. We only paint what we need to and then we assemble the car once, end quote. Investor Day was a prepared presentation whereas Tom's comment was offhand and ambiguous, so I placed greater weight on the presentation. With that said, there is one more possibility that Tom's comment may hint to that doesn't contradict the presentation. He said the paint shop was expensive.

现在我们已经讨论了涂料、不锈钢和塑料，那么汤姆·朱关于涂料费用昂贵的评论呢？特斯拉的高管团队进行评论，人们往往会过分解读，或者因为特斯拉改变主意而被证明不正确。例如，汤姆·朱还表示，特斯拉旨在让吉加墨西哥比过去的任何吉加工厂都更快投产。事实是，吉加墨西哥的建设可能比预期时间长，因为特斯拉表示他们已决定放缓投资，预计全球经济疲软。除此之外，我对汤姆的评论并不十分认同，因为在投资者日上，特斯拉特意提到了涂漆车间。他们说：“这意味着，我们会像这样建造汽车的所有侧面。只涂漆我们需要的部分，然后一次组装完整辆车。”投资者日是精心准备的演示，而汤姆的评论是随口说的，含糊不清，因此我更看重演示。话虽如此，汤姆的评论还有可能暗示一个与演示不矛盾的可能性，即涂漆车间费用昂贵。

What if instead of switching to stainless steel to remove the paint shop, he's hinting that Tesla may have found an alternative way to offer color options for vehicles that dramatically reduces the size of the paint shop. I don't know what that would look like, but at first glance, the complexity and hassle of the paint shop appears to be ripe for disruption. For me, that would be the most exciting possibility because it offers the best of all worlds. A better coding process for vehicles that uses a conventional stamping process with mild steel or aluminum would maximize speed, scalability, recyclability, customer appeal, cost, and customization all in one hit.

如果不是转换为不锈钢来消除涂料车间，他是在暗示特斯拉可能已经找到一种替代方法，为车辆提供颜色选择，可以显著减少涂料车间的规模。我不知道那会是什么样子，但乍一看，涂料车间的复杂性和麻烦似乎是被颠覆的好时机。对我来说，这将是最令人兴奋的可能性，因为它提供了最好的所有可能性。为车辆提供更好的编码过程，使用常规的冲压过程与普通钢或铝，将最大化速度、可扩展性、可回收性、客户吸引力、成本和定制化，一次性解决所有问题。

In summary, whether Tesla chooses paint, stainless steel, or plastic for the body of the upcoming compact vehicle, each has strengths and weaknesses. With that in mind, I'd choose the process that seems the most closely aligned with what I view as the key requirements for the compact vehicle, which are cost, manufacturing speed, scalability, and broad customer appeal. For me, that makes paint the most likely option. Although paint shops are a huge expense, costing around half a billion dollars and are a pain to set up, they're capable of high production rates and low cost per vehicle. With Tesla's unboxed process, the production rate will only get faster and the cost will only go lower. Additionally, offering color options presents a revenue opportunity.

总之，无论特斯拉选择在即将推出的紧凑型车辆的车身上使用涂料、不锈钢还是塑料，每种材料都有其优点和缺点。考虑到这一点，我会选择与我认为紧凑型车辆的关键要求最为贴近的工艺，这些要求包括成本、制造速度、可扩展性和广泛客户吸引力。对我而言，涂料可能是最有可能的选择。尽管喷漆厂是一项巨大的成本开支，大约需要花费五亿美元，而且建立起来非常麻烦，但它们能够实现高产量和低车辆成本。凭借特斯拉的无边界生产过程，生产率将会越来越快，成本也会持续降低。此外，提供颜色选择也会带来收入机会。

As Elon has said, it only costs an extra $55 to apply a high-end, multi-layer paint job, but adds around $550 of value to a vehicle. That's a 90% margin upsell for no real impact on production speed. As for stainless steel, to me it seems less likely because it's a slower process thanks to laser-cut sheet metal. Tesla's stainless steel that has to be special ordered, and it makes it much more difficult and expensive for the customer to customize their vehicle. As for plastic, it's the best option from an engineering perspective, but it may have a lower perceived quality and appeal than painted sheet metal.

正如埃隆所说的，对于一辆车来说，对于涂装多层油漆只需要额外花费55美元，但可以为车辆增加大约550美元的价值。这是一个90％的边际加价，对生产速度没有真正影响。至于不锈钢，对我来说似乎不太可能，因为它是一个较慢的过程，需要激光切割薄板金属。特斯拉的不锈钢必须特别订购，这使得客户很难和昂贵的定制他们的车辆。至于塑料，从工程角度来看，这是最好的选择，但可能比喷涂的薄板金属有较低的感知质量和吸引力。

And although recyclable may be less likely to be recycled than steel, lastly, the fourth option is a wild card, which is that Tesla surprises us with a vehicle that uses mild steel or aluminum sheet metal. And a new coating or painting process that's cheaper than a typical paint shop and has even higher throughput, which would be the best option. If you enjoyed this video, please consider supporting the channel by using the links in the description.

虽然可回收的材料可能比钢更不容易被回收，但最后，第四个选项是一个未知数，也就是特斯拉用轻钢或铝板金属打造出一款车型让我们大吃一惊。并且采用一种新的涂层或涂漆工艺，比传统油漆车间更便宜且生产效率更高，这可能是最佳选择。如果您喜欢这个视频，请考虑通过描述中的链接支持本频道。

Also, consider following me on X. I often use X as a test bed for sharing ideas, and X subscribers like my Patreon supporters generally get access to my videos a week early. On that note, a special thanks to Donald Beck, my YouTube members, X subscribers, and all the other patrons listed in the credits. I appreciate all of your support, and thanks for tuning in. Thanks for watching!.

另外，请考虑关注我在X上的账号。我经常在X上分享想法，并且X的订阅者（例如我的 Patreon 支持者）通常可以提前一周观看我的视频。在这里，特别感谢 Donald Beck、我的 YouTube 会员、X的订阅者以及名单中列出的所有其他赞助者。非常感谢大家的支持，谢谢收看！谢谢观看！。