Arotega's post outright states Tesla is spending money to grow to meet unmet demand, and that seems to be backed by actual Tesla unit and income numbers. You've countered with a static, ungrowing fixed income/cost model, with numbers pulled out of thin air, with no rationalization behind those assumptions.

I haven't downvoted you, but you've posted what's at best a toy mathematical model unrelated to Tesla. Others might be downvoting under the assumption that it was supposed to be related to Tesla, in which case they're probably downvoting based on the misapplication of math.

Expanding your math model by the tiniest bit - if $2M of those costs are fixed, merely doubling production could bring you to break-even (2x9=18, 2+2x8=18), assuming income and costs linear with unit volume. Further growth would enter profitability. But even this is super unrealistic - the entire industrival revolution was basically driven by our ability to use automation to drive costs sublinear faster than income goes sublinear, which also leads to profit.