2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion

[MitchJi]

Motor Trend appears to have leveraged their time with the Model 3 to also write a "first test", which was just posted:
Exclusive: Tesla Model 3 Long Range First Test - Motor Trend

It doesn't say too much. Mostly good handling and power. They don't explore other topics.

EXCLUSIVE: TESLA MODEL 3 LONG RANGE FIRST TEST
We get the first instrumented test of the electric car that could change the world

The iconic BMW 330i—everybody’s favorite yardstick (actually, about 2 inches shorter, 1.5 inches narrower, and 0.5 inch lower)— is similarly priced to this full-boat, glass-roof, every-feature Model 3 Long Range (after deducting its tax incentives). In the nearby comparison chart, the Tesla betters the Bimmer in several metrics. And to better illustrate this, I’ve added (scaled) bar graphs to some selected categories to indicate each car’s advantage (a bar means better—whether it’s cheaper or faster or bigger, the bar’s length suggests how much so).

For instance, the Model 3 is 0.7 second quicker to 60, stops 4 feet shorter from that speed, and has a 0.4-second-quicker figure-eight lap, and its lateral grip is only 0.1 g behind despite hauling 365 extra pounds sideways. There’s more power and torque, it’s steering’s way quicker, it’s shorter on trunk space, and after tax incentives ($10,000 in its most popular market state (California), its as-tested price winds up about $1,000 more. (It’ll be interesting to repeat this graphic for the Model 3’s anticipated $35,000 basic version versus a loaded Accord or Camry.) Although our real-world 103.7 combined mpg-e measured by Emissions Analytics (89.7/128.2 city/highway) lags behind the EPA’s official 126 overall, the Tesla still eats its energy at just a quarter of the BMW’s pace.

Why didn’t they mention that the BMW has about a half second slower zero to sixty time than the Tesla Semi?

Here’s What We Learned From the Tesla Model 3 Owner’s Manual
Motortrend - Collin Woodard WordsNovember 27, 2017
Last week, a Reddit user with the name "pn02ner" posted a link to the Tesla Model 3 owner's manual, saying Tesla Roadside Assistance sent it to them in an email. Tesla has confirmed to us that it's an older manual, and some of the information has changed since it was written, but considering how little information it's published about the Model 3, this is the most...


Model Overview
YOU’LL LIKE

• 
  
  • EV in a traditional sedan bodystyle
  • Tech and luxury on par with premium brands
  • Affordability, power, and range in one package

YOU WON’T LIKE

• 
  
  • The price will likely climb quickly with options
  • Less overall driving range than plug-in hybrids

 

[TradingInvest]

Analysis by UBS - hope they´ll adjust there price target for TSLA accordingly

One in Six New Cars in the World Will Be Electric By 2025

I think UBS is a Tesla short, same as GS, JPM, etc. Listening to them is a waste of time and potentially will harm your account.
Instead, #1 trust Elon and Tesla; #2, find a few trust worthy analysts; #3 do your own research and thinking.

 

[neroden]

Long time Elon fan here. I think Elon and Tesla are shooting themselves in the foot by overpromising at the semi event.

Guarantee 1 million mile no break down? That's impossible, given Tesla's reliability these days. Teslas can break down for many reasons, not just the motor, and there aren't any Teslas on the road that have even gotten close to 1,000,000 miles. Why did Elon have to make that promise? It's ridiculous.

You can rest assured that the actual "no break down" guarantee will exclude both tire damage due to road debris and collision damage from crashes.

In practice, Teslas don't break down in a "you can't drive that" way. I only know of four cases, not counting collisions and tire blowouts.

 

[TradingInvest]

Just looked up this dude's previous projections and statements: Long story short, he has a trackrecord of zero. It's beyond me why any balanced publication would even care about this guy's opinions and views.

Anyway, let's move on. Nothing to see here.

Add the Analyst's name to the ignore list, then move on.

 

[DurandalAI]

Well, as long as we use electrochemical technology.

Sadly, the switch to much denser magnetic energy storage (which is currently at the theoretical stage, not even the lab stage) is likely to take far more than 20 years, and the Gigafactory will be fully depreciated by then.

Good thing it’s Panasonic’s battery cell equipment and not Tesla’s.
True, they do have pack assembly equipment there, but those robots can be reprogrammed or sold to those who finally get off ICE 29 years from now.

 

[MitchJi]

Another great article by @Trent Eady, who I believe is one of the best authors on Seeking Alpha and a good one for TSLA longs to follow.

Tesla: Building A Dynamic Model Of Competitive Advantage - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha

That is an extremely low bar!

 

[neroden]

That idea incorrect (if I understand what you are saying)
Putting cell/ modules in parallel allows you to increase the current you charge with, but the power stays the same because the voltage is divided by the same factor you widened the pack by. Each cell has a voltage and can only handle a certain current. It they were 1V and 1A amp, you could have 10V x 1A or 1V x 10 A (or 2x5, 5x2) it's all 10 watts.

While this is true, it is quite likely that Tesla can't use arbitrarily high voltages on the cable which truckers will plug in to the car -- at some point very high voltage cables have *issues* with manual handling and switching; I believe they need more space around them due to magnetic issues or something. (I don't really know the details, but I do know that the model S uses ~375V, but when charging at 1600V was suggested, the electrical engineers I've talked to tended to say "no, don't do that".) With the max voltage limited by other factors, there comes a point at which you want to split it up and use several parallel modules.

Putting all cell/modules in series allows you to reduce the current you supply to the stack, and thus the resistive losses.

 

[neroden]

IMHO that is legally not possible based on SEC rules but smarter people than me may know better.

Of course it's legal. If Musk can:
(a) find a brokerage willing to lend against his (non-listed) SpaceX shares
(b) get permission from the Board of SpaceX to pledge his SpaceX shares against the loan
Then he can most certainly pledge SpaceX shares to supprt a margin loan to buy other stocks. Totally legal, and pretty straightforward even. The brokerage is a "big boy" and is allowed to speculate in unlisted stocks, and so is Musk. Most of the SEC rules prohibiting risky investment moves don't apply to organizations which are considered "big enough to take care of themselves".

Of course, he'd have to publish the fact that he was doing it (SEC rules about disclosure still apply).

 

[TradingInvest]

In other news :

Source: Latest Investment Gives SpaceX $21B Valuation | Investopedia Latest Investment Gives SpaceX $21B Valuation

IIRC correctly Elon Musk own about 27% of SpaceX.

IMHO the 'risk' of Elon using his SpaceX shares to borrow more money to add shares to his Tesla ownership percentage, is much bigger than Tesla running out of money before Model-3 makes Tesla cashflow positive.

Not 27%, more like 50%.
In a 2016 SpaceX filing: "Mr. Musk’s trust currently owns 54% of the outstanding stock of SpaceX and has voting control of 78% of the outstanding stock of SpaceX." You can google it.

 

[Curt Renz]

WSJ - moments ago: DHL Orders 10 Tesla Semi Trucks

 

[ValueAnalyst]

Of course it's legal. If Musk can:
(a) find a brokerage willing to lend against his (non-listed) SpaceX shares
(b) get permission from the Board of SpaceX to pledge his SpaceX shares against the loan
Then he can most certainly pledge SpaceX shares to supprt a margin loan to buy other stocks. Totally legal, and pretty straightforward even. The brokerage is a "big boy" and is allowed to speculate in unlisted stocks, and so is Musk. Most of the SEC rules prohibiting risky investment moves don't apply to organizations which are considered "big enough to take care of themselves".

Of course, he'd have to publish the fact that he was doing it (SEC rules about disclosure still apply).

So why isn't he doing it given TSLA's deep discount to intrinsic value given his own projections?

 

[neroden]

And one last thing: FSD is NOT some sort the holy grail of software engineering. (General AI is.). It's a software problem, like many others before, that is first deemed as being impossible to achieve, then it will eventually be solved and in less than 5 years later you'll be able to grab your open source FSD models from Github. That's how those things work. No magic sauce required.

Nope. The actual issue is a big diffrerent. "Full self driving" is an unspecified problem. Think of the "answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything". What, exactly, is the question?

We're going to see an awful lot of fooling around fairly unproductively until we actually get something approximating a decent set of specs for what a competent driver should do. We don't have one right now. Until that's cleared up, full self-driving is impossible: it's similar to having this conversation:

"We want you to fix the problems with this device."
"What's it supposed to be doing?"
"We're not sure."

After we actually know what it means for a car to be driving competently, then it'll take about 5 years.

So far nobody pouring money into this, with the possible exception of Mobileye (and I don't think they're doing it either), seems to have really properly realized that this is where the problem is: in the problem specification.

 

[mongo]

While this is true, it is quite likely that Tesla can't use arbitrarily high voltages on the cable which truckers will plug in to the car -- at some point very high voltage cables have *issues* with manual handling and switching; I believe they need more space around them due to magnetic issues or something. (I don't really know the details, but I do know that the model S uses ~375V, but when charging at 1600V was suggested, the electrical engineers I've talked to tended to say "no, don't do that".) With the max voltage limited by other factors, there comes a point at which you want to split it up and use several parallel modules.

Agreed, I was pointing out charge time is the same. I personally am not a fan of > 600V charge voltages.
High current cables need to be constrained in close proximity to each other due to the induced magnetic field/ eddy currents they can induce in surrounding metals. To the point that some electrical cabinet wire ups require use of a type of twine to restrain the wires during fault conditions.

Edit: as pointed out by @DurandalAI , this is true for AC, not the DC that superchargers use.

 

[neroden]

With investment in production lines etc we have had info in Swedish public media for at least 40 years. For example Airbus introduce a new aircraft and have 80 pre-orders, but they need 100 pre-orders for breakeven on this product. The same for new car models from Saab and Volvo, a new model needs 3 years full production for breakeven etc. I thought knowledge about how companies work was general education..

Sadly, it's not even generally understood among investment analysts at major banks and brokerages. Yes, I was surprised by this too.

 

[neroden]

With all of these innovations occurring so rapidly, anyone else concerned that Tesla's 5-7 year roadmap might bring about mass unemployment in several transportation and energy industries (specifically in CA first)?

I'm a very long-term Tesla investor, but I'm a human being. Wondering what can be done to proactively help others that are going to be affected by these inventions and to get them back on track in the newly evolved industries or into another one altogether.

For the next several decades: solar installations. Booming.

Also, superinsulation/airsealing retrofits. Nearly every building needs one.

 

[Reciprocity]

Well, no. At least on a *flat* parking lot, it's just building a steel frame, really. Costs scale linearly, proportional to area. I don't know off the top of my head how much assembling such a steel skeleton and attaching it to the ground costs, but it must be a well-known number.

It's certainly cheaper to fold out frames which just sit on the ground (or on a flat roof), but building a canopy of this sort has to be quite cut-and-dried. Honestly the most expensive part would be digging the holes for the posts to go into. The rest of it is like assembling an Erector Set, if anyone remembers those, and should go very very fast.

(Or maybe they wouldn't even dig holes, and would just set large concrete blocks on the ground to support the poles. Might not be safe against strikes by cars and trucks, though.)

Hate to contradict, but it's not that simple. It's a public parking lot and the structure must be able to withstand a car running into it. It's not just a tall rack like those on your roof. Can you imagine if some old lady got one and rest feel like dominos. It needs cement footings and durable posts. I'm sure it's possible but not ideal. Ideal would be the roof of the surrounding buildings where there is a lot less shade and be bad drivers. My point is that at 1-2c per KWh, the racking system for the parking lot would probably double the cost.

 

[neroden]

I think it will be far worse than what you are thinking of. AI will eliminate at least 50% of all office jobs. In 30 years I'll be surprised if 60% of the population that is employed now still has a job. While there might be some other positions that they could fill they will be few and far between.

Extremely unlikely that office jobs will go away. An awful lot of office jobs now are "troubleshooters" for the flaky, unreliable computer systems -- dealing with angry customers who want a human to fix the breakage caused by badly programmed computers.

These jobs are multiplying, not going away.

The kind of jobs that remain, will be repair men. Plumbers, air-conditioning, trash collectors, and other things that mechanically would be difficult to replace. Office jobs will be a thing of the past.

If you think about it, the surviving office jobs are the computer analogue of the same type of "repair" job.

The best possible route would be to reduce the working week from 40 hours to 30 and then later on down to 20.

Bluntly, we could have already done this: France already did. We should. It's a US govermental/coroporate choice to overwork part of the population and leave another part poor, rather than giving all of the population a shorter working week.

I could go on about this for a long time, but a big part of it is the weird situation where hiring another employee has huge overhead from health insurance, so it's cheaper for the company to make one employee work 80 hours a week than to have two employees working 40 hours a week. We need to provide things like health insurance as a public service from national income taxes, to eliminate this distortion.

 

[Bobfitz1]

powertoold said: ↑
Long time Elon fan here. I think Elon and Tesla are shooting themselves in the foot by overpromising at the semi event.
Guarantee 1 million mile no break down? That's impossible, given Tesla's reliability these days. Teslas can break down for many reasons, not just the motor, and there aren't any Teslas on the road that have even gotten close to 1,000,000 miles. Why did Elon have to make that promise? It's ridiculous.

You can rest assured that the actual "no break down" guarantee will exclude both tire damage due to road debris and collision damage from crashes. In practice, Teslas don't break down in a "you can't drive that" way. I only know of four cases, not counting collisions and tire blowouts.

Yes, Elon was not over promising, he was using words specifically chosen to further tout Semi's reliability. As I went into a few days after the Semi reveal event, a 1M mile no breakdown guarantee is nothing like a 1 M warranty.
As Elon noted then, the Semi with four motors is able to function and not breakdown even with 1 or 2 of the four motors out of operation.
Breakdown means being stuck at side of the road and not being able to complete a run, due to mechanical or electrical problems with the Semi.

 

[DurandalAI]

Agreed, I was pointing out charge time is the same. I personally am not a fan of > 600V charge voltages.
High current cables need to be constrained in close proximity to each other due to the induced magnetic field/ eddy currents they can induce in surrounding metals. To the point that some electrical cabinet wire ups require use of a type of twine to restrain the wires during fault conditions.

AC will produce inductive current in nearby objects, but DC produces a static field that will not induce a current in stationary objects. Superchargers and Megachargers (along with chademo and CCS) use DC while your L1 and L2 are using AC. 800v DC charging should be fine.

 

[neroden]

Models S and X aren't the only things with a Ludicrous mode. I suppose you also think "seriously guys, what's the big fuss over Watson and Crick? Darwin discovered evolution a hundred fifty years ago. "

SpaceX didn't invent anything either. Musk has said as much! He simply said (paraphrasing) "I wondered why rockets were so expensive, so I researched to try to see if there was some fundamental technical reason why. And there wasn't." So he built rockets using *best practices*. Nobody else was doing that.

Tesla did something similar: they did their best to adopt the best practices for everything in their car design.

It's like Edison trying several hundred filaments for his electric light and using the best one. Other companies just grabbed some random, worse filament without thinking about it.