Home charging is certainly part of it and it takes the largest bite out of gas station use, but the existence of the supercharger network is what will get people to buy an EV over an ICE in massive amounts as the price of EV's come down. It's the difference between buying a city car with a tether to your home vs. what people think of in their head as a car (something you can take on a trip). To fit the image of a car it has to represent freedom to go where you want. This is why the Bolt and the Leaf aren't Tesla competitors and can only have a niche market. If Battery capacity was going to increase in the future to 400 kwh then home charging and destination charging would be the disruptive innovation but we know that isn't likely and the supercharger network is critical. The Problem with Experts - why Uber, Tesla and the iPhone are Disruptive Innovations
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Home charging is certainly part of it and it takes the largest bite out of gas station use, but the existence of the supercharger network is what will get people to buy an EV over an ICE in massive amounts as the price of EV's come down. It's the difference between buying a city car with a tether to your home vs. what people think of in their head as a car (something you can take on a trip). To fit the image of a car it has to represent freedom to go where you want. This is why the Bolt and the Leaf aren't Tesla competitors and can only have a niche market. If Battery capacity was going to increase in the future to 400 kwh then home charging and destination charging would be the disruptive innovation but we know that isn't likely and the supercharger network is critical. The Problem with Experts - why Uber, Tesla and the iPhone are Disruptive Innovations
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
It's actually the opposite. They would have switched if they saw a clear advantage to large format pouch cells.
Why would they reinvent the wheel (years of experience and r and d) if they believed that larger format pouch cells are only "potentially equal" to small cylindrical cells.
3Victoria
Active Member
Yes, efficient permanent magnet motors require rare earth magnets, and these are in limited supply, mostly in China, so ramping up volume is problematic.
I suspect GM will loose a lot more than $9,000 on every Chevy Bolt sold. The Chevy Bolt will likely have one of the worst resale value of any vehicle GM has ever produced.
3Victoria
Active Member
Of course, if it something simple, replacing the supplier should be simple, too. Hopefully, they require samples of the parts, and hopefully can predict failures before the deadline, and either produce in house, or find another supplier. I suspect teh suppliers will be motivated not to accrue the bad publicity for missing the deadline.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Costco does not make their money selling $55 and $110 membership fees.
3Victoria
Active Member
I surmise that large format pouches are harder to temperature regulate to prevent degradation? And hence riskier from customer satisfaction, warranty, etc.?
Not sure how you know this. Doesn't it make more sense that Panasonic developed a new 2170 line in Osaka first and then replicated it in Gigafactory1? Why wouldn't Panasonic want to have a source of 2170 energy storage cells for their own energy storage business and for other car manufacurers (Toyota)? We know they manufacured the 2170 cells for energy storage in Osaka at least 4 months ago. Anyway, this issue is less important now, as Panasonic is producing 2170 energy storage cells in Gigafactory1.
SW2Fiddler
We Are Cognitive Dissidents
"Volume" does not capture what's happening inside the cell though. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a Jelly Roll. How many more Windings of film/coatings does each additional mm of diameter allow to fit?
(when these are dissected and able to be examined)
18650 cell Anode Surface Area:
18650 cell Cathode Surface Area:
2170 cell Anode Surface Area:
2170 cell Cathode Surface Area:
Carry on.
Last edited:
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Tesla was production constrained in 2014 and 2015.
Battery cells were likely a bottleneck.
Every Model X delivery would mean one less Model S delivery.
Marginal revenue would be negligible.
The S&P 500 is actually decided by committee, bizarrely. TSLA would have been added some time ago if it were a mechanically defined index, but the committee has its own particular biases. It does seem kind of unavoidable that TSLA will be added sometime in the next few years, and it'll go up ridiculously the week it happens, because there's *so much money* in S&P tracking funds.
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
Heat pipes.
In a thermosyphon, liquid working fluid is vaporized by a heat supplied to the evaporator at the bottom of the heat pipe. The vapor travels to the condenser at the top of the heat pipe, where it condenses. The liquid then drains back to the bottom of the heat pipe by gravity, and the cycle repeats.
Heat pipe - Wikipedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Heat_pipe
I don 't know anything more about the technology than @vgrinshpun posted. I'm not even positive that they are using those, but I remember finding something online that made me think it's likely.
That’s it. The index includes 500 of the largest (not necessarily the 500 largest) companies whose stocks trade on either the NYSE or NASDAQ. Like popes and Oscar winners, the components of the S&P 500 are selected by committee. And, like the College of Cardinals and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, the S&P 500 committee operates within specific criteria. To qualify for the index, a company must have:
- a market cap of $5.3 billion
- its headquarters in the U.S.
- the value of its market capitalization trade annually
- at least a quarter-million of its shares trade in each of the previous six months
- most of its shares in the public’s hands
- at least half a year since its initial public offering
- Four straight quarters of positive as-reported earnings.
It's the last item that is the sticking point. Think it would be a no brainer if Tesla has positive earnings 4 quarters in a row. I will be buying speculative calls when we are 3 quarters positive.
Read more: The S&P 500: The Index You Need To Know | Investopedia The S&P 500: The Index You Need To Know
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
Last edited:
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
Please! Ludicrous post!
That doesn't mean that Tesla intentionally slowed the MX production! The delay obviously cost them a lot of money!
3Victoria
Active Member
We cannot do that calculation without knowing wrap gap etc. However, volume is a pretty good surrogate for the anode/cathode area."Volume" does not capture what's happening inside the cell though. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a Jelly Roll. How many more Windings of film/coatings does each additional mm of diameter allow to fit?
18650 cell Anode Surface Area:
18650 cell Cathode Surface Area:
2170 cell Anode Surface Area:
2170 cell Cathode Surface Area:
Carry on.
The last I checked one of the basic rules for inclusion was 4 consecutive quarters of positive EPS.
Q3 was a stepping stone, but I think Q4 will set us back to start. I expect production disruption in Q2 17 again, who knows maybe we will go back into negative again. Seems like we have a while to go.
3Victoria
Active Member
My understanding is that they delayed the X to concentrate on S release and production. Do we know that batteries were a bottleneck?
(This thread definitely go much faster than I can keep up with, sorry if now this post seems OT, it wasn't when I started writing it).
One thing that I realized, after two years of investing in Tesla, is that it's really hard for people to get it.
If they get EVs, they don't get how extraordinary is Elon Musk, his vision, his work ethic, his brain, his "first principle first" approach.
If they get the vision, they don't get economics of scale of batteries.
If they get both, they don't get AP.
If they get everything, they don't get how much and why there is no real competition.
If they get all that, the don't get BEV and Solarcity or the "Alien Dreadnought" or OTA updates.
After hundreds of hours reading this forum and articles and books about Elon, I keep on forgetting little crucial details: why Tesla technology is better, HUD, Panasonic involvement, Silevo tech, AP updates, ridesharing potential, and many other layers and facets.
I've spoken with many many people about Tesla, and many of them knew the auto industry (or engineering, or physics, or trading) much, much better than me. But they really didn't get it, they couldn't grasp the totality of it: both the vision and the details. It took me a lot of work to understand and then believe it.
Understanding Tesla is hard, and this is also why many insiders still don't get it. The market eventually will, and is. And this is why, I think, a factual miss on deliveries was received well. They are starting to understand this is real
One thing that I realized, after two years of investing in Tesla, is that it's really hard for people to get it.
If they get EVs, they don't get how extraordinary is Elon Musk, his vision, his work ethic, his brain, his "first principle first" approach.
If they get the vision, they don't get economics of scale of batteries.
If they get both, they don't get AP.
If they get everything, they don't get how much and why there is no real competition.
If they get all that, the don't get BEV and Solarcity or the "Alien Dreadnought" or OTA updates.
After hundreds of hours reading this forum and articles and books about Elon, I keep on forgetting little crucial details: why Tesla technology is better, HUD, Panasonic involvement, Silevo tech, AP updates, ridesharing potential, and many other layers and facets.
I've spoken with many many people about Tesla, and many of them knew the auto industry (or engineering, or physics, or trading) much, much better than me. But they really didn't get it, they couldn't grasp the totality of it: both the vision and the details. It took me a lot of work to understand and then believe it.
Understanding Tesla is hard, and this is also why many insiders still don't get it. The market eventually will, and is. And this is why, I think, a factual miss on deliveries was received well. They are starting to understand this is real
It would be a parallel effort in case the pouch technology advanced faster than cells. An insurance policy, if you will. The fact that they did not pursue the pouch cells indicates to me that they consider cylindrical cells to be the superior solution, confirmed by what we know.
You're simply not looking into the details or the fundamentals. That's all. You're wasting your time looking at top-line and bottom-line numbers without digging into them. That's not analysis, that's sheep-like behavior.
Just *one* of many examples of why this sort of mindlessness is misleading: Most of the other companies in that list will have severely shrinking demand going forward, based on their devotion to the ICE engine. There were (still are) people who looked at coal mining companies and thought the stock looked wonderfully cheap, without thinking seriously about the future of the coal market.
Another example: in any company of this sort it's critically important to look separately at sales revenue, cost of production/delivery, SG&A overhead, R&D, and CapEx. Unless you break them down you don't know what you're looking at. When a "loss" is caused mostly by CapEx and R&D, it becomes critical to understand whether the CapEx and R&D was wisely spent or whether it was wasted.
There are good cases to claim that TSLA is overpriced -- based on bottom-up models. This simply isn't one of them. A good case has to look seriously at the future of the market.
I'm now going to point out that if Tesla produces 1 million/year Model 3, at gross margins of 20%, without needing to make significant additional capital investments beyond those planned this year, and with pretty much the same SG&A costs as they have this year, then the stock is priced quite reasonably. Run a simple model, I'm sure you won't disagree. Now, you may not believe that this scenario is plausible, but you should get my point: you have to look deeper than shallow bottom-line numbers to be doing *analysis*.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
