2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion

[3Victoria]

Speaking of sensors, I think there will be an AP3. Tesla needs driver-facing cameras, like everyone else is planning. True, it won't matter in the far long run when cars are fully autonomous. But in the meantime, we need driver cameras to see if drivers are paying attention and/or asleep. People will doze off and bump the steering wheel and the AP2 car will disable autopilot or whatever and crash. The car is going to need to be able to get the driver's intent before full autonomy.

I wouldn't label that AP3 ... likely that a HUD will include eye and/or face tracking.

 

[traxila]

Lots of assumptions being made and a one sided story. Not saying Tesla can't improve in terms of communication, but that article was absolutely click bait if I've ever read any. Completely disregarded SpaceX and Tesla's amazing achievements while trying to sow doubt and make Musk equivalent to Trump. Awful, and an obvious sockpuppet for Detroit.

In addition, we are supposed to defer to the abilities of the well funded established large car manufacturers. They cannot fathom to attempt automation on the level that Musk has targeted so Tesla must be engaging in smoke and mirrors. Such an argument might hold more water if these same manufacturers had actually managed to produce an innovative, world beating electric car from scratch like Tesla has, instead of guffawing and ridiculing from the sideline as it happened. Since this is not that case, would it not make more sense to assume that further disruption is not only possible but very probable?

And to argue against advanced automation on the basis that is will not produce jobs... I don't even know what to say to that. Stop the world and get off, I guess.

Yes, Tesla and Elon are shooting for the moon. Wouldn't have it any other way.

I am going to file this writer under nattering nabob of negativity and be done with it.

 

[Drax7]

Large Luxury Car Sales In America - December 2016 & 2016 Year End - GOOD CAR BAD CAR

GCBC estimates 29,156 Model S sold in US in 2016 (26,566 in 2015).
Second place is Mercedes S-Class with 18,803 sales (21,934 in 2015).
The gap is widening.

85,774 (56,618+29,156) large luxury cars sold in 2016 overall. That would mean Model S has 34% market share in this sector.

Luxury market disrupted.

 

[austinEV]

I wouldn't label that AP3 ... likely that a HUD will include eye and/or face tracking.

Interesting.... I had not considered that. Still that isn't good for people who have AP2 but not HUD.

I have 3k miles and 6 months left on my warranty... come on interior refresh/HUD 100D's....

 

[LoL Rick]

Luxury market disrupted.

Dude, that is some serious editing. I posted about my solar install yesterday, not about the luxury car market.

 

[Intl Professor]

I am going to file this writer under nattering nabob of negativity and be done with it.

Ricochet of Spiro Agnew. Maybe Agent Orange is better labelled the Great Nabob which Google defines in the first place as a "Muslim official... under the Mogul empire." Wikipedia is even richer. Thanks for the memory. But I natter.

 

[hobbes]

Panasonic Hosting Hiring Fair For Tesla Gigafactory This Weekend

 

[Skryll]

An article in Electrek today about Samsung SDI introducing 21700 automotive cells to compete with Panasonic and a new prismatic cell built into higher density modules enabling up to 600 km (370 miles) range and an 80% charge in 20 minutes. It looks really interesting until you find out that it is planned for volume production in 2021.

Samsung unveils its own ‘2170’ battery cell to compete with Tesla/Panasonic and new battery enabling 370-mile EV range & 20 mins charging

2020 is when VW and most other slower car manufacturers are launching their electric car platforms. The additional demand will coincide well. Tesla GF1 will be selling all their output for the 2017+ cars and powerwalls.

 

[elasalle]

2020 is when VW and most other slower car manufacturers are launching their electric car platforms. The additional demand will coincide well. Tesla GF1 will be selling all their output for the 2017+ cars and powerwalls.

Did TSLA/EM give away patents for 2170 battery so quick - is it just coincidence that Samsungs battery dimensions are also 21700 ?

 

[3Victoria]

Did TSLA/EM give away patents for 2170 battery so quick - is it just coincidence that Samsungs battery dimensions are also 21700 ?

21700 is an indusry standard size. It tells you nothing about what's inside. Conside AA cells, they can by alkaline or rechargable ... same dize different chemistry.
I think Tesla/Panasonic are keeping their chemistry and manufacturing processes close to their chests.

 

[racer26]

Did TSLA/EM give away patents for 2170 battery so quick - is it just coincidence that Samsungs battery dimensions are also 21700 ?

Well, I mean, Tesla did say that in designing the cells the GF would produce, they had the opportunity to go back to first principles and build the most optimal battery possible for the application. Somewhere is a quote of Elon talking about how 18650 was actually fairly close to optimal just by happy accident.

If Tesla/Panasonic concluded that 21-70 was optimal, its not unreasonable to believe that Samsung could have independently reached the same conclusion - or alternatively just blindly followed Tesla/Pana's lead and trusted that they knew what they were talking about.

You can similarly calculate the optimal size for things like soda cans, optimizing for different characteristics (such as maximum contained volume for minimum material (and therefore cost) to produce). There's a reason that many standards are the way they are (and some are much more obvious than others).

 

[surfside]

I probably just missed the discussion about it, but I just got around to reading equity research reports following the gigafactory tour, and thought it was interesting / notable that both Morgan Stanley and Baird commented on the fact that there are (likely material) Model 3 capabilities that have not been announced yet by Tesla. I think this supports the HUD theory, as well as Fred's theory that the Model 3 battery was potentially designed for higher charging rates hinted at by Supercharger v3.

surfside

 

[Krugerrand]

Thanks, you stimulate a further thought. Isn't mimicry the technique Nvidia and Tesla use to teach cars how to drive? I admit there is more in human intelligence than this, but while creativity is a practical search for random events that don't fit, or require alteration in our thinking to see how they do indeed fit in a different context, morality is a whole other category. We will never fully be secure in exploiting AI to its fullest in general intelligence until we have, by example, convinced these machines we will ethically treat their consciousness with respect as we expect them to do for our consciousness. A golden rule of robotics Asimov probably anticipated. There are some bad signs in the recently linked video of our military teaching drones how to swarm. Military applications should be banned under a universal treaty asap, but the cat is already out and propagating.

I have suggested elsewhere we have lots of philosophers with ethical concerns machines might emulate. In the bowdlerized version I remember from my first father-in-laws Sunday dinner harangues on Kant, something like this might be helpful: "if you face an ethical dilemma, try to act in accordance with a rule anyone faced with similar circumstances would use for guidance."

Unlike you creative types, "extinguished" professors like myself merely have good memories. Perhaps that's why I'm overly impressed with machine intelligence.

So basically, people suck.

 

[Krugerrand]

Actually...Not. In evolution differentiation is very high risk behavior so the wisest course is to conform with some significant model behavior. Of course, to evolve requires outliers. Some (in our subjects: e.g. Preston Tucker, John DeLorean) fail and die. Some (e.g. Elon Musk, Thomas Edison) succeed. Evolutionary failures outnumber successes in all areas of biology and science. All we need to to choose the successes wisely.

All of us TSLA shareholders hope we have done so.

Nothing to do with laziness or lack of creativity, but has everything to do with risk aversion. It's biological.

Okay then I'll use stronger language, it's cowardice and a fear of failure. Thought strictly speaking, I'm still leaning toward laziness in most cases. Just way easier to copy someone to make money than to put in the effort to be different - or in this case, make a product that's got some differentiation of greater significance than a change of color.

 

[larmor]

I probably just missed the discussion about it, but I just got around to reading equity research reports following the gigafactory tour, and thought it was interesting / notable that both Morgan Stanley and Baird commented on the fact that there are (likely material) Model 3 capabilities that have not been announced yet by Tesla. I think this supports the HUD theory, as well as Fred's theory that the Model 3 battery was potentially designed for higher charging rates hinted at by Supercharger v3.

surfside

The model 3 capability that is missing is the battery price, and hence the gross margin. It will remain unknown, as that is tesla's core business.

 

[All Your Bases]

Welcome Chris Lattner

Welcome Chris Lattner

 

[RubberToe]

Welcome Chris Lattner

Welcome Chris Lattner

Be careful following this link. It is to the German Tesla site, and for some reason I'm stuck in the German language site now, even when going directly to www.tesla.com. Must be a cookie thing. Just go to the tesla site and the updates link.

RT

 

[Vitold]

Well, I mean, Tesla did say that in designing the cells the GF would produce, they had the opportunity to go back to first principles and build the most optimal battery possible for the application. Somewhere is a quote of Elon talking about how 18650 was actually fairly close to optimal just by happy accident.

If Tesla/Panasonic concluded that 21-70 was optimal, its not unreasonable to believe that Samsung could have independently reached the same conclusion - or alternatively just blindly followed Tesla/Pana's lead and trusted that they knew what they were talking about.

You can similarly calculate the optimal size for things like soda cans, optimizing for different characteristics (such as maximum contained volume for minimum material (and therefore cost) to produce). There's a reason that many standards are the way they are (and some are much more obvious than others).

Actually, from what I remember it was Tesla that copied 21 diameter from Samsung as Panasonic batteries were originally supposed to be 2070

 

[JRP3]

Actually, from what I remember it was Tesla that copied 21 diameter from Samsung as Panasonic batteries were originally supposed to be 2070

I think the original statement from Tesla was the cells would be about 10% longer and 10% wider and some of us calculated that would work out to around a 20720 cell size. Using a more standard 21700 size made sense and was probably the intent all along.

 

[MitchJi]

No idea the impact of this for TSLA:
Understanding the Republicans' Corporate Tax Reform | RealClearMarkets

Understanding the Republicans' Corporate Tax Reform
Republicans in the House are proposing sweeping corporate tax reform. Their proposals would effectively repeal the corporate income tax, currently levied at a 35 percent rate, and replace it with a new “destination-based cash-flow tax (DBCFT)” at a 20 percent rate for corporations and 25 percent for unincorporated businesses. The new tax would be border-adjustable – taxing imports and exempting exports.

The DBCFT has a lot to offer and it deserves a serious look. But right now, the overall proposal is very poorly understood. Here are 11 things to know:

(1) The truly radical part is the proposal to effectively abolish the corporate income tax. The United States would become the only advanced country without a corporate income tax, making it a very attractive location for international investors.
<Snip>
(5) Border adjustment of a VAT is not some wild, radical idea. It is a natural and logical part of the tax. All advanced countries with VATs employ border adjustments. In order to focus the tax on domestic consumption, the VAT should exempt exports – which are consumed abroad – and tax imports – which are consumed here. Again, exactly like a retail sales tax.

(6) Many economists – but very few non-economists – believe that the international trade effects of border adjustments will be small. In this view, taxing all imports and exempting all exports will raise the value of the dollar relative to other currencies. To a first approximation, this will leave the level of imports and exports the same under the DBCFT as they would have been without the tax. Border adjustments alone should not be expected to change the trade balance. For all of the reasons, there should no expectation that the domestic price level will change.
<Snip>