Still, that argument seems weak... If people left the city with their ICE cars to a location with gas availability, there would be no worries either...
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Still, that argument seems weak... If people left the city with their ICE cars to a location with gas availability, there would be no worries either...
Even though the gas stations don't have power to pump gas, that doesn't mean the Superchargers have electricity to charge Teslas either...
did I just hear this right on NPR?
"Federal regulators are expected to announce today new guidelines on self-driving vehicles limiting companies to 25,000 in the first year and potentially 100,000 in later years"
such as is described more here:
"Right now, automakers and companies interested in testing self-driving technology have to apply for exemptions to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the agency only grants 2,500 per year. The Self Drive Act would increase that cap to 25,000 per year initially, and expand it up to 100,000 annually in three years’ time."
The US is speeding toward its first national law for self-driving cars
while Tesla is actually adding a checkbox where you can pay them more money for FSD today that will not even be allowed on the roads in the volumes they intend to sell the M3 at?... isn't this fraud?
doesn't this mean that by the year 2021... federal regulators have no intention of allowing high volume/millions of FSD vehicles on the road?
doesn't this completely invalidate Elon's Master Plan Part Deux in any rational timeframe?
Master Plan, Part Deux
where half of the plan is around "Sharing" and "Autonomy" and "Autonomy" is seen throughout the rest of the plan?
doesn't this mean that all this hype that Adam Jonas and Elon have stirred up that Tesla is in such the lead on... is actually something that will just unfold over the course of a decade or more?
doesn't this mean that other approaches such as:
GM ready to mass produce self-driving cars once regulations allow
where instead of producing generally available consumer vehicles that are FSD... companies instead produce fleet vehicles that are FSD?
doesn't this mean that all the spreadsheets you guys created and bantered about on this board regarding how much revenue Tesla will make due to the money their customers would make was just a childish exercise in "dreaming"?
doesn't this mean FSD revenues should be crossed of your DCFs?... and if you didn't have it on there... what's on there at this point?
MS
MX
M3 - future
Semi - future
PowerPack/Wall - failure (yes... failure... it was announced years ago and produced no accountable revenue... that's failure)
Solar Roofs - future
Alien Dreadnaught - future (or failure?... wasn't the M3 supposed to be built on the Alien Dreadnaught?)
Elon Musk: Tesla's factory will be an 'alien dreadnought' by 2018
How long can these unrealistic timeframes/dreams be allowed to continue?... and why do you continue to believe them?
"Federal regulators are expected to announce today new guidelines on self-driving vehicles limiting companies to 25,000 in the first year and potentially 100,000 in later years"
such as is described more here:
"Right now, automakers and companies interested in testing self-driving technology have to apply for exemptions to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the agency only grants 2,500 per year. The Self Drive Act would increase that cap to 25,000 per year initially, and expand it up to 100,000 annually in three years’ time."
The US is speeding toward its first national law for self-driving cars
while Tesla is actually adding a checkbox where you can pay them more money for FSD today that will not even be allowed on the roads in the volumes they intend to sell the M3 at?... isn't this fraud?
doesn't this mean that by the year 2021... federal regulators have no intention of allowing high volume/millions of FSD vehicles on the road?
doesn't this completely invalidate Elon's Master Plan Part Deux in any rational timeframe?
Master Plan, Part Deux
where half of the plan is around "Sharing" and "Autonomy" and "Autonomy" is seen throughout the rest of the plan?
doesn't this mean that all this hype that Adam Jonas and Elon have stirred up that Tesla is in such the lead on... is actually something that will just unfold over the course of a decade or more?
doesn't this mean that other approaches such as:
GM ready to mass produce self-driving cars once regulations allow
where instead of producing generally available consumer vehicles that are FSD... companies instead produce fleet vehicles that are FSD?
doesn't this mean that all the spreadsheets you guys created and bantered about on this board regarding how much revenue Tesla will make due to the money their customers would make was just a childish exercise in "dreaming"?
doesn't this mean FSD revenues should be crossed of your DCFs?... and if you didn't have it on there... what's on there at this point?
MS
MX
M3 - future
Semi - future
PowerPack/Wall - failure (yes... failure... it was announced years ago and produced no accountable revenue... that's failure)
Solar Roofs - future
Alien Dreadnaught - future (or failure?... wasn't the M3 supposed to be built on the Alien Dreadnaught?)
Elon Musk: Tesla's factory will be an 'alien dreadnought' by 2018
How long can these unrealistic timeframes/dreams be allowed to continue?... and why do you continue to believe them?
Dynastar
Member
I would guess hurricane country will be high on the list for Powerpack/solar installs in the future. Would be great PR next time the grid goes down.
why is Tesla selling it's customers FSD TODAY... when regulations do not allow it?... if your answer is: "because it could be allowed in the future"... then when the report comes out today that it won't be for years... then do you think Tesla should stop selling FSD to its customers?
My answer, bc you are too lazy too figure it out yourself, is they are selling the "capability". Two very different things.
Additionally, you really have to vet what their proposed legal definition of "FSD" is before assuming it is the same as everyone else's. That's why laws have "definition" and "exception" clauses.
But maybe you got a first look at the guidelines..... so I could be wrong.
Ulmo
Active Member
Good googlay-moogaly! If you are going to post a link, at least read it! They are talking about BOOSTING the number of regulation exempt vehicles by 10x to 40x from the current 2,500 limit. This allows manufacturers to get cars on the road without being stuck with the current driver-centric regulations.
To quote another fellow investor of yours, "It's a good thing"
but what they are doing is moving regulations from states to Fed... and the limit is far lower than the intended volume of M3s... 25k in the first year... 100k for 3 following years... i read the link... and what I'm saying is... the M3 will not be FSD (Level 4 or 5... however you look at it)... for many years.
I agree these "Metrochargers"[1] are the right power to be useful.
I have a few businesses around me that have L2 charging setup in their parking areas. A Whole Foods, a theater, etc... I never use them because I don't need to charge locally, and would rather keep them free for those who do. But I've always felt that it would be a hassle to plug/unplug all the time for a 20-30 minute errand and get a grand total of 10-12 miles of range.
Plugging in while shopping and getting 100 miles instead seems worth it.... and makes the prospect of being an urban apartment dweller without home charging much more plausible IMO. they just have to become ubiquitous.
[1] My name for them
I wonder. Now that we've seen there are separate cabinets housing the actual charger stack (as in their current design), and it appears it's primarily the pedestal that's redesigned, I'd guess that any installation savings is there in the pedestal installation. It appears all the wiring A/C feed wiring & conduit, switchgear, and HV DC lines & conduit to the pedestals would all be about the same.
The previous pedestal design required setting a pair of poles in concrete for each pedestal. That requires sawcutting asphalt or concrete for existing locations, and then forming and pouring new. I suspect this design is bolt-in, making it a much easier proposition for things like parking garages, etc...
I also assume, given the 72KW rating, that they are using the same ~145kW charger stacks in the cabinets, and simply splitting them evenly. This might eliminate some complexity/cost in the variable-output shared design of "normal superchargers.
DurandalAI
Member
I'm not surprised at all, especially considering how similar rumors fly about other AD tech, Tesla's included. The difference is that Tesla has bet a lot of money on putting that hardware out into cars that are now out on the roads, collecting data. Big gamble, but a potentially huge payoff.
I'm also wondering if maybe the lower max power output of the system means they can get by without needing a dedicated transformer. If they can simply tie into a parking garage's transformer, that would cut a lot of cost, not to mention the weeks/months it takes the utilities to drop one in. I doubt it though as it's quite a bit of power still needed.
Well, to be fair, I think the argument is that you are carrying around the mass of an additional 15KWh worth of cells that you don't have access to. That additional weight will indeed have some impact as compared to a "pure" 60KWh car.
That having been said, I expect the impact is rather small. It also ignores that there are benefits those owners enjoy as well (other than the upgrade option):
- No real impact to 100% charging
- Faster/better supercharging curve
- Likely less noticeable battery degradation
So I do agree the criticism is a stretch... but indeed they weren't arguing that it was due to the "weight" of a charge.
DurandalAI
Member
I think some people here are being purposefully obtuse for the end goal of being argumentative.
Hey look, grid is up until the winds/hurricane hits.. In other words, if you evacuated when you were supposed to, your car would have been charged up at home, at an L2 charger, at an L3 or supercharger, and you would have been out of Dodge. It's called not waiting until the last minute when everything is already collapsing around you, and instead leaving while infrastructure is still in place.
With respect to the VW announcement... here's the key quote, from VW plans electric option for all models
50 billion euro's of batteries is not the same thing as 50 billion euros of battery plant investment.
In dollar terms, that's 60 billion dollars and at $100/kWh, that's 600 GWh of batteries, or about 8.5 million long distance BEVs at an average of 70 kWh each. 8.5 million cars by 2030 is not all that much for VW. They make 10.4 million cars a year. So they are looking at just over 6% of their production in the next 13 years to be all electric if these batteries are only for long distance BEVs, which they are clearly not.
The Tesla Gigafactory 1 alone from 2020 to 2030 is making 1,050 GWh of cells at full output. At $100/kWh, that's $105 billion dollars worth of cells.
50 billion euro's of batteries is not the same thing as 50 billion euros of battery plant investment.
In dollar terms, that's 60 billion dollars and at $100/kWh, that's 600 GWh of batteries, or about 8.5 million long distance BEVs at an average of 70 kWh each. 8.5 million cars by 2030 is not all that much for VW. They make 10.4 million cars a year. So they are looking at just over 6% of their production in the next 13 years to be all electric if these batteries are only for long distance BEVs, which they are clearly not.
The Tesla Gigafactory 1 alone from 2020 to 2030 is making 1,050 GWh of cells at full output. At $100/kWh, that's $105 billion dollars worth of cells.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
This is pretty much what's priced into Tesla's current valuation at $360 per share.
On the other hand, Elon Musk says the black line will cross the blue line in 2025, not 2038.
Well, I'm not really sure it's right to consider that the new system is really any lower-power overall. The total power required is still going to be based on the number of stalls desired.
And if you look at the video, it appears its the same "1 cabinet feeds 2 pedestals" design (I count 8 pedestals in a strange staggered arrangement and 4 cabs):
Given that each pedestal is rated at 72KW, that means the same ~145KW per cabinet as the traditional design, The primary difference is the power is split evenly, not dynamically shared, between the pedestals. This is allows the power delivery to be deterministic, so people can "count on" the power they get when plugged in.
So I suspect the site transformer/feed requirements will be similar.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
