For AWD owners wanting a P3D-

[phantasms]

When I look at the question of why Tesla does not make a “conversion path” from LR AWD to Performance LR AWD, it seems to me that the answer is a question of business politics. I could be totally wrong, but this is my reasoning.

It seems that a software unlock is all that is needed to turn a non-P LR AWD into a P- LR AWD if the rear motor on the LR AWD is a 980. If a 990 rear motor is currently being put into ALL non-p LR AWD cars, Tesla has a difficult situation with customer relations. Only older LR AWD cars have 980 motors. The newer ones have 990s. If Tesla offered an ‘unlock” for all LR AWD cars that have a 980 rear motor, it would stir incredible anger from those (newer owners) that have a 990 rear motor. Basically Tesla cannot offer the unlock to everyone with a LR AWD, so they don’t offer it at all.

Then comes the question of why Tesla pumped out so many LR AWD performance cars this year? Since Tesla was now putting 990 motors into LR AWD cars, it probably had a bunch of surplus 980 motors. Also it appears that the P3D+ was delayed this quarter, so Tesla probably had even more 980’s sitting around than it could currently deal with. Tesla likely made the decision to make a ton of LR AWD performance cars to use the surplus 980 motors and grab a few bucks in the process.

I bet from now on (or soon from now) that 980’s will only be used in P3D+ cars, and LR AWD cars will all get 990’s (locked down to a certain power). Stealth P3D- cars are probably cannibalizing P3D- sales. For now, it lets Tesla off the hook for slow P3D+ production. In the future, I highly doubt Tesla will go that route.

Tesla probably doesn’t want to increase the complexity of Model 3 trims in the future, so they will stick with 3 of them. If you want the speed -you buy the P3D+. LR AWD will be incapable of an upgrade, so any upgrade for owners of older LR AWD cars (with 980 motors) will be off the table. Tesla doesn’t want a *sugar*-storm over a bunch of $2K upgrades that are not available to everyone.

Well anyway, this is my take on it. It’s not a technical issue, but rather a business decision. When Tesla only has enough 980 motors for P3D+ production only, the “stealth” as we know it will likely go away.

This is the argument I hate the most because it makes the most sense and seems like the most likely thing to stop me from eventually upgrading my car.

let’s hope we can all laugh about this thread in our 3.0s 0-60 future. lol

 

[jonquiljo]

“Why” is as important as “what.” Why they made big runs of P3D-s this year is probably as important as what makes P3D-s different. ‘Why” may even indicate “what” is different.

Tesla interrupted manufacturing schedules to build lots of P3D-s. When people found out they were available, they sold very quickly, not just to P3D+ orderers waiting extraordinarily long for their cars, but to AWD orderers (like myself) also. There is a big demand for the P3D-! If this were to be an ongoing thing, why wouldn’t Tesla make the P3D- the “new” LR AWD?

The answer is that Tesla didn’t want this to be an ongoing thing. It will kill some demand for the P3D+. So there must have been some circumstances in Q4 (and Q3) that warranted these cars. What happened to warrant Tesla making them?

 

[Knightshade]

“Why” is as important as “what.” Why they made big runs of P3D-s this year is probably as important as what makes P3D-s different. ‘Why” may even indicate “what” is different.

Tesla interrupted manufacturing schedules to build lots of P3D-s.

Did they?

Do you have a copy of the original schedule they interrupted?

Because it's just as likely they had up next "batch of LR AWD" and noticed they had a bunch of extra 980s sitting around so just decided eh, let's use these and get an extra 2k per car... we already know from last quarter we'll sell literally 100% of the ones we build this way so might as well..."

When people found out they were available, they sold very quickly, not just to P3D+ orderers waiting extraordinarily long for their cars, but to AWD orderers (like myself) also. There is a big demand for the P3D-!

Exactly the point. They got an extra 2k out of a LOT of otherwise LR AWD buyers. Maybe even some SR folks who got talked into a "cheap" performance upgrade.

A lot of such folks have posted about being offered an available P3D- instead for just a small upcharge.

What I haven't heard is anybody waiting on a P3D+ who Tesla voluntarily told he could get an inventory P3D- instead for cheaper.

As long as the - is only replacing cheaper orders that's a net win for Tesla.

If this were to be an ongoing thing, why wouldn’t Tesla make the P3D- the “new” LR AWD?

Exactly that reason.

It'd hurt P3D+ orders.

But making them "who knows when they'll be out there, they're only available from inventory- and we're not even TELLING folks about it who ordered more expensive trims" that's a net win for Tesla.

They've done this in the past.

Like when the LR RWD was still available off-menu... they'd sell you one if you knew to ask... and they might even suggest you ask for this off-menu option if you otherwise were gonna buy a cheaper SR... but the default for the guy off the street wanting long range was the more expensive LR AWD.



Now- will they keep having an abundance of 980s to throw in otherwise AWD cars and flash em to Ps to sell as inventory Ps? We don't know.

And Tesla seems to want it that way.


When the first batch of the surprise P3D- cars showed up, some tesla stores were telling customers "Oh, this was just a factory mistake... there won't be more after this...."

Then there were.

And more after that.

And more after that.

Always inventory only, if you knew to ask (or they told you about em- again generally to upsell you from something cheaper)

So guy off the street wanting a P still only sees the P3D+ on the website to order.

Buy guy who was gonna get a cheaper car maybe gets talked into a "little" more expensive inventory P3D-

Win-win.

Maybe a few "in the know" buyers who would've sucked it up and paid more for the boat anchor 20s and brakes they don't need go out and look for the P3D-...but obviously Teslas done the math and finds those people are few enough it's still worth doing for all the folks like you who were gonna buy a cheaper car they got a little more $ out of.

 

[jonquiljo]

Did they?

Do you have a copy of the original schedule they interrupted?

Because it's just as likely they had up next "batch of LR AWD" and noticed they had a bunch of extra 980s sitting around so just decided eh, let's use these and get an extra 2k per car... we already know from last quarter we'll sell literally 100% of the ones we build this way so might as well..."




Exactly the point. They got an extra 2k out of a LOT of otherwise LR AWD buyers. Maybe even some SR folks who got talked into a "cheap" performance upgrade.

A lot of such folks have posted about being offered an available P3D- instead for just a small upcharge.

What I haven't heard is anybody waiting on a P3D+ who Tesla voluntarily told he could get an inventory P3D- instead for cheaper.

As long as the - is only replacing cheaper orders that's a net win for Tesla.




Exactly that reason.

It'd hurt P3D+ orders.

But making them "who knows when they'll be out there, they're only available from inventory- and we're not even TELLING folks about it who ordered more expensive trims" that's a net win for Tesla.

They've done this in the past.

Like when the LR RWD was still available off-menu... they'd sell you one if you knew to ask... and they might even suggest you ask for this off-menu option if you otherwise were gonna buy a cheaper SR... but the default for the guy off the street wanting long range was the more expensive LR AWD.



Now- will they keep having an abundance of 980s to throw in otherwise AWD cars and flash em to Ps to sell as inventory Ps? We don't know.

And Tesla seems to want it that way.


When the first batch of the surprise P3D- cars showed up, some tesla stores were telling customers "Oh, this was just a factory mistake... there won't be more after this...."

Then there were.

And more after that.

And more after that.

Always inventory only, if you knew to ask (or they told you about em- again generally to upsell you from something cheaper)

So guy off the street wanting a P still only sees the P3D+ on the website to order.

Buy guy who was gonna get a cheaper car maybe gets talked into a "little" more expensive inventory P3D-

Win-win.

Maybe a few "in the know" buyers who would've sucked it up and paid more for the boat anchor 20s and brakes they don't need go out and look for the P3D-...but obviously Teslas done the math and finds those people are few enough it's still worth doing for all the folks like you who were gonna buy a cheaper car they got a little more $ out of.

Oh ... OK. I'm not sure really what your point is because you are making so many of them So I'll just reply to a couple of things ...

1.) I don't have a copy of the original schedule they interrupted. The fact remains is that they (stopped and) made a bunch of cars (easily a couple of thousand P3D-s). They stopped - ie. - fulfilling customer orders and making something totally different and not ordered.

2.) And yes, a "small upcharge". 2000 stealths at $2000 each is $4M. Not a lot of money to most companies these days and certainly pennies to Tesla.

Beyond that, there is very little point other than to try to figure out why Tesla did it. I wanted a performance all along, but was not in the mood for 20" wheels and a spoiler, etc. It had nothing to do with the cost. I wanted the speed without the sprinkles. I certainly didn't spend $2000 on a little red underline - which I could have bought on eBay for about $1.29.

All I am saying is that Tesla must have done it for a reason. That reason intrigues me as we are sitting here with 2 weeks and 2 days left to Q4 - and Tesla must deliver or produce and deliver ... what ... 25% of their US Q4 orders - mostly to California? People here are still waiting for VINs (many since October) and Tesla spent part of that time producing cars that no one even ordered. Some of these cars were purchased by people who already ordered, but some were not.

Now Tesla had a reason to do that that must have been important to them. Companies will billions of dollars of money hanging in the balance just don't do those things for the hell of it. Beyond that, there is no more complexity to it.

 

[Knightshade]

Oh ... OK. I'm not sure really what your point is because you are making so many of them So I'll just reply to a couple of things ...

1.) I don't have a copy of the original schedule they interrupted. The fact remains is that they (stopped and) made a bunch of cars (easily a couple of thousand P3D-s). They stopped - ie. - fulfilling customer orders and making something totally different and not ordered.

That's not how Tesla builds cars though. They don't build individual cars to order.

They build in batches and then match produced cars to orders- with those that don't match becoming inventory cars.

So no, they didn't "interrupt" anything.

They just used a different rear drive unit when they ran a batch of LR AWD cars.

2.) And yes, a "small upcharge". 2000 stealths at $2000 each is $4M. Not a lot of money to most companies these days and certainly pennies to Tesla.

Where'd you get only 2000 cars total?

Tesla delivered almost 80,000 Model 3s in Q3 alone. Likely will be more in Q4.

Still, if they had spare 980s sitting around every single one is free money- not really seeing the basis of your objection that it'd "only" be millions of extra in revenue.

it's millions extra with no downside at all.

All I am saying is that Tesla must have done it for a reason.

Yes, and I've suggested such a reason that fits all currently known facts.

They were building LR AWDs anyway, and have spare 980s, many more than they had P3D+ orders... so saw a way to make some extra revenue putting them in the LR AWDs and selling them as P3D- cars for $2000 more.

They protected P3D+ sales by not putting this on the menu, and largely only mentioning this option to people otherwise buying cheaper trims- thus upselling them to the -

That reason intrigues me as we are sitting here with 2 weeks and 2 days left to Q4 - and Tesla must deliver or produce and deliver ... what ... 25% of their US Q4 orders - mostly to California? People here are still waiting for VINs (many since October) and Tesla spent part of that time producing cars that no one even ordered.

Again- Tesla does not build to order like you seem to think.

They aren't going "Well, instead of building this next car to Freds config we're gonna build a generic P3D-"

They build in batches.

If there's an order for something in the batch, then it is shipped for that order.

If there isn't an order it becomes inventory which people waiting on orders might switch to (like taking a P3D- for $2000 more since they have one in inventory and you don't want to wait for the LR AWD you actually ordered...)

So Fred gets to wait until they do a batch matching his config- or he can take something else they ARE building (or have in inventory) that he's ok with and get it sooner.

Building each car to a specific Model 3 order would be insanely inefficient for the volume of cars Tesla is building at this point.

Now Tesla had a reason to do that that must have been important to them.

Every LR AWD they instead build with a 980 and flash to a P they get $2000 more for. Increasing both average transaction price and profit on the car compared to NOT having done that.

Leaving it off menu protections P3D+ sales too.

Win win.

Pretty simple.

 

[jonquiljo]

OOOOOOOKKKKKKKK.

 

[Knightshade]

OOOOOOOKKKKKKKK.

I mean, if you have a better explanation, let's hear it.

Or if you have any evidence anything I've suggested doesn't match known facts, let's hear that too.

 

[StealthP3D]

Just as obvious as the fact that in 2018 they did not have different drive units- as confirmed by Teslas own parts catalog and slews of LR AWD owners posting the PN that came in their car as a rear DU- and thus AWD cars with the 980 drive unit, the same one in the P, could easily be software flashed to be a P3D- if Tesla offered that unlock as the actual original post in this very thread is asking for them to do.

Well, you know this but I'll repeat it for new readers who didn't want to wade through 69 pages of information (some of it wrong and misleading).

While the part numbers were the same in the early days of Performance manufacturing, the CEO let it know that not all drive units had the same specifications. After the drive inverters, motors and final drive gears were assembled, but before they were installed in vehicles, the units were bench tested and recorded for output characteristics. One reason this was done is that there is quite a bit of natural variation in the high-frequency silicon carbide power transistors. This is the way they came from the supplier(s) and is a natural feature of silicon carbide MOSFETs. All MOSFETs have natural variation from unit to unit but silicon carbide has more than regular silicon. If you are not pushing the envelope of power output, this variation doesn't matter too much because SiC MOSFETs are already considerably more efficient than regular silicon MOSFETs.

Edit: I want to add that efficiency is key to performance. Because a more efficient MOSFET creates less heat. The actual performance boost is provided by software allowing higher current levels although a more efficient MOSFET will have *slightly* higher power output at the same current levels as a less efficient MOSFET. The less efficient MOSFET will have more heat to get rid of and be more likely to fail at extended high power levels.

SiC MOSFET's are pretty new to mainstream products as evidenced by the fact that not even the Model S or Model X used them (at the time of the Model 3 release). They cost more than regular silicon MOSFETs but have several desirable advantages. While they are more efficient and have better switching characteristics they also have more variation of efficiency (and therefore heat build-up under hard use). This variation is correlated to which part of the silicon carbide ingot the chips were cut from. Yields would be unacceptable if they simply discarded the lower performing chips and, for most applications, the variation tends to not matter much. The silicon carbide ingots are sliced into wafers and the MOSFET's chips are cut from the wafers. The ones near the outer edges tend to have slightly poorer performance characteristics which may be related to the speed of cooling of the ingots during manufacture.

Here's the deal: These MOSFETs are not cheap and the drive inverter is designed to use as few of them as possible without sacrificing reliability or performance. So the design (the number of MOSFETs) is specific to the intended power output for cost reasons. By testing and sorting the assembled drive units, and picking the best-performing ones for the Performance model, Tesla felt comfortable that they could boost the output of the Performance models without increasing the failure rate (failed drive units are highly undesirable, obviously).

Now that the drive units have different part numbers, one of two things has happened.

1) Tesla is now applying the part number after the bench testing has been performed. This would eliminate the need to track the performance drive units by individual serial numbers in a database and would simplify drive unit replacement in the future.

Tesla is a fast-moving company and they released the Performance Model 3 very suddenly when they realized they were headed towards a cash crunch if they didn't sell a bunch of higher-margin cars. Obviously, they let a few things go by the wayside to get the first Performance models to market expeditiously. They are not a huge lumbering corporation that always dots their I's and crosses their T's if it is just a formality. The cash crunch was caused by a bottleneck in battery production so it's a near certainty that they had stacks of finished drive units stacked in the warehouse. Rather than re-numbering the drive units suitable for Performance Model 3's, they simply recorded the serial numbers so they could ensure the Performance models had the highest Sigma drive units.

2) It's possible Tesla's MOSFET supplier(s) are now sorting the MOSFETs before delivery. This can be checked by comparing the MOSFET part numbers between the two drive units (Performance and Standard). If the MOSFETs have different part numbers, that allows Tesla to manufacture Performance drive units with confidence. It would also show the MOSFETs are being pre-sorted.

Thanks for finally getting on board with correct, well documented, facts

My position on this hasn't changed. It's been 100% consistent for the entire previous year because it's the only position that fits all the available facts perfectly. It also means it's quite unlikely that Tesla will be flashing any regular AWD's into P3D's after the sale. However, on AWD's that Tesla accepts as trade-ins, there are a certain number of them that Tesla could flash to Performance for higher resale value. However, only Tesla knows what percentage of Performance capable cars were sold as AWD's.

The reason Tesla is unlikely to ever flash an AWD to P3D, even when the owner happens to have a P3D rated AWD (as recorded in Tesla's internal database) is that they can't do it for all AWD owners who request it. And it's not based on WHEN the car was purchased, it would be luck of the draw. As it stands, owners of non-Performance capable AWD's have no complaint. But if Tesla were to offer to flash the AWD's for owners who happen to have a Performance capable AWD, the howls would never cease!

I hope this helps some people understand the differences between Performance capable AWDs and non-performance capable AWD's and why Tesla is not offering the upgrade for a price, even for those owners who might happen to own a Performance capable AWD. Of course, I know there are a few out there that will never believe it. But I accept that, after all, the world still has people who believe the Apollo moon landing was faked!

 

[dennistdk]

By testing and sorting the assembled drive units, and picking the best-performing ones for the Performance model, Tesla felt comfortable that they could boost the output of the Performance models without increasing the failure rate (failed drive units are highly undesirable, obviously).

It's the front motor (960) that is severely software limited, not the rear (980/990). This seems to make the most difference in AWD vs. Performance. It's pretty clear when you look and compare the CAN data (posted by several members and there are several youtube videos showing it). So not sure this discussion makes much sense as it is right now.

The reason Tesla is unlikely to ever flash an AWD to P3D, even when the owner happens to have a P3D rated AWD (according to Tesla's internal database) is that they can't do it for all AWD owners who request it.

They have to some extent done this in the EU. My neighbor owns an "normal" AWD that was flashed afterwards with performance like software, e.g. it doesn't have the red line in the menu, but performs exactly like a Performance on the track and in 0-60. When he received the OTA update it was called a "20% power increase"-update.

So there are a few more nuances to this...

 

[jonquiljo]

Well, you know this but I'll repeat it for new readers who didn't want to wade through 69 pages of information (some of it wrong and misleading).

While the part numbers were the same in the early days of Performance manufacturing, the CEO let it know that not all drive units had the same specifications. After the drive inverters, motors and final drive gears were assembled, but before they were installed in vehicles, the units were bench tested and recorded for output characteristics. One reason this was done is that there is quite a bit of natural variation in the high-frequency silicon carbide power transistors. This is the way they came from the supplier(s) and is a natural feature of silicon carbide MOSFETs. All MOSFETs have natural variation from unit to unit but silicon carbide has more than regular silicon. If you are not pushing the envelope of power output, this variation doesn't matter too much because SiC MOSFETs are already considerably more efficient than regular silicon MOSFETs.

SiC MOSFET's are pretty new to mainstream products as evidenced by the fact that not even the Model S or Model X used them (at the time of the Model 3 release). They cost more than regular silicon MOSFETs but have several desirable advantages. While they are more efficient and have better switching characteristics they also have more variation of efficiency (and therefore heat build-up under hard use). This variation is correlated to which part of the silicon carbide ingot the chips were cut from. Yields would be unacceptable if they simply discarded the lower performing chips and, for most applications, the variation tends to not matter much. The silicon carbide ingots are sliced into wafers and the MOSFET's chips are cut from the wafers. The ones near the outer edges tend to have slightly poorer performance characteristics which may be related to the speed of cooling of the ingots during manufacture.

Here's the deal: These MOSFETs are not cheap and the drive inverter is designed to use as few of them as possible without sacrificing reliability or performance. So the design (the number of MOSFETs) is specific to the intended power output for cost reasons. By testing and sorting the assembled drive units, and picking the best-performing ones for the Performance model, Tesla felt comfortable that they could boost the output of the Performance models without increasing the failure rate (failed drive units are highly undesirable, obviously).

Now that the drive units have different part numbers, one of two things has happened.

1) Tesla is now applying the part number after the bench testing has been performed. This would eliminate the need to track the performance drive units by individual serial numbers in a database and would simplify drive unit replacement in the future.

Tesla is a fast-moving company and they released the Performance Model 3 very suddenly when they realized they were headed towards a cash crunch if they didn't sell a bunch of higher-margin cars. Obviously, they let a few things go by the wayside to get the first Performance models to market expeditiously. They are not a huge lumbering corporation that always dots their I's and crosses their T's if it is just a formality. The cash crunch was caused by a bottleneck in battery production so it's a near certainty that they had stacks of finished drive units stacked in the warehouse. Rather than re-numbering the drive units suitable for Performance Model 3's, they simply recorded the serial numbers so they could ensure the Performance models had the highest Sigma drive units.

2) It's possible Tesla's MOSFET supplier(s) are now sorting the MOSFETs before delivery. This can be checked by comparing the MOSFET part numbers between the two drive units (Performance and Standard). If the MOSFETs have different part numbers, that allows Tesla to manufacture Performance drive units with confidence. It would also show the MOSFETs are being pre-sorted.



My position on this hasn't changed. It's been 100% consistent for the entire previous year because it's the only position that fits all the available facts perfectly. It also means it's quite unlikely that Tesla will be flashing any regular AWD's into P3D's after the sale. However, on AWD's that Tesla accepts as trade-ins, there are a certain number of them that Tesla could flash to Performance for higher resale value. However, only Tesla knows what percentage of Performance capable cars were sold as AWD's.

The reason Tesla is unlikely to ever flash an AWD to P3D, even when the owner happens to have a P3D rated AWD (according to Tesla's internal database) is that they can't do it for all AWD owners who request it. And it's not based on WHEN the car was purchased, it would be luck of the draw. As it stands, owners of non-Performance capable AWD's have no complaint. But if Tesla were to offer to flash the AWD's for owners who happen to have a Performance capable AWD, the howls would never cease!

I hope this helps some people understand the differences between Performance capable AWDs and non-performance capable AWD's and why Tesla is not offering the upgrade for a price, even for those owners who might happen to own a Performance capable AWD. Of course, I know there are a few out there that will never believe it. But I accept that, after all, the world still has people who believe the Apollo moon landing was faked!

I know the Apollo moon landing was not faked - because I was there!!!

Actually a very good discussion on the subject, and I am totally convinced by this explanation. Somehow MOSFETs have been screened and put into proper vehicles. This makes total sense.

My remaining curiosity was why now release lots of P3D-s onto the market? Does it correspond to the "very slow" production of P3D+s this quarter? They are just starting to hit customers garages as we write this - late December.

I just figure that unexpectedly manufacturing a lot of P3D-s this quarter generated a mere 4 or 5 million (extra) max - a far cry from what Tesla needs to fund its operations. A 7-11 store, yes --- Tesla, No. This could not have been a big cash generator.

However, I now do believe that the MOSFET screen does explain why there are Performance cars to begin with. Thanks for clarifying this.

 

[StealthP3D]

It's the front motor (960) that is severely software limited, not the rear (980/990). This seems to make the most difference in AWD vs. Performance. It's pretty clear when you look and compare the CAN data (posted by several members and there are several youtube videos showing it). So not sure this discussion makes much sense as it is right now.

Not really following you here. The Performance Model 3 does send more current to the rear motor than the AWD does. And the rear drive inverter of both models sees a lot more current than the front, regardless of which model you have. What goes on up front is just a software limitation applied to the front wheels of the AWD and is not really relevant to the discussion (in any way that I can see). The rear is the most stressed.

They have done this is EU several times. My neighbor owns an "normal" AWD that was flashed afterwards with performance like software, e.g. it doesn't have the red line in the menu, but performs exactly like a Performance on the track and in 0-60. When he received the update it was called a "20% power increase"-update.

So there are a few more nuances to this...

Yeah, I'm not sure what happened there as it's definitely a rare anomaly. And it's not inconsistent with what I've outlined about the differences in MOSFETs and why Tesla doesn't offer to flash everyone who asks. If I recall, Tesla was trying to make good on a bad experience. It is odd that the software doesn't have the red line in it - that would imply Tesla developed a special software variation just for those few customers.

 

[StealthP3D]

My remaining curiosity was why now release lots of P3D-s onto the market? Does it correspond to the "very slow" production of P3D+s this quarter? They are just starting to hit customers garages as we write this - late December.

I just figure that unexpectedly manufacturing a lot of P3D-s this quarter generated a mere 4 or 5 million (extra) max - a far cry from what Tesla needs to fund its operations. A 7-11 store, yes --- Tesla, No. This could not have been a big cash generator.

However, I now do believe that the MOSFET screen does explain why there are Performance cars to begin with. Thanks for clarifying this.

We can only guess but I have a couple of ideas.

$4-$5 million is not a lot in the bigger picture. But Wall Street can be very sensitive to profit margins. And in that context, since this would essentially be pure profit, it can actually move the profit margin on each car sold quite a bit. There are two reasons why Tesla might push this:

1) Margins have declined this quarter, for whatever reason, or have not improved as much as desired, and this will help cover.

2) Margins are seeing a nice improvement over last quarter and Musk knows this will burn the short-sellers (which he desperately wants to do). This will improve margins that much more and make Wall Street go even more "gaga" over future profitability. Burn, baby, burn!

Tesla is not valued on current earnings, they are valued on estimated future earnings. Higher margins get multiplied as production volume grows. So it's not about the $4 or $5 million cash (or however much it really is), it's about how it speaks to the future. Because trends get extrapolated into future earnings. So the trend of margin improvements is very important to valuation.

I'm very bullish on TSLA stock right now and think the best part will come after they release Q4 numbers!

Merry Christmas!

 

[dennistdk]

Not really following you here. The Performance Model 3 does send more current to the rear motor than the AWD does. And the rear drive inverter of both models sees a lot more current than the front, regardless of which model you have. What goes on up front is just a software limitation applied to the front wheels of the AWD and is not really relevant to the discussion (in any way that I can see). The rear is the most stressed.

I think it is related. The boost in acceleration is caused mainly by the front motor if you look at the CAN data at it's peaks during 0-60 acceleration.

At max. power it looks like this (pre 2019.36):

Performance rear: 246kw / 730A
Performance front: 186kw / 555A
AWD rear: 220kw / 640A ~ 10% less
AWD front: 132kw / 384A ~ 30% less

I would guess that with the now 2 x 5% power updates (2019.8 and 2019.36) the rear motor in the AWD's are now getting roughly the same power today (2019.36+) as the Performance was in the beginning of the year (pre 2019.8).

 

[StealthP3D]

I think it is related. The boost in acceleration is caused mainly by the front motor if you look at the CAN data at it's peaks during 0-60 acceleration.

At max. power it looks like this (pre 2019.36):

Performance rear: 246kw / 730A
Performance front: 186kw / 555A
AWD rear: 220kw / 640A ~ 10% less
AWD front: 132kw / 384A ~ 30% less

I would guess that with the now 2 x 5% power updates (2019.8 and 2019.36) the rear motor in the AWD's are now getting roughly the same power today (2019.36+) as the Performance was in the beginning of the year (pre 2019.8).

How is the power to the front relevant? All the action is happening at the rear. The front is child's play.

 

[dennistdk]

How is the power to the front relevant? All the action is happening at the rear. The front is child's play.

It's the combined power output that gives you the performance and the low 0-60 times. Whether the power is on the front or back has more to do with understeer/oversteer, handling and component wear.
If you look more closely at the data then you can see that the reason why the AWD has ~20% less power than the Performance is caused primarily by the front being limited (it actually makes up around 70% of the difference in peak power output).

 

[Knightshade]

Well, you know this but I'll repeat it for new readers who didn't want to wade through 69 pages of information (some of it wrong and misleading).

But what you're about to repeat is the misleading (or outright false) stuff-- not sure why you keep repeating that.

While the part numbers were the same in the early days of Performance manufacturing, the CEO let it know that not all drive units had the same specifications.

No, he did not do that.

You keep misrepresenting what he actually said.

We just covered this yesterday.

If they actually had different specs they'd have been given different part numbers

Because that's how every other manufacturer that bins parts indicates which parts meet which spec

Because otherwise it adds a ton of, totally not useful, complexity to your supply chain, manufacturing, and repair process for no benefit whatsoever

I skipped your massive tech info dump because at no point did you offer any reason they'd use the SAME part number for 2 units that tested significantly differently- a fact you keep ignoring and which debunks your entire claim they are "magically different" with the same PN.

That brings us to-

Yields would be unacceptable if they simply discarded the lower performing chips

Right. Same with say CPU makers.

What they do instead is stamp a different PN on them and use them in lower-spec units.

They don't just stamp them ALL the SAME part and then hope nobody screws up down the line using the "lower spec" part in the higher spec item because they couldn't bothered to label them different. That'd be insane.

Now that the drive units have different part numbers, one of two things has happened.

1) Tesla is now applying the part number after the bench testing has been performed. This would eliminate the need to track the performance drive units by individual serial numbers in a database and would simplify drive unit replacement in the future.

The "they track by serial number instead!" thing has 0 evidence supporting it.

It'd be an incredibly stupid way to do it as already explained, and nobody has offered ANY benefit to doing it that way instead of different PNs.


In fact- I can debunk that for you right now

https://epc.tesla.com/#/systemGroups/47412

That's the Tesla parts catalog.

It shows the rear drive unit by PN.

And it specifies you can order a replacement without providing a VIN


If the 980 was "different" in a P and a LR AWD you would have to provide the VIN to get the "right" replacement.


You don't.

Because there is no difference

A 980 is a 980.


Please stop repeating this "They have a magic hidden tracking system nobody has ever seen, makes no sense to exist, and is directly contradicted by their own parts catalog" nonsense.

My position on this hasn't changed.

Which is a shame because it's directly contradicted by all known facts, and is based entirely on misunderstanding (or misquoting) a single tweet from Elon that came out before the first P was ever actually delivered....and then is built on top of a "magic hidden database" nobody's ever seen or shown evidence of, and which is counter to the practice of every other manufacturing company that bins products, and which provides zero benefit, and many downsides, compared to different PNs.

On top of that it'd make no sense at all that if your special magic system DID exist and worked well, that they'd suddenly change it to a PN system all of a sudden.





Now, what makes actual sense...and is a much simpler...and consistent with how binning is done by everyone else... and actually matches the facts in the parts catalog is this:


The 980 is the 980. Period. Your rear DU on a 2018 breaks, you order a 980. You don't have to specify which car it came from, because, as the parts catalog tells us, they're all the same unit

Elon maybe intended to sort and bin (he intends lots of things that never happen once he learns more info), but it turned out the yields were solid there wasn't anything to actually sort.

So all rear DUs got the same PN.

At that point they realized the 980 was probably overbuilt. So they went back and developed a cheaper rear DU, the 990.... but it didn't start being put into AWD cars until roughly early 2019, and universally in all of em until mid-late 2019.


All of that fits all known facts. Without the mental gymnastics and sooper-sekrit serial # tracking and direct contradiction of the parts catalog of your explanation.

 

[StealthP3D]

But what you're about to repeat is the misleading (or outright false) stuff-- not sure why you keep repeating that.




No, he did not do that.

You keep misrepresenting what he actually said.

We just covered this yesterday.

If they actually had different specs they'd have been given different part numbers

Because that's how every other manufacturer that bins parts indicates which parts meet which spec

Because otherwise it adds a ton of, totally not useful, complexity to your supply chain, manufacturing, and repair process for no benefit whatsoever

I skipped your massive tech info dump because at no point did you offer any reason they'd use the SAME part number for 2 units that tested significantly differently- a fact you keep ignoring and which debunks your entire claim they are "magically different" with the same PN.

That brings us to-



Right. Same with say CPU makers.

What they do instead is stamp a different PN on them and use them in lower-spec units.

They don't just stamp them ALL the SAME part and then hope nobody screws up down the line using the "lower spec" part in the higher spec item because they couldn't bothered to label them different. That'd be insane.




The "they track by serial number instead!" thing has 0 evidence supporting it.

It'd be an incredibly stupid way to do it as already explained, and nobody has offered ANY benefit to doing it that way instead of different PNs.


In fact- I can debunk that for you right now

https://epc.tesla.com/#/systemGroups/47412

That's the Tesla parts catalog.

It shows the rear drive unit by PN.

And it specifies you can order a replacement without providing a VIN


If the 980 was "different" in a P and a LR AWD you would have to provide the VIN to get the "right" replacement.


You don't.

Because there is no difference

A 980 is a 980.


Please stop repeating this "They have a magic hidden tracking system nobody has ever seen, makes no sense to exist, and is directly contradicted by their own parts catalog" nonsense.




Which is a shame because it's directly contradicted by all known facts, and is based entirely on misunderstanding (or misquoting) a single tweet from Elon that came out before the first P was ever actually delivered....and then is built on top of a "magic hidden database" nobody's ever seen or shown evidence of, and which is counter to the practice of every other manufacturing company that bins products, and which provides zero benefit, and many downsides, compared to different PNs.

On top of that it'd make no sense at all that if your special magic system DID exist and worked well, that they'd suddenly change it to a PN system all of a sudden.





Now, what makes actual sense...and is a much simpler...and consistent with how binning is done by everyone else... and actually matches the facts in the parts catalog is this:


The 980 is the 980. Period. Your rear DU on a 2018 breaks, you order a 980. You don't have to specify which car it came from, because, as the parts catalog tells us, they're all the same unit

Elon maybe intended to sort and bin (he intends lots of things that never happen once he learns more info), but it turned out the yields were solid there wasn't anything to actually sort.

So all rear DUs got the same PN.

At that point they realized the 980 was probably overbuilt. So they went back and developed a cheaper rear DU, the 990.... but it didn't start being put into AWD cars until roughly early 2019, and universally in all of em until mid-late 2019.


All of that fits all known facts. Without the mental gymnastics and sooper-sekrit serial # tracking and direct contradiction of the parts catalog of your explanation.

Repeating all the same nothing-burgers and errors of logic from 2018 will not help you make more sense. Quite the opposite given what we know now. I'm not sure why you continue to twist credibility to try to explain something that is actually quite simple.

Give it a break.

 

[jonquiljo]

Does Tesla provide any of this information officially? They make P3D- cars and I assume they have some statement as what was done to make them P3D-, or what makes them P3D- in general.

This does not include tweets from Elon Musk! Tweets are unofficial and often just impulsive outbursts.

The only thing that crosses my mind is whether the “official” 0-60 for the LR AWD is 4.4, yet it has been supposedly independently tested as 4.0 - or perhaps less. Does this have anything to do with the physical makeup of the cars?

The wide range in stated speed alone seems odd to me. Just a thought.

 

[OCR1]

Does Tesla provide any of this information officially? They make P3D- cars and I assume they have some statement as what was done to make them P3D-, or what makes them P3D- in general.

No. Tesla is notoriously horrible at providing any official communication on virtually anything. And if you ask these questions to five different Tesla reps you will get five different answers, all wrong. Because they are equally as bad at providing good communication within their own internal communications. So the reps know even less about Tesla products than we do, since we at least compare notes among thousands of other Tesla owners here. The reps almost never take the time to read anything in these forums.

 

[Knightshade]

Repeating all the same nothing-burgers and errors of logic from 2018 will not help you make more sense

Then why do you keep doing it?


I mean- I just cited the Tesla parts catalog- as it sits today explicitly debunking your claim

You ignored yet another fact and just went for personal attacks again though.

given what we know now.

What we know today is that your imaginary serial number sorting isn't at all true.

Because otherwise the 980 motor wouldn't be a "no VIN required" part order.

What we know today is every 980 is the same as every other 980.

Otherwise they would require your VIN to insure you get the "right" 980 based on having a P or not.

ASY,M3,REAR 3DU,MOSFET,GLOBAL
1120980-00-G
Over-the-Counter(No VIN)

I'm not sure why you continue to twist credibility to try to explain something that is actually quite simple.

Again you appear to be talking to yourself