-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
He's had trouble with that particular metric before. (Why do I remember stuff like this (while forgetting my passwords)?)
CapitalistOppressor
Active Member
I've been assuming a 20% increase in battery performance by the time Gen III comes out. The 4,000 cell number is a nice round number that is reasonably close to the value that I get for the average number of cells per car if you assume a 20% increase in performance, a 20% decrease in the size of the car, and two models (a 200 mile and 270 mile battery) with demand for those models being roughly equivalent to demand for the two Model S battery options.
So 4,000 is a nice approximation that can be used to determine how much battery manufacturing capacity Tesla needs. But because it is a weighted average (and is using some unsupported market assumptions), it actually doesn't correspond to a particular model.
The current 60kWh battery has ~5,000 3.4aH cells in it and has a range of ~200 miles. Just decreasing the size of the car by 20% would decrease the number cells needed to get the same range, and would get us close to 4,000 cells. When you increase the performance of the individual cells by an additional 20% the number of cells required dips far below 4,000.
I get to an average of 4,000 because I assume that most of the batteries sold will actually have a longer range than what Tesla has specified as their minimum, just as it is with the Model S, which has two batteries, one with ~5,000 cells and another with ~7,000 cells, and an average number per vehicle of ~6,400.
- - - Updated - - -
It's like having someone scrape their nails across a chalkboard. The pain of listening to mistakes like that just move right past the normal mental filters that make it hard to remember passwords and imprint themselves directly into the deep memory reservoirs where your body stores important information, like how to avoid open flames.
That said, his report did sum up the real issues fairly well. Considering how hard Tesla got hammered for vaporware after putting out an actual Model S prototype, its only fair for GM to get called out for actual vaporware when there isn't anything concrete at all to demonstrate their commitment.
To be fair, they are trying to build an EV that goes 200 miles for $30,000. That is aimed squarely at Tesla's third gen sedan which Tesla has not built yet.
I don't believe GM will deliver any more than they delivered the originally talked about Volt ($20k and 50mpg in CS mode).
However, competition is good and Elon is going to need help to replace the vehicle fleet with EVs
Chickenlittle
Banned
What i find very strange is that GM whether real or not talking up challenging the gen3 car but no response to Model X. do they not know of its existance? suvs are a huge chunk of their profit and yet they have no answer, not even trash talk of developing an answer. funny nobody pointing that out. Model X out in little over a year should be larger than i believe Tesla is talking about. Gas savings, safety rating (doubt they wont get something similar although they may beef up the crushing machine). issue of charging in city moot since most are out in subs anyway with garagesTo be fair, they are trying to build an EV that goes 200 miles for $30,000. That is aimed squarely at Tesla's third gen sedan which Tesla has not built yet.
I don't believe GM will deliver any more than they delivered the originally talked about Volt ($20k and 50mpg in CS mode).
However, competition is good and Elon is going to need help to replace the vehicle fleet with EVs
I'm guessing they it is too close and they realize they can't respond anytime soon, certainly not before Tesla starts shipping the X.
Gen 3 gives them a few years, and is also a larger market so gets them more bang for their PR buck.
Now hold on a sec...
"Perhaps more interesting is the benchmarking area, where batteries from seven different manufacturers are being tested, including packs from Nissan, Hyundai, Toyota (variants of the Prius battery) and Ford. Notably missing were any packs from Tesla, but GM representatives did say there are Tesla vehicles on the grounds that have been tested and taken apart. "There is nothing in the Tesla battery that we don't know," said Doug Parks, GM vice president, global product programs. He added that Tesla's strategy is "very intriguing" and that GM is taking a close look at it, but that simply "matching what Tesla did is not that exciting.""
So, you have the battery packs of all these other cars (which are significantly lower performers of the Tesla) being tested thoroughly, but none of the Tesla? I would think that battery and its complementary systems would be under the largest microscope. Not to copy, but to learn from. How much are they learning and expanding on by testing these other low-end (for lack of a better term) battery systems?
A few points:
1. Who's to say he's actually telling the truth.
2. NIH is big at GM (and most other large companies for that matter).
3. Saying that GM will copy Tesla is basically saying GM is a "me too" company.
I bed the challenge with studying the Tesla battery is that the entire drivetrain is an integrated system. A lot of the secret sauce is in the software that manages the draw and charge of the "sheets" or sheet-equivalents in the pack. And there's probably some protocol set up so that the engine control software doesn't do something stupid like try and draw more power than is healthy for the pack to deliver at that moment. Battery pack management is a lot easier when you know the engine is well-behaved. And studying the battery-pack in isolation won't tell you enough. You need to look at the entire system, much of which is software. Good luck with that. Doable but really really hard.
GM's philosophy seems to be, "We'll wait until easy-to-use auto-grade batteries get good enough to drop into a car." Whereas Tesla's philosophy is, "We'll figure out how to build a car that can use less reliable batteries." Guess what? Less reliable batteries will always be cheaper. Tesla will have an edge until batteries get so good that the cost difference between a super-reliable battery and a consumer-grade battery is negligible. Which won't be any time soon.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
A few observations-
My notion of a 4000 cell Tesla came from comments Elon made regarding the ideal number of cells (4K) for performance, range and safety. He was talking about G3 at the time which leads me to believe (like others here) that we will see G3 models with almost identical range to the MS 60 and 85 models. I find the most useful information comes out of Tesla during casual technical Q&A sessions where core strategic business concepts leak through.
Any major will have to completely re-invent itself or purchase/create Tesla or a Tesla like subsidiary to be successful. There is no way re-inventing is going to fly in any board room as it means trashing the ICE bread and butter and severely depressing shareholder value for an extended period of time. Buying Tesla is the only way a major is going to pull off anything better than an almost car that is way too late.
Dealerships, Dealerships, Dealerships..... I do not think we can over emphasize that ball and chain and I do not see ANY way out of it for a major even with re-inventing.
Tesla has the plan and the smarts to pull off G3 in 1/2M/year numbers but lacks the capital. A very slow ramp will really T off customers. This can not be allowed to happen. I still come back to just how is Tesla going to pull this one off? I can not wait for this education in creative business.
My notion of a 4000 cell Tesla came from comments Elon made regarding the ideal number of cells (4K) for performance, range and safety. He was talking about G3 at the time which leads me to believe (like others here) that we will see G3 models with almost identical range to the MS 60 and 85 models. I find the most useful information comes out of Tesla during casual technical Q&A sessions where core strategic business concepts leak through.
Any major will have to completely re-invent itself or purchase/create Tesla or a Tesla like subsidiary to be successful. There is no way re-inventing is going to fly in any board room as it means trashing the ICE bread and butter and severely depressing shareholder value for an extended period of time. Buying Tesla is the only way a major is going to pull off anything better than an almost car that is way too late.
Dealerships, Dealerships, Dealerships..... I do not think we can over emphasize that ball and chain and I do not see ANY way out of it for a major even with re-inventing.
Tesla has the plan and the smarts to pull off G3 in 1/2M/year numbers but lacks the capital. A very slow ramp will really T off customers. This can not be allowed to happen. I still come back to just how is Tesla going to pull this one off? I can not wait for this education in creative business.
Interestingly Tesla gave them an out here.
One of the proposed state laws was for factory owned dealerships only for electric car manufacturers. If an offshoot company (skunkworks) of a car major set up and built only EVs then they could work independent (by design and requirement) and then sell them in their own stores like Tesla.
Isn't this the range with aero wheels and lrr tires? Seems like we need to cut the CNBC research guys some slack. I hear a 265 mile range on tmc way too often. That was so a year ago.
There are so many ways Tesla can get capital:
-Tap into another government loan.
-Issue bonds. They can issue a lot of bonds (a couple $billion) next year if their stock goes up another $100.
-Free cash flow. This might be a lot higher than you expect. Might have a $billion in cash flow just two years from now.
-Issue new shares. My least favorite option.
Raising capital is not a concern for me. If you are talking about building battery factories then look no further than China and they will gladly build as much as Tesla wants once they see how the Model S is selling like hotcakes in China.
If Tesla is successful then the money will follow big time. If Tesla doesn't grow as fast as I expect then the money will not be necessary.
I'm curious why everyone is still throwing around the "dealers won't sell them because they don't make money in service" thing? I've never seen a credible source on that. Is it just some conspiracy theory that sounded good so everyone assumed it was fact? What does the salesman who makes a commission on the SALE care about how often you bring the car in for service? Not to mention, tesla has already shown that EVs aren't exactly zero maintenance (their recommended yearly service is more than I'd pay to service our Audis for a smaller interval).
I think dealers didn't push EVs because they didn't think consumers would want them. The volt, who,e nice, isn't exactly flying off the lots like some other models. Same with the Leaf. Lets face it, the non tesla EVs tend to suck a little bit. If they out out compelling EVs, they'll sell.
I think dealers didn't push EVs because they didn't think consumers would want them. The volt, who,e nice, isn't exactly flying off the lots like some other models. Same with the Leaf. Lets face it, the non tesla EVs tend to suck a little bit. If they out out compelling EVs, they'll sell.
There have been many times over the years that dealership employees have said this to EV proponents. I don't think you are going to find it quoted in print though. TEG?
The other barrier I have heard from people I trust is that salesmen don't want to bother with EVs. They have to spend 3 to 4 times as much time explaining them to customers. Sales per day go down and they make less money. Easier to steer the customer to the ICEs.
The exception is that some locations have the "one" guy" at the dealership that makes the EV his specialty and the other salespeople give him all the business. It's pretty rare though and only in top EV markets.
Similar threads
