Is Musk lying on maximum battery capacity?

[Garlan Garner]

Would you prefer I state everything with absolute certainty to 3 digits behind the comma, telling off everyone who doesn't fully get on board with my calculations upon presumptions?

No, I would prefer that when you speculate.....that you state it as speculation throughout everything you say.

 

[S3XY]

Forums are all about opinions and speculation. I would think the standard would be to provide a link if you are stating a fact or quoting someone. Everything else should, by default, be considered SWAG or FUD.

 

[SSonnentag]

i cant see the model 3 having the same range as the model s....and for sure not MORE range then the s....that would be odd thing to go to kill s sales(75d).

I don't see range as a distinguishing factor between two separate classes of cars. My Chevrolet Sprint had more range than my Chevrolet Impala, but they weren't competitors with each other in sales.

 

[Cloxxki]

No, I would prefer that when you speculate.....that you state it as speculation throughout everything you say.

I'm not a native English speaker, TV was my English teacher. I though that those less descriptive verbs implied that no certainty is being assused? Disclaimers and even instructions get overlooked and ignored all the time, Tesla fans know better than most...

 

[SpiceWare]

I'm not a native English speaker, TV was my Engish teacher. I though that those less descriptive verbs implied that no certainty is being assused? Disclaimers and even instructions get overlooked and ignored all the time, Tesla fans know better than most...

Yes, using "Might be....or may be.....or could be....." all denote speculation. I don't know what Garlan's complaining about.

 

[david_42]

I still don't get all this "no one will buy an S". Sure, there are a lot of people purchasing an S right now because there are not many options in EV space. But the S will still have more space & storage and the 3 won't meet those needs. .

I would have to agree, since the size of the Model S is the main reason I haven't purchased one. I own a Sprinter van, so if we need space, we have it. My wife has always driven sub-compact cars and is very used to the maneuverability and ability to squeeze into tight city parking spaces. Also, we never need room for more than four people.

I suspect many of the people arguing against the Model S have never been in a 1960s Cadillac or Lincoln. The owners loved those barges. The super-luxury category is well served by the Model S and will do so in the future.

 

[gregincal]

I would have to agree, since the size of the Model S is the main reason I haven't purchased one. I own a Sprinter van, so if we need space, we have it. My wife has always driven sub-compact cars and is very used to the maneuverability and ability to squeeze into tight city parking spaces. Also, we never need room for more than four people.

I suspect many of the people arguing against the Model S have never been in a 1960s Cadillac or Lincoln. The owners loved those barges. The super-luxury category is well served by the Model S and will do so in the future.

We can go camping in my S. I think if I replace it with a 3 it would be really difficult. Of course we can take my wife's SUV, but it's not as much fun to drive to the campground.

 

[scaesare]

Can't find the link. I read an article or document mentioning 10C rating and it being faster.

A doubling of charging C-rate would be very big news indeed. Given the lack of any concrete identity for the source of this rumor, and the complete lack of any claims of this on many well-respected outlets that track this sort of info, I'd be highly skeptical of this claim.

 

[Cloxxki]

Interesting discussion pending me digging up the page I saw no 2 weeks ago: Is it really just an array of 18650s? Seems primitive?? | Hacker News

Some Tesla vloggers like Model 3 Owners Club and Teslanomics make vague references to intel they have but can't share. Something to do with not needing to worry about a Model 3 60 of 75 to supercharge slower than an S/X with the same battery size. They're all "you'll see". I can't stand it

 

[SageBrush]

Interesting discussion pending me digging up the page I saw no 2 weeks ago: Is it really just an array of 18650s? Seems primitive?? | Hacker News

Some Tesla vloggers like Model 3 Owners Club and Teslanomics make vague references to intel they have but can't share. Something to do with not needing to worry about a Model 3 60 of 75 to supercharge slower than an S/X with the same battery size. They're all "you'll see". I can't stand it

Very interesting link from Hacker News, thanks.
The physics that a cell with a larger volume to surface area has more heat dissipation problems sounds like a very good answer to why Tesla is sticking with 18650 cells in the high performance Model S and X models.

I'm clueless, however, to understand how Tesla is going to keep up SC charge rates in the Model 3 given the above. I'll be happy to be amazed and find out that my trivial understanding of battery physics has been transcended. I'm just not counting on it.

 

[Cloxxki]

Very interesting link from Hacker News, thanks.
The physics that a cell with a larger volume to surface area has more heat dissipation problems sounds like a very good answer to why Tesla is sticking with 18650 cells in the high performance Model S and X models.

I'm clueless, however, to understand how Tesla is going to keep up SC charge rates in the Model 3 given the above. I'll be happy to be amazed and find out that my trivial understanding of battery physics has been transcended. I'm just not counting on it.

We know from picture of the Model 3 charging that it can reach 70,6kWh at least. Not terrible, not great.
Without altered chemistry, A 100kWh pack from 2170's would see the car charge (and race) slower, but reports (from JB's and Elon) are that steps have been made in chemistry, over 10% or even 15% in terms of energy density, apart from the bigger cell form factor. On top of the density inprovement (saving them money on cells and assembly for a given range) they may have found a way to boost charge speeds, but it seems much less than a done deal since it was not among the top 2 or 3 design goals. Safe, cheap per kWh, little volume due to chassis constraints, low degradation? With a low cost long range car, cell out/input rates are just not a factor. With a 200kW or so rear motor, no need for any faster cells. And Model 3 being designed less for people in a hurry cross-country and more for getting about suburban life, charge speed is low on the priority list.

When Model S and X are due a cost cut in terms of batteries (80-90kWh averge for 100,000 cars annually ads up), of course the outcome cannot be a downgrade when the rest of the market is working to undercut Tesla's charging times in a big way.

 

[R.S]

I could care less about a Model T.

Look. Companies WILL loan Tesla whatever it wants because they see the potential. NOT PROFITS. Tesla has a ton of credit with their automotive division as well as all of their other divisions.

Tesla can and will build those factories if its part of their business plan part Deaux. 20 gigafactories will be a necessity if their business plan is realized.

THEY HAVE NO PROFITS YET.

Investors Trust Tesla and the competition is fearful.....and they have NO PROFITS.

Potential for what? To make even greater losses? No the investors think that Tesla will some day be profitable, but they won't if they give away cars for free.

The only way to build 10 GF and relatively soon, not within the course of the next century, they need to make more money on the Model 3, than they are making on the S and X right now. Not on a per unit basis, but all M3s vs all S&X.

Of course they could raise even more money, but how could they raise 100 billion? That's basically twice their market cap. The investors will not be patiently stuff money into the company, just so that you can have a cool and cheap Model 3...

 

[Garlan Garner]

Potential for what? To make even greater losses? No the investors think that Tesla will some day be profitable, but they won't if they give away cars for free.

The only way to build 10 GF and relatively soon, not within the course of the next century, they need to make more money on the Model 3, than they are making on the S and X right now. Not on a per unit basis, but all M3s vs all S&X.

Of course they could raise even more money, but how could they raise 100 billion? That's basically twice their market cap. The investors will not be patiently stuff money into the company, just so that you can have a cool and cheap Model 3...

What?

You aren't making any sense.

Tesla isn't just building GF's because they want to. They MAY need to build them because they are running out of room.


Why has Tesla received all of the support and loans and investors to this point - Without making any profits. Why?

 

[R.S]

What?
Why has Tesla received all of the support and loans and investors to this point - Without making any profits. Why?

For the same reason anyone invests in a startup, they hope that it will become profitable soon. Why do you think the stock price spiked once it was clear that the Model 3 is coming soon? Do you think those investors only care about giving you a cheap Model 3? Or making the environment cleaner? One of Teslas biggest investors, Vanguard Group, has Exxon shares as well.

 

[Cloxxki]

For the same reason anyone invests in a startup, they hope that it will become profitable soon. Why do you think the stock price spiked once it was clear that the Model 3 is coming soon? Do you think those investors only care about giving you a cheap Model 3? Or making the environment cleaner? One of Teslas biggest investors, Vanguard Group, has Exxon shares as well.

A lot of the money invested does go toward capital investments, albeit Tesla specific. New tech, new factories. For stuff they need to do their thing, and sell to the line of consumers out their door.

 

[R.S]

A lot of the money invested does go toward capital investments, albeit Tesla specific. New tech, new factories. For stuff they need to do their thing, and sell to the line of consumers out their door.

But that won't stop, right? They will still need to invest after the Model 3. And probably more than ever. So I don't buy the argument that Tesla can pay all that with S and X profits and sell the 3 for cheap, because the S and X can't even pay todays bills.

 

[JeffK]

Keep in mind gigafactory costs are not all upfront. After the first year of Model 3 sales they could afford to start up several gigafactories without any issue at all. That 5 billion dollars is spread over time.

 

[R.S]

Keep in mind gigafactory costs are not all upfront. After the first year of Model 3 sales they could afford to start up several gigafactories without any issue at all. That 5 billion dollars is spread over time.

But the Model 3 will have to contribute to those gigafactories. People keep saying the Model S and X are expensive because they have to pay for the Model 3. Well the same will apply to the Model 3.

It won't be as expensive as the S, but they will still try to squeeze every dollar they can out of us. Because they need more GFs, they need the Semi, they need the Model Y.

So the Model 3 won't be sold for just as much as it costs to build, but for as much as Tesla thinks they can ask for it. Because the goal is sustainable transport, not giving 500k people a year a cool car, with quick 0-60, for little money.

 

[JeffK]

But the Model 3 will have to contribute to those gigafactories. People keep saying the Model S and X are expensive because they have to pay for the Model 3. Well the same will apply to the Model 3.

It won't be as expensive as the S, but they will still try to squeeze every dollar they can out of us. Because they need more GFs, they need the Semi, they need the Model Y.

So the Model 3 won't be sold for just as much as it costs to build, but for as much as Tesla thinks they can ask for it. Because the goal is sustainable transport, not giving 500k people a year a cool car, with quick 0-60, for little money.

The gross profit from sales of Model S/X was $1.6 Billion in 2016 at about 31 percent margins.

Even at 25 percent margins with an average selling price of Elon's estimate $42k after you include Model S/X numbers they'd rake in $5.8 Billion in 2018 assuming a full ramp up. I wouldn't call going from $1.6 Billion to over $5.8 Billion per year "little money"

Model 3 increases profits by nearly 362%

The marginal cost of Model S is $30k according to a conversation between Elon and Tom Mueller (the SpaceX CTO), obviously there are other costs, but for the materials themselves $30k. The Model 3 is even cheaper.

 

[R.S]

The gross profit from sales of Model S/X was $1.6 Billion in 2016 at about 31 percent margins.

Even at 25 percent margins with an average selling price of Elon's estimate $42k after you include Model S/X numbers they'd rake in $5.8 Billion in 2018 assuming a full ramp up. I wouldn't call going from $1.6 Billion to over $5.8 Billion per year "little money"

Model 3 increases profits by nearly 362%

The marginal cost of Model S is $30k according to a conversation between Elon and Tom Mueller (the SpaceX CTO), obviously there are other costs, but for the materials themselves $30k. The Model 3 is even cheaper.

Gross profit, it will increase gross profit of automotive sales. And since even with the 1.6 billion they had a net loss of close to halve a billion last year. Now with the Model 3 I do think they will finally become profitable, even though selling, general and administrative expenses will rise.

But you made a good point, the Model 3 will be their future cash cow, the influence of the S and X on the baseline of the company will shrink . From 2018 on, the 3 will mostly pay the bills. Which could be a good sign for cheaper Model S/Xes.