Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)

[jhm]

Well, of course I would be, other than that the idea of going to the top seems presumptuous. Perhaps some one or ones in design; possibly Diarmuid O'Connell. I have been around the block enough times to know not only that a number of my ideas never have been used in or envisioned in any production or custom-fabbed pickup but, more importantly, are ideally suited for an EV pickup. Really, really different stuff, cool stuff, hugely useful stuff...and practical stuff. They could make this EVTruck a platform that could catapult Tesla into a whole galaxy of otherwise NeverBeCaughtInATesla motorists, and spell a world of hurt for FordChryslerGM.

I wonder if anyone on TMC has any contacts that might be helpful. If not, I suppose you could contact investor relations to advise you on how best to share your ideas with design staff at Tesla. I do hope you find some ways to put these ideas out there.

Just a thought, have you heard about how Musk is crowdsourcing the design of the hyperloop? He's got people from all over collaborating for no more than shares in the businss if they ever make something. I'm not sure that's called for here with Tesla, but it shows something about how Musk is able to organize people for problem solving. It seems that crowdsourcing for new product feature concepts could be quite powerful. I would love to see that sort of engagement.

 

[hobbes]

Idea on battery swapping concept

I find battery swapping a really fascinating idea - it makes EVs better than ICEs in yet another aspect (refueling quicker) and would give Tesla yet another edge over its competitors if implemented on a large scale. But even with the beta test at Harris Ranch now underways, from his recent comments it sounds as if Elon is not quite convinced about the future of this technology.

I see the one central problem (assuming it works reliably from a technical point of view) with battery swapping in having to return the same battery to its owner or otherwise set up a complicated payment system taking into account the different age/fitness of battery pack turned in and picked up which makes everything unflexible (having to go back the same way to pick up your battery or having to pay a differing price every time). But is that really necessary?

My idea is that Tesla could set up the service such that they guarantee everyone using it that they always get a pack as good or better as the one they turned in. The average increase in battery value over all those exchanged would be part of the fixed service charge. In the beginning, when only a few people are using it and there are not so many packs in store at every swap station, the age/fitness differences of the packs going in and out would be statistically relatively large, but as soon as it is widely adopted and more packs of different fitness are available at the station, you could more and more closely match the pack coming in. So the financial risk from statistical fluctuations in the matching would be larger per pack in the beginning, but not cause a problem because of only a few ones exchanged. Later, you can be pretty sure to have the right pack for everyone and calculate the fees quite exactly. Shouldn´t be too hard to model that if you have the distribution of the battery fitness of all packs (which I am sure Tesla does).

In addition, this way Tesla could keep the fitness level of its customer´s cars up which would add to the long-term value of the product. People might not have to be afraid of having to spend a big chunk of money on a new battery if they own the car for a really long time.

Caveat: on the long run, you have to store quite a few batteries at every swapping station - I guess that store would have to be handled by a robot, too, to make it efficient (kind of like a tape robot which was used for retrieving magnetic backup tapes in IT).

 

[JRP3]

Caveat: on the long run, you have to store quite a few batteries at every swapping station

Yes, and that's always been a crucial problem for the swapping concept. There have to be enough batteries on hand for peak demand periods, and batteries are the most expensive component of an EV, so the cost of those batteries need to be added to the cost of each car. I think 400+ mile packs and a bit faster recharge times will basically eliminate the need for swapping for most people. If you really take a lot of longer trips than that and can't spare the 20 minutes or so for a fast charge then you probably need a plugin hybrid.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Yes, and that's always been a crucial problem for the swapping concept. There have to be enough batteries on hand for peak demand periods, and batteries are the most expensive component of an EV, so the cost of those batteries need to be added to the cost of each car. I think 400+ mile packs and a bit faster recharge times will basically eliminate the need for swapping for most people. If you really take a lot of longer trips than that and can't spare the 20 minutes or so for a fast charge then you probably need a plugin hybrid.

I think Elon Musk also sees the issue as a diminishing problem, which is why he's so reluctant to invest in swapping. But, to be able to handle the peaks that high-density rapid-refueling systems can handle will be a serious challenge. So I see swapping as a necessity, but something that might be deployed as a mobile temporary solution.

 

[jhm]

In Detroit, Musk mentioned that he could see battery swapping working for commercial trucking since businesses would place a premium on high speed swapping. That still leaves open the question of who owns the pack. My view is that in the commercial trucking space you want to go with leaving. So Tesla would own the pack and lease them to truck operators.

What's more, it is not necessary that the tractors actually be electric. Consider the possibility of placing batteries on th underside of trailers and use that to power the wheels of the trailer. The tractor would be outfitted with a controller that controlls the motors in the trailer. Of course, if the tractor were electric too, then power could be routed from tractor to trailer or trailer to tractor, depending on how much energy is available in the respective packs. This sort of system would open up a lot of options for charging logistics. For examples, trailers could be charged while loading, unloading or not in use, whether or not a tractor is present. So if Tesla owns and leases out the packs, then truck operators need only to acquire eTrailers with baterry dock, motors, and controller and tractor fitted with eTrailer master controllers. So the incremental cost of the hardware over the cost of a conventional tractor and trailer could be quite small, maybe around $2000 for tractor and $5000 for trailer. All the other operating cost is embedded in the pack leases and charging. So operator would need to see that the energy boost from this system is enough to save them $100 or more on each month to make this a compelling package. I think this could pencil out much better than that.

 

[FANGO]

Yes, and that's always been a crucial problem for the swapping concept. There have to be enough batteries on hand for peak demand periods, and batteries are the most expensive component of an EV, so the cost of those batteries need to be added to the cost of each car. I think 400+ mile packs and a bit faster recharge times will basically eliminate the need for swapping for most people. If you really take a lot of longer trips than that and can't spare the 20 minutes or so for a fast charge then you probably need a plugin hybrid.

200 mile packs and fast recharge time will eliminate the need for most people. 100 mile packs and fast recharge times will eliminate the need for most people. 51% of people do not need a 400 mile pack with even faster than 20 minute recharge. That's more like 1%. 5 if you want to be super generous and count one time over the life of the car as "need".

We've already far beyond eliminated the need for most people.

 

[roblab]

200 mile packs and fast recharge time will eliminate the need for most people. 100 mile packs and fast recharge times will eliminate the need for most people. 51% of people do not need a 400 mile pack with even faster than 20 minute recharge. That's more like 1%. 5 if you want to be super generous and count one time over the life of the car as "need".

We've already far beyond eliminated the need for most people.

I NEED a 400 mile pack. :smile:

I don't suppose people NEED to go over 35 mph, either. But they do.
Before cars, horses made about 10 mph, and people seemed to be happy.

I also have the largest phone battery I can get. I never run out of charge, all day reading or whatever. I don't need it, but I like it. How's that?

 

[JRP3]

We've already far beyond eliminated the need for most people.

*sigh* Not according to most people, so, there's that....The few who agree with you are free to buy as small a pack as they want.

 

[FANGO]

*sigh* Not according to most people, so, there's that....The few who agree with you are free to buy as small a pack as they want.

You said most people need. People may think they want something else, but no, "most people", as in 51%, do not "need" 400+mile packs and faster charging. And no matter how many times you claim that everyone in the world drives a thousand miles a day and all the driving statistics are wrong and you're the one person who knows the truth of the matter because you've apparently done some sort of secret study which nobody else is privy to, that's not going to change that most people's needs are well beyond filled by the cars which are already on offer.

Now, why do they "think they want" something else? Because of ICE industry shills, who for some reason are being cooperated with by people who should know better such as yourself, who constantly tell them that despite the fact that the current offerings would save them time, money, stress, air quality, health, global conflict, lack of driving pleasure, etc. etc. etc., they better not bother and keep destroying the world because the one casual roadtrip they've never taken and are never going to take might take 20 minutes longer that one time. Why don't you go buy that VW which gets 700* miles on a tank of gas instead until EVs finally have "big enough" batteries which of course will always be just around the corner and never now (*as long as you're driving 25mph and don't stop for 30 hours because that's totally normal right).

Yes, a majority, 51%+, are well past having their needs met by what's on offer. Faster and more available charging should (and will) always be a goal, and you have an argument for the 1-5% of the population who actually might "need" that (which, btw, isn't met by the majority of gas cars, which do not have 400+ mile tanks on average). But not for "most people."

At least we both understand that swapping is niche, with few practical benefits and a lot of logistical/cost nightmare to it.

 

[abasile]

Yes, a majority, 51%+, are well past having their needs met by what's on offer.

Right now, on a relatively balmy winter weekend in the mountains of SoCal, there's a constant flow of traffic drawn to the ski resorts, nice scenery, and pretty lakes. Generally, visitors come from all over the region, from San Diego to LA and beyond. Do people *need* to visit these mountains? Arguably they could do without. But when they do, they want their cars to be able to make the trip with a minimum of bother, and not everyone will have a place to charge once they get here. With 200+ miles of range, today's Tesla vehicles can do it, though a Supercharger stop (in traffic and crowds) is often necessary. With a LEAF, only the most dedicated will make the trip. For the many millions of drivers in this region, more range wouldn't be a bad thing. Remember that most people have little sense of urgency as to climate change and cutting their personal fossil fuel consumption.

The fewer compromises involved in switching from ICE to EV, the better.

 

[JRP3]

Somewhere in your rant you missed the fact that I never said most people need 400 mile packs and I never said everyone drives 1,000 miles a day. I said "I think 400+ mile packs and a bit faster recharge times will basically eliminate the need for swapping for most people." That includes people who don't need or want 400 mile packs as well as those who do, everyone is covered by the availability of larger pack choices, without the need for swapping.

 

[pz1975]

Hey it's Groundhog Day again with the FANGO range argument! I should set my clock by it.

 

[AudubonB]

<sigh>

 

[Larken]

I usually stay out of discussions like this and I probably will regret saying anything, but since everyone is always ganging up on FANGO and seem to have a contrarian view, I would like to say my 2 cents. I think FANGO has brought up some very valid and interesting points throughout this reoccurring topic.

 

[sundaymorning]

If people are buying Leafs with 100 mile range, M3 won't have issues selling with 200 mile range. Sure the 200 mile range isn't for everyone, but it's good enough for 90% of the population. I personally would never pay for a bigger battery, it's useless for my driving habit. It's extra money I am better off doing something else with, like buying more shares in Tesla stock. My round trip to work everyday is approximately 30 miles. On weekends I drive 100 miles round trip from OC to LA. In the past 10 years I've taken one road trip bc I fly everywhere. As much as I like driving, the thought of driving 400 continuous miles never creeps through my mind. There's better things to do with my time than driving.

 

[hobbes]

I think what people need is not objectively measurable. If they only use supercharging for 1% of their trips, you could say they don´t need it statistically. However, if they feel they need it, they´ll base their buying decision on it.

The question is: do you offer people only what you know they will mostly use or what they feel they need? I would go for the latter. I am not saying build a swapping station at every supercharger. But like at the 10 most used ones for long distance travel wouldn´t pose too much of a financial problem and take away many peoples fears (as irrational as they may be).

 

[FANGO]

I think what people need is not objectively measurable. If they only use supercharging for 1% of their trips, you could say they don´t need it statistically. However, if they feel they need it, they´ll base their buying decision on it.

The question is: do you offer people only what you know they will mostly use or what they feel they need? I would go for the latter. I am not saying build a swapping station at every supercharger. But like at the 10 most used ones for long distance travel wouldn´t pose too much of a financial problem and take away many peoples fears (as irrational as they may be).

How often do people need to go 0-60 in 2.8 seconds, or over 200mph? Should probably buy a car which can do those things, just in case, right? Only thing is, they're all a million dollars.

You can offer people "what they feel they need" - 400+ miles, apparently - and make a car which is lousy or too expensive, or both, which by the way we've heard Elon and JB say many times because it's true, and it wouldn't sell very well at all. If Tesla had offered a Model S starting with 400+ mile range, costing twice as much base and weighing 5600+lbs, do you think we'd all be talking here right now?

The auto industry has spent plenty of time designing by focus group. They get a bunch of people together, ask them what they think they want, and then make a Homer-mobile designed by a clueless public. At some point someone who knows better needs to step in and say "no, we're not doing that, you guys don't know what you're asking for."

Wild fantasies about what people think they want and what they actually will ever use need to be reconciled at some point. Which is where we reach a cost equilibrium between what people would like to have and what people are willing to pay for. Right now, the Leaf doesn't even have 100 miles of rated range, and has quick charging capability but not quite so quick, and yet it's the best-selling EV in the world by quite some way. Clearly much of the public understands that 100 miles plus quick charging is suitable for their needs. But the same 2-3 people, who inexplicably spend so much time on an EV forum, are constantly talking about how unsuitable EVs are for the general public because most people couldn't possibly get along without a 400 mile battery. And having these sorts of "advocates" sure isn't helping anything - it causes people to write off the entire idea of EVs, Tesla or otherwise, before even giving them a second thought, which is why the ICE industry pushes range and recharge times so hard, constantly reminding consumers of them. And some of us happily oblige. "With friends like these..."

Tesla is certainly not going to sell a million Model 3s by 2020 if the general public continues to be led to believe that 200 miles isn't even enough for a minority of their driving.

 

[JRP3]

How often do people need to go 0-60 in 2.8 seconds, or over 200mph? Should probably buy a car which can do those things, just in case, right?

You prove my point. In truth there is no need for much more than a 10 second 0-60, and there is no need for a top speed greater than 80mph, yet most cars exceed both. Why? Because people don't feel comfortable with "just enough".

Right now, the Leaf doesn't even have 100 miles of rated range, and has quick charging capability but not quite so quick, and yet it's the best-selling EV in the world by quite some way. Clearly much of the public understands that 100 miles plus quick charging is suitable for their needs.

The number of people who have bought a LEAF is tiny compared to the size of the market, it's a drop in the bucket, and it's far under what Nissan projected. We are still completely in the early adopter phase, so saying it's the best selling EV isn't really saying anything. In fact much of the public clearly does not understand that 100 miles and quick charging takes care of most of their needs, since most of the public are not buying LEAF's, or any other EV.

What FANGO constantly ignores in all of these arguments each time I point it out is that "200 miles of range" is really not 200 miles of range because it can be drastically reduced by unfavorable conditions. If 200 miles was always 200 miles, and if fast charging points were ubiquitous and under 10 minutes then his opinion would be a bit more valid, but none of those conditions exist today nor are they likely to for a long time, and maybe never. So the reality is selling "200" mile EV's that end up being 120 mile or less EV's in a snowstorm with a 45 minute refueling time if you have access to a supercharger is not going to work with the general public.

Additionally the general public has no knowledge at all of the discussions we have here, so the idea that our honest discussion of range issues is somehow discouraging the unaware public from buying EV's is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Moderator's Note

Please re-read your posts before hitting the Submit button. If you've written about another member, then revise. Posts should talk about facts, ideas and opinions, not about the person expressing them.

Thanks for your help in keeping the discussion civil.

 

[JRP3]

As much as I like driving, the thought of driving 400 continuous miles never creeps through my mind. There's better things to do with my time than driving.

I agree with this 100%, and I never intend to drive 400 continuous miles. But I think it's worth reinforcing my previous point, that "400" mile pack does not exist in all conditions. It's cold, it's windy, it's snowing, there are elevation changes, and for some reason you weren't able to start out with a full charge, maybe a breaker blew in the middle of the night. So now you have a 180 mile trip and even with your "400" mile pack you're going to be cutting it close, and those are the worst conditions possible to be faced with running out of charge.
When talking about range we always have to remember that pack ratings don't exist in the real world. In some conditions you might get more and in many conditions you're probably going to get less.