Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I do appreciate how mathematical models can be used to explore the implications of the growth goals established by Tesla. Thank you, jhm, for your efforts here. While no one can definitively predict the future, what you have demonstrated is the plausibility of Tesla meeting its goals.

Of course, Tesla faces a multitude of risks. Putting aside for a moment the incredible challenge of increasing production by 50% per year, one can question whether demand growth will be as strong as hoped for. Clearly, Tesla is doing the right things to set the stage, by building a compelling product, developing the Supercharger network, promoting destination charging, fighting legislative battles (in the U.S.), and opening new stores. No other automaker seems to have the vision necessary to execute such a plan.

The biggest unknown in my mind is, how readily will consumers adopt a paradigm shift in "fueling" and driving? People can be very slow to change behavior, particularly in big ticket purchases, even when change is highly beneficial. For a great many car buyers, inertia favors simply returning to the Lexus, Acura, BMW, or Cadillac dealership and just buying another ICE; not much new thinking is required to do this. This is why Tesla is right to make their vehicles so compelling that they cannot be ignored. Mitigating this risk is the fact that, as demonstrated up thread, Tesla only needs to address a small fraction of the automotive market to reach its goals. Even so, there is a tremendous amount of demand growth that needs to happen. My guess is that it will happen, but not quite so quickly as hoped for, and demand could easily urn out to be Tesla's primary constraint. While my personal time available to post is limited, I'm very interested in what other investors think.
Thank you. You are correct that mathematical models really only set out plausible scenarios. There are a lot of twists and turns along the way.

You are definitely correct that a lot of demand has got to be created along the way. One of my frustrations is that many people seem to think about demand as some sort of fixed quantity that people are willing to buy. This is wrong in two ways. First, at a given point in time, demand is a relationship between prices and willingness to pay. Demand is not a single quantity. If Tesla were to cut all their prices by 10%, would demand go up? No, the willingness to buy would go up, but this is at a lower price point. Demand is a curve, a function of price. (Being supply constrained means that lowering prices will not increase sales despite the fact the more people are willing to buy at a lower price) What constitutes a demand increase is when buyers are willing to spend more than was the previous case. So this gets us to the second way that demand is not fixed willingness to buy at any particular price can go up or down over time. I can use myself as an example. Over a year ago I first test drove a Model S. I l was very impressed with the car, but felt is was much more car than I needed and was not willing to spend $80k for it. Had a standard 85 been priced at $45k I would have easily bought it. So my price point was somewhere between $45k and $70k. Well today I have an order $90k order for a Model S 85 to be delivered in March. What happened? If my pricepoint was less than $70k a year ago, why is it over $90k today? Several things: the Supercharger network is much better developed in my region and continues to expand into locations that matter alot to me. Tesla added Autopilot and the D option. A Tesla store opened just a few miles from my home. I've observed how Tesla treats customers and enhances existing products over time and so have greater confidence buying from them. My personal finances have improved and I feel better about my employment. Our existing cars are aging so that annual repair bills are going up. And finally, I'm tired of waiting for Model 3 to come out. I want a Tesla now. So all of these factors have conspired to add at least $20k to what I was once willing to pay. I point this out in detail because these are the sorts of things that contribute to demand creation. Some of these things are within Tesla's power to enhance like building out more superchargers and treating customers well. Other things are beyond their control like my personal finances and employment situation. So it behooves Tesla to focus on the things it can control and target prospects who have the means to buy their product. So as Tesla builds out sales, service and charging infrastructure, it is in fact creating demand. Consumers in proximity to those resources become more willing to pay higher sums for Tesla products. As consumers become willing to pay more, some of them cross a tipping point where they actually decide to make an order. Launching new products is also critical for creating demand. For example their are consumers who are willing to spend over $70k for an SUV who would not spend $40k on a sedan. So such a person may be willing to spend $90k (before incentives) on a Model X but would never sink that cash into the Model S. From Tesla's perspective, they are just as willing to sell one or the other and to price them comparably, but to the consumer the choice increases what the are willing to pay.

So let's be clear, launching the Model X is not going to relax supply constraints, but it will create incremental demand. Similarly, launching the Model 3 will not relieve supply constaints, but it will create demand. Most of what Tesla does is ultimately about creating demand. Of course, creating demand is not sufficient. Tesla actually must build out produtive capacity, cultivate a strong supply chain, and manufacture products. The idea that they will remain supply constrained for ten years or more is simply that they will create incremental demand faster than they can ramp up production. I do not think they can consistently ramp up production more than about 50% per year. Their supply chain cannot support higher rate year in and year out. But I do think they could double demand every year. Over the next 15 years: They can double their footprint 2 times. They double their product offerings (number of models) 3 times. Well developed charging infratructure can double quantities demanded 2 more times. Word of mouth can double quantities demanded 3 more times. Brand recognition and loyal can double 2 more times. So with all these things driving up demand and placing products, prices and service within reach can double the quantity demanded more than 12 times in 15 years, if supply were no contraint. Thats enough demand to blanket the whole auto market. However, production constraints even constrain the potential for demand. Delays in filling orders kills demand. Lack of supply give opportunities to competitors to fill the gap so that things like word of mouth and loyalty goes to the benefit of competitors. Slowness to market new products allows competitors some catch up time. In any given year, demand could go up by 100%, whle supply only goes up 50%. So 50% of the demand potential goelws unrealized. So if production grows by 50% per year, in 15 years Tesla is making 15 million cars. Most of the demand potential was lost to lroduction constraints. Think about this as an illustration. Suppose that Tesla was not currently production constrained so that it could make as many Model X and S as it wants in 2015. It made 33k last year, so would there be enough buyer at current prices to buy 66k cars of their choice. And if ramping up production was no problem, Tesla could make unlimited quantities of Model 3 in 2017 allowing Tesla to sell four times as many cars, 264k in 2 years. So without production constraint quantities demended could doule every year. But squeezing out more than 60k this year will be a challenge, and the Model 3 is not on a fast track for a robust 2017 launch, rather delayed until 2018. Roduction constraints not only slows the pace of filling orders, it deprives Tesla the cash flow and motivation it needs to engage in activities that create demand. It slows the entry into new geographical markets. It slows the design cycle of new products. And it slows the experience curve learning necessary to drive down manufacturing and operational costs so that less expensive products can be offered. Supply constraints inhibit demand creation.

Also consider this. Families that buy new cars typically buy new car once every 3 to 5 years. So if such a family is unable to buy the Tesla of their choice when they need their next new car, they'll buy something else. Then it will be another 3 to 5 years before they're in the market again. The point is, this is a really long sales cycle. A family might be quite willing tonthrow down $45k on a Model 3 today, but they come into the market in 2017 and it's not there. Next time around it's 2021. So I am not so concerned about whether people will be ready to adopt EVs fast enough. Plenty of people are ready right now, but the timing is not right. I think consumers will be ready long before the products become available. Naturally some will be early adopters and others late adopters, but the sooner Tesla gets a product to market the sooner enough experience happens that late adopter are waiting for. When the Model S has been on the road for ten years and all the worried about expensive battery replacements and car repairs are laid to rest, late adopters will start to think, "Maybe I should get one of those Model S. They really hold their value and are quite nice cars." Some bunnies are a little slower than others. But the important thing is that the foundation for long-term demand creation is set now. In ten years, range anxiety will be a thing of the past. Fast, free charging will be everywhere. (Ask me how.) Batteries will be half the cost and half the weight. And Teslas will be a proven technology. Late entrants to the EV market will be desperate and trying out all sorts of gimmicks to attract buyers, but Tesla will have the proven track record. So the kind of conservative shoppers who may hold back early on, right now, will find a lot of what they're looking for in Tesla ten years from now. It will be clear that EVs are superior, and they will be cost competitive. Late adopters will love Tesla.
 
jhm, thanks for the excellent summary of demand and production constraints. You define demand as changing the number of units that could be sold at any particular price, and you draw a picture that demand is moving the price/demand curve to a higher position for any given price, rather than moving along that curve. That's all fine and good. I would like to add one scenario that effectively increases demand by affecting price, however. If Tesla can lower the cost of batteries, either through efficiencies of the gigafactory or by adopting a better battery chemistry, the company can make more gross profit at any given selling price of the car. With lower costs, Tesla likewise has the ability to profitably move along the price/demand curve to a point where gross margins are still excellent but where price is lower and demand is correspondingly higher. Thus, a decrease in costs allows a move along the price/demand curve that effectively increases the number of people who are willing to buy the car.

This type of activity may not meet your definition of "increase in demand", but it effectively accomplishes the goal of profitably selling more cars. One great advantage of BEVs is that we will inevitably see those cost improvements, which will allow moves along the demand curve and thereby an increase the size of the available market for BEVs. ICE cars show little promise for radical cost improvements, however.
 
Last edited:
Delays in filling orders kills demand.
Thank you for the excellent analysis. This particular point seems very important. If Tesla had 10x more buyers lined up and waiting right now (or next year), that might look great for investors and would seem to validate the business plan. There might be comparisons with Apple product launches. However, while Apple has the production capacity to eliminate huge backlogs within months, Tesla doesn't. So it really does make sense for Tesla to increase demand more organically, over time. Meeting and exceeding customer expectations is only possible to the degree that a business possesses the necessary bandwidth. (Those of us who work as independent professionals have to be careful not to over-advertise our services for exactly this reason.)
 
Long-term threats to TSLA stock and leaps

I'm one of the first on these threads to defend TSLA's potential for appreciation when people propose threats that strike me as maybe problematic for short term trading but certainly not for long-term appreciation. For example, the plunging of oil prices strikes me as not a particularly long-term threat for reasons I don't necessarily want to debate at the moment. Still, some long-term threats exist that would potentially affect leaps and some threats exist that could potentially affect stock appreciation over the long term, as well. I'm listing some threats here to try and get a more balanced view of the risk vs. reward of investing in Tesla.

Long-term threats to TSLA from the top down:
* Global economic meltdown as bad as or worse than 2008
* The market perceiving TSLA as overextended at a time when a more moderate economic downturn takes place
* A much better battery chemistry is invented, and automakers start producing EVs in large numbers but TSLA locked out of technology through patents
* Anything that affects Elon's remaining in charge of Tesla
* Natural disasters that seriously damage Fremont factory or Nevada gigafactory
* Market corrections that take place too close to leap expirations

As you can see, my list at the moment is rather small. It doesn't include much in the way of competitive challenges because Tesla is innovating at such a rapid clip, and because it has such a lead in both technology and deployment of a long-distance charging network. I don't worry about BEVs with fish tanks between the back seats or a redesigned Chevy Sonic subcompact with a 200 mile range. Almost inevitably I have forgotten to include something important on my list, though. What is it?

What about leaps, specifically? Should one plan to sell leaps at least 6 months in advance to avoid the type of dip that Jan 2015 leap holders experienced? I like to divide perceived threats into threats that affect Tesla the company and threats that affect TSLA the stock. Threats that affect Tesla the company affect both the stock and the leaps, but threats that affect the stock over a prolonged time period without seriously affecting the company are leaps threats, in my opinion.

Threats that affect short-term trading of TSLA are too numerous to list and are outside the boundaries of this discussion.

Overall, I see Tesla on track to continue its 50% annual (or greater) expansion for a number of years and then when Model 3 is announced, reservations will go through the roof. Maybe I'm overlooking something important, though. Your thoughts appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Long-term threats to TSLA stock and leaps

I'm one of the first on these threads to defend TSLA's potential for appreciation when people propose threats that strike me as maybe problematic for short term trading but certainly not for long-term appreciation. For example, the plunging of oil prices strikes me as not a particularly long-term threat for reasons I don't necessarily want to debate at the moment. Still, some long-term threats exist that would potentially affect leaps and some threats exist that could potentially affect stock appreciation over the long term, as well. I'm listing some threats here to try and get a more balanced view of the risk vs. reward of investing in Tesla.

Long-term threats to TSLA from the top down:
* Global economic meltdown as bad as or worse than 2008
* The market perceiving TSLA as overextended at a time when a more moderate economic downturn takes place
* A much better battery chemistry is invented, and automakers start producing EVs in large numbers but TSLA locked out of technology through patents
* Anything that affects Elon's remaining in charge of Tesla
* Natural disasters that seriously damage Fremont factory or Nevada gigafactory
* Market corrections that take place too close to leap expirations

As you can see, my list at the moment is rather small. It doesn't include much in the way of competitive challenges because Tesla is innovating at such a rapid clip, and because it has such a lead in both technology and deployment of a long-distance charging network. I don't worry about BEVs with fish tanks between the back seats or a redesigned Chevy Sonic subcompact with a 200 mile range. Almost inevitably I have forgotten to include something important on my list, though. What is it?

What about leaps, specifically? Should one plan to sell leaps at least 6 months in advance to avoid the type of dip that Jan 2015 leap holders experienced? I like to divide perceived threats into threats that affect Tesla the company and threats that affect TSLA the stock. Threats that affect Tesla the company affect both the stock and the leaps, but threats that affect the stock over a prolonged time period without seriously affecting the company are leaps threats, in my opinion.

Threats that affect short-term trading of TSLA are too numerous to list and are outside the boundaries of this discussion.

Overall, I see Tesla on track to continue its 50% annual (or greater) expansion for a number of years and then when Model 3 is announced, reservations will go through the roof. Maybe I'm overlooking something important, though. Your thoughts appreciated.

Grat analysis Papafox.

My concern no. 1 is a market downturn. In a current climate, significant market downturn is not very likely in the leaps lifetime.

My next major concern is the one you call "something important, but forgotten", I call it unforeseen events that may strike out of the blue. Nassim Taleb coined the term "Black Swan" and wrote a book on the subject. As these events are unlikely, it is also highly unlikely that anyone can preempt and guard against them.

The book focuses on the extreme impact of certain kinds of rare and unpredictable events (outliers) and humans' tendency to find simplistic explanations for these events retrospectively. This theory has since become known as the black swan theory.
 
I don't worry about ... a redesigned Chevy Sonic subcompact with a 200 mile range.

Elon said he likes the Bolt - I agree. I'm glad GM seems to want to make a serious foray into pure EVs, and seems to want to really challenge Tesla with it. And I think it *will* be a challenge, and I think there will be a reasonable number of right-thinking people who decide to buy a Bolt over a Model 3 for whatever reason (brand loyalty, looks, wheelbase, available paint colors, shape of the air conditioning vents, whatever).

...But it's still not something to worry about, for a different reason. The reason is that the Bolt's existence on the market will *expand* the market. It's not competition for Tesla, it's support for Tesla. The more automakers who are seriously advertising EVs, the better off Tesla is. The more EVs end up on the road and seem "normal" to the general populace, the better off Tesla is. So yeah, I don't worry about it, but not because it's not going to compete seriously, but because serious competition will be a benefit.

I say again, as I often do: other EVs are not the enemy here. The more EVs we get on the market the better for all of us. Both financially and...asthmatically.
 
Thanks for that nice summary of threats, papafox.

Re battery chemistry: while this could be a very serious threat, it's on a pretty long timescale. At the moment there isn't even a competitive battery chem that works well in the lab. Developing one into a commercial product will take a long time. Building factories, achieving economies of scale comparable to Lion batteries will also take ages.
Only once these are achieved can a car be designed and developed for use with these new batteries. Model 3 will be selling in the 100s of k units/yr by the time a competitor is even being developed, much less sold. By that time Tesla will be much more resilient and may be able to stem the capex of switching to a new battery chem within a reasonable timeframe.

I feel like A LOT of boxes have to be ticked for new battery chem to be a substantial threat in the medium term (within the next decade). Haven't even mentioned cost, safety, availability of raw materials, supply chain infrastructure.
 
The reason is that the Bolt's existence on the market will *expand* the market. It's not competition for Tesla, it's support for Tesla. The more automakers who are seriously advertising EVs, the better off Tesla is. The more EVs end up on the road and seem "normal" to the general populace, the better off Tesla is. So yeah, I don't worry about it, but not because it's not going to compete seriously, but because serious competition will be a benefit.

I say again, as I often do: other EVs are not the enemy here. The more EVs we get on the market the better for all of us. Both financially and...asthmatically.

I agree and have always felt this exact same way.
 
jhm, thanks for the excellent summary of demand and production constraints. You define demand as changing the number of units that could be sold at any particular price, and you draw a picture that demand is moving the price/demand curve to a higher position for any given price, rather than moving along that curve. That's all fine and good. I would like to add one scenario that effectively increases demand by affecting price, however. If Tesla can lower the cost of batteries, either through efficiencies of the gigafactory or by adopting a better battery chemistry, the company can make more gross profit at any given selling price of the car. With lower costs, Tesla likewise has the ability to profitably move along the price/demand curve to a point where gross margins are still excellent but where price is lower and demand is correspondingly higher. Thus, a decrease in costs allows a move along the price/demand curve that effectively increases the number of people who are willing to buy the car.

This type of activity may not meet your definition of "increase in demand", but it effectively accomplishes the goal of profitably selling more cars. One great advantage of BEVs is that we will inevitably see those cost improvements, which will allow moves along the demand curve and thereby an increase the size of the available market for BEVs. ICE cars show little promise for radical cost improvements, however.

You are entirely correct. What I am trying to convey is that the whole demand curve goes up over time. This gives Tesla the option to sell more units at lower price if it is willing and able to sell more at lower prices. So what you are describing about selling more at a lower price is actually a shift in the supply curve. To be concrete, the Gigafactory will enable Tesla to make battery packs at a lower cost while substantially increasing the quantity it can produce. This make Tesla able to sell more units and to reduce prices while remaining profitable. So this gives Tesla options along a higher supply curve. All that remains is determination of Tesla's willingness to sell more units at lower prices. Selling the Model 3 is one expression of Tesla's willingness to sell more units at a lower price. But Musk has said things that suggest that Tesla may not be willing to sell more Model S at a lower price, though the Gigafactory would give Tesla the ability to do that. Depending on demand price sensitivity for the Model S, Tesla may find it more profitable to lower the price of Model S. Suppose Tesla eventually has a 50% GM on the Model S. If reducing the price by 5% could increase sales by 10%, then such a price reduction would decrease total gross by 1%. But if a 5% price cut increased demand by 15%, then this would increase total gross by 3.5%. So short of competitive pressure to force high price sensitivity around the current price point for the Model S, Tesla will do well to enjoy a very high gross margin. Yes, it could supply more at a lower price, but that would not increase the bottom line. The better strategy is to offer more models at different price points to address demand that the Model S does not adequately reach.

To sell more cars profitably, Tesla must increase both demand and supply, but for the foreseeable future is seems that ramping up supply will be much more difficult than building demand.
 
There are two risks I don't see being discussed.

- Ability to sell in China. Maybe I just haven't kept current with international relations, but it seems like an unfamiliar territory, subject to political whims and long-standing customs that make success there unpredictable. Though I'm confident that even if it didn't work out, there would be plenty of other places to sell cars. Nonetheless, it's a sizable chunk of the future market.

- High cost of repairs. Being constructed aircraft-style makes fixing collision damage very expensive. Especially if you want to preserve the integrity of the designed-in safety structures. The consequence can be record-setting insurance premiums. I fear that at some point, this will start a new conversation as to why these advanced technology vehicles aren't viable in the real world.

I hope these fears turn out to be unfounded. Meanwhile, I'm not too concerned about new cell technology, because no one has a deeper interest in that than Tesla itself. They are probably doing their own research, which means there's a decent probability that the next breakthrough could come from their own factory. And they invite any inventor to show them a working prototype. And if there is independent development of a new technology, someone has to choose how that is going to be developed into a real product. Which of the automakers is interested in running with the latest developments in order to revolutionize EV's and kill off their own ICE markets? That didn't work out so well when the NiMH cell appeared. And that was a technology jump. I think Stan Ovshinsky was very interested in seeing an EV revolution, perhaps more so than making money from his invention. Thus, I like to think new inventors would want to deal with Tesla.
 
Elon said he likes the Bolt - I agree. I'm glad GM seems to want to make a serious foray into pure EVs, and seems to want to really challenge Tesla with it. And I think it *will* be a challenge, and I think there will be a reasonable number of right-thinking people who decide to buy a Bolt over a Model 3 for whatever reason (brand loyalty, looks, wheelbase, available paint colors, shape of the air conditioning vents, whatever).

...But it's still not something to worry about, for a different reason. The reason is that the Bolt's existence on the market will *expand* the market. It's not competition for Tesla, it's support for Tesla. The more automakers who are seriously advertising EVs, the better off Tesla is. The more EVs end up on the road and seem "normal" to the general populace, the better off Tesla is. So yeah, I don't worry about it, but not because it's not going to compete seriously, but because serious competition will be a benefit.

I say again, as I often do: other EVs are not the enemy here. The more EVs we get on the market the better for all of us. Both financially and...asthmatically.

I pretty much agree. Realistically though, if the competition were competing seriously (like on the performance and style side), I'd be scared to hold the stock. Completely hypothetical, I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Thanks for that nice summary of threats, papafox.

Re battery chemistry: while this could be a very serious threat, it's on a pretty long timescale. At the moment there isn't even a competitive battery chem that works well in the lab. Developing one into a commercial product will take a long time. Building factories, achieving economies of scale comparable to Lion batteries will also take ages.
Only once these are achieved can a car be designed and developed for use with these new batteries. Model 3 will be selling in the 100s of k units/yr by the time a competitor is even being developed, much less sold. By that time Tesla will be much more resilient and may be able to stem the capex of switching to a new battery chem within a reasonable timeframe.

I feel like A LOT of boxes have to be ticked for new battery chem to be a substantial threat in the medium term (within the next decade). Haven't even mentioned cost, safety, availability of raw materials, supply chain infrastructure.

Well, The Chevy Bolt and/or Audi's competitor may be real by 2017. So I think these cars are being developed now.
 
Well, The Chevy Bolt and/or Audi's competitor may be real by 2017. So I think these cars are being developed now.


But not on an entirely new chemistry just the next iteration of LG Chem's lithium ion battery cells.

Bolt has not been given the green light and the latest Audi press release is that their Model S and X "fighters" "killers" will be north of $100k and special order.

Can't wait to hear stories of a customer with $100k in hand going to an Audi dealer wanting to order an Audi BEV while there is a lot full of ICE R8s S8s and Q8s.
 
If I had some breakthrough battery chemistry that would rock the EV, my first prospect for commercializing it would be Tesla. Basically, if have technology to sell, I want to work with a client that can run with the tech and maximize its value as quickly as possible. The Gigafactories would give my tech more scale than all LiIon makers combined. I can think of no company that would take it farther than Tesla. Moreover, I would be pleased to take Tesla shares as a significant portion of compensation. So if Tesla wanted my tech, I'd be set. If not, then I probably do not have the battery tech to rock the automotive world.

So this is why I don't worry about breakthrough battery tech. Unless it happens at LG Chem or an automaker (not likely), then Tesla will effectively get the first right of refusal by virtue of being the most dynamic and soon to be largest scale player in this space. LG Chem wants to compete with Tesla and Panasonic, and they've got scale too. So I could see them withholding the tech from Tesla. And maybe there are a few other battery makers like this. But if the tech comes out of an academic lab or startup research shop, Tesla will be at the top of their list.

Moreover, I would suggest that the potential for such a development was a key motivation for Musk to open source pattens. By doing so, it created a clear framework within which battery researchers could focus their effort. Basically, it is an open invitation for researchers to figure out if they could identify any ways to enhance Tesla's packs. So if you are an academic researcher, a grad student or start up and you want a commercial viable innovation, then it's smart to pay close attention to Tesla's architecture. If you can improve it by just a few percent, you could be set for life. Even a grad student who just gets promisingly close to a breakthrough could at least land a very nice job with Tesla. So organizing research activity around Tesla's battery architecture is a key objective for making it open source.
 
If I had some breakthrough battery chemistry that would rock the EV, my first prospect for commercializing it would be Tesla. Basically, if have technology to sell, I want to work with a client that can run with the tech and maximize its value as quickly as possible. The Gigafactories would give my tech more scale than all LiIon makers combined. I can think of no company that would take it farther than Tesla. Moreover, I would be pleased to take Tesla shares as a significant portion of compensation. So if Tesla wanted my tech, I'd be set. If not, then I probably do not have the battery tech to rock the automotive world.

So this is why I don't worry about breakthrough battery tech. Unless it happens at LG Chem or an automaker (not likely), then Tesla will effectively get the first right of refusal by virtue of being the most dynamic and soon to be largest scale player in this space. LG Chem wants to compete with Tesla and Panasonic, and they've got scale too. So I could see them withholding the tech from Tesla. And maybe there are a few other battery makers like this. But if the tech comes out of an academic lab or startup research shop, Tesla will be at the top of their list.

Moreover, I would suggest that the potential for such a development was a key motivation for Musk to open source pattens. By doing so, it created a clear framework within which battery researchers could focus their effort. Basically, it is an open invitation for researchers to figure out if they could identify any ways to enhance Tesla's packs. So if you are an academic researcher, a grad student or start up and you want a commercial viable innovation, then it's smart to pay close attention to Tesla's architecture. If you can improve it by just a few percent, you could be set for life. Even a grad student who just gets promisingly close to a breakthrough could at least land a very nice job with Tesla. So organizing research activity around Tesla's battery architecture is a key objective for making it open source.

I was thinking the same thing as you, that an inventor of a better battery chemistry would likely shop it to Tesla first. I won't lay awake at nights worrying.
 
Many of the anti-Tesla Elon is not a saint EV enthusiast believe Sakti3 CEO Saint Ann Marie Sastry's solid state batteries will make lithium ion batteries obsolete in 2-3 years and assume since GM is a large investor GM gets rights of first refusal on all production,at least for a while. I have not read any of the actual details of GM's arrangement with Sakti3.

So far Ann Marie is all sizzle and no steak. Big talk but no technical details because that is proprietary.
 
If I had some breakthrough battery chemistry that would rock the EV, my first prospect for commercializing it would be Tesla.

I agree, but we are biased. There are small battery companies that are already "captured" by large OEM's, Sakti, as mentioned, and others, plus the big boys such as LGChem. I doubt we'll see any production ready breakthroughs in the next 3-5 years but it is a possibility, and even if the cost reductions are not in place the large OEMs could simply absorb the cost for a few years until production volumes ramp up.
 
Since we are speaking of competition and solid state batteries, I think we should take a look at energy densities of some electric cars, including Tesla's previous cars. I gathered some data to put into a chart:

Energy Density Data.png


And here is the chart:
Energy Density chart.png


The only data that is confusing to me is the Mercedes Benz B class, which apparently has a higher energy density than any of Tesla's models. Here is the link for the data. Perhaps I should be using the 28 kWh and 204 kg numbers to get an energy density of 137.25 Wh/kg, which is just under Tesla's 2012 number for the Model S of 141.67 Wh/kg.

Anyway, one interesting observation is that the Chevy Volt's battery energy density increased at a rate of about 4.5% per year, while Tesla's energy density increased at a rate of about 4.7%. This shows that pouch cells are not overtaking cylindrical lithium ion cells that Tesla and Mercedes use. Also, this means that lithium ion developments keep moving the goal posts for solid state batteries. The Gigafactory will accelerate the movement of the goal posts by making cylindrical lithium ion cells much cheaper. All in all, I think it will be at least decade until we see solid state batteries that are on par with cylindrical lithium ion in both energy density and cost.
 
I agree, but we are biased. There are small battery companies that are already "captured" by large OEM's, Sakti, as mentioned, and others, plus the big boys such as LGChem. I doubt we'll see any production ready breakthroughs in the next 3-5 years but it is a possibility, and even if the cost reductions are not in place the large OEMs could simply absorb the cost for a few years until production volumes ramp up.

The OEMs get into these companies more at the Powerpoint stage. Tesla is cell and cost roadmap and then they'll talk.
 
The only data that is confusing to me is the Mercedes Benz B class, which apparently has a higher energy density than any of Tesla's models. Here is the link for the data. Perhaps I should be using the 28 kWh and 204 kg numbers to get an energy density of 137.25 Wh/kg, which is just under Tesla's 2012 number for the Model S of 141.67 Wh/kg.
Maybe the weight is wrong since it being 36 kWh was a bit of a surprise? Otherwise maybe Tesla is user denser cells which they can't yet get in high enough volumes for the Model S.