Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TSLA Investor Discussions' started by Buckminster, Jan 9, 2019.
Elon Musk on Twitter
Well, if Tesla wants to continue to get the German BEV-subsidy for the remainder of 2019H1, they have to offer a Model S costing at most 60 k€.
So to do that they will have to either continue to make a 75 kWh export version, or introduce a different version with a similar entry price.
Not sure where everyone is getting some big pack increase from. There simply is not room for more cells not to mention the added weight to an already heavy car. They already had to rework the cooling passages for the 100D squeezing as many cells in as possible. Without switching to a bigger cell or loosening buffer they cannot physically create a 120 or 125.
The only and very remote possibility is they’ve come up with a new chemistry. After the screwup with the 90 packs chemistry causing horrible degradation though I’ll stay away from any new pack until after it’s been well proven.
In my opinion the 75D with its lower pack voltage and ~250 mile range is not competitive at the MS price point now that Model-3 is ramped up and competing manufacturers have similar range EVs with CCS. No point in making those packs. 75Ds at 350v take more time to recover range at superchargers with an earlier taper too.
None of the above. Simply improving the profit margins.
75 S and X discontinued
I'm hoping it means S100D will get faster charging once SuC v3 drops.
Current S75D gets max 95kW = 1.26C
Current S100D gets max 118kW = 1.18C
Which is incongruous, as the larger battery with more parallel paths should tolerate a higher total current for the same heating effect per cell.
i.e. it seems the 100D charge rate is limited by the capacity of SuC v2, which is 125kW (minus some losses)
1.5C = 150kW maximum would do nicely and should not overtax the battery if the 100D's allegedly improved cooling system can handle the added heat load.
- improving profit margins on S and X vehicles as production of these models cannot ramp higher currently. Only producing one battery pack for all versions of S or X will greatly simplify thing;
- increasing the gap between model 3/Y and S/X even further. An S or X should always be (trying to be) the best car in the world of it's class (saloon vs SUV), so no reason to have a car with less range. Save that for Model 3/Y (for poor people like me );
I don't follow the whole "there must be a refresh of the car and/or battery pack coming soon" vibe. Elon mainly points the other way (only minor updates every now and then, no intention to switch battery cells to the newer type), but people (fueled by Electrek) keep this as truth for some reason.
They have introduced larger battery packs in the past so why wouldn't they now? Also I think what Elon means is that they introduce a new battery pack here, then some new interior colours there and so on, they don't batch these improvements into one model year.
Roadster will have a 200 kWh battery pack so it's definitely possible to build larger battery packs. We don't know how strong S and X demand is, now that 3 production is running smoothly and the tax credit is gone. I think it seems logical to introduce a new battery pack and differentiate the S and X more from the 3.
There is no option for :
They are just removing the complexity.... They removed Carbon, then they removed paint options, they no standard interior... they are simply making the car easier, cheaper the build... make even more room for M3 growth...
I think Tesla is going to be moving away from “kWh” battery designations altogether. We’ll soon see two battery options for the S and X but they’ll be sold as Standard Range and Long Range, just like the 3 is, and their exact capacity will only be speculated upon.
Logic says that we're going to get a new set of 2170 S/X batteries announced next week - a long range and a standard range.. And I also expect that it will be shipping almost immediately.
1) There's not a chance that Tesla maintains a single battery option for the S. They can't kill the lower cost S, since that's where most of their sales are. And they can't kill the longer range one since that's where most of the margin is.
2) It would be stupid to spend the money on a new 18650 battery.
3) They've stabilized the 3 production line, and Panasonic is likely able to open more 2170 capacity.
4) They want to make a splash with supercharger V3. They can't announce that all model 3s can charge at a higher rate, while limiting all production model S's to a lower rate. That would be a disaster.
5) The 3P has to be hurting S sales. They need something to drive Q1. In order to get a sales bump shipped during Q1, they need to start orders now.
I tend to doubt the refresh just yet, but there are three things that points that direction:
1) There's a significant difference in how the battery cooling and heating work in the 3 vs the S/X. I don't know how much of that is important to being able to sustain the higher charge rate. But if it is, that would imply that they've had to rework a bunch of the guts in the S/X. They're not going to do that in the existing body, and then change the body again a few months later.
2) The 3 in China has two charge ports under the door. It makes sense for Tesla to roll that out in the NA with both CCS and Tesla ports. They're not going to offer that feature on the 3, but not the S/X. Yet it's not possible to do that on the S/X without revisions to the bodywork. And they're not going to revise the bodywork twice in short succession, as with 1 above.
3) They're expecting to make an announcement on the Y Q2-ish, Musk Standard Time, and maybe show the pickup as well. Tesla likes to spread their announcements across the year. This would be a good window in which to introduce a revised S/X, so as to not have the Y steal its thunder.
My guess is combination of:
The new standard Range will go almost as far as the current 100s Kwh as a result of more kwh (I think SR will be 85) and the drive units from Model 3. We know that roughly 5 months ago they were producing 10k model 3 drive units per week.
If they introduce & mass produce the SR RWD model 3 they will have a ton of high margin drive units sitting in inventory or run below capacity...They won't do that, they will put them in model S&X; e.g. 1 model 3 drive unit & 1 "old" S/X drive unit.
. Also those drive units are the so called 1 million mile-units; reliability will be much better than current S/X drive units.
EM also has a habit of stating things, going quiet for a while, and they doing exactly that which he said he wasn't going to do. At one point he said that nobody ever needed more than 85kwh. He does this sort of thing to avoid Osborning his current production.
And there is exactly no reason to maintain the 18650. They don't want to keep shipping cells from Japan. They're certainly not going to start an 18650 line in Nevada. And the 2170 seems superior in every respect. The 18560 is going away; it's a question of timing.
I don't expect any new battery options or refreshes in 2019. I think this was done for two reasons. Simplify production, and make the new EV's coming out this year (E-tron, iPace, Taycan, etc) seem inferior with much lower range. Most of the new EV's are in the 225-250 range and now will be compared against the 335 Model S and 295 Model X instead of the base models. Less confusing for consumers and makes the Tesla's look better.
Nope. They won't kill the 75 without introducing a new lower end. Most of their sales come from the lower end. And they certainly will maintain the high end gravy train. Having one option would be utterly stupid. Further, for the entire history of the vehicle Tesla has always had two batteries per model; even 3 for brief periods.
There is very little production cost to be saved by killing the lower end battery. I think we're going to have a 2170 based 85 or 90 (called standard range), and 115 or 120 (called long range).
The beauty of defining by range and not by kWh is that it unties Tesla's hands. For example, if they're able to improve motor efficiency by changing hardware or software and get the same range with a few less cells in the battery, they're free to do so and save costs without any disclosure or concern about backlash.
I think they just trying to differentiate between the S and the 3 -- which after sitting in a 3 for the 1st time at a Tesla show room on Monday I think they HAVE to do. the model 3 is a REALLY nice car. And the price point is just too close to a 75D. -- particularly the performance 3.
I am excited for the next big battery to be coming out. I agree with those that say that EM is trying to protect the brand from the Osborne Effect when he says there will not be a newer battery size anytime soon. I just hope that when they do release same (and I think it is coming sooner than I would have expected) that it is not a 90 kW-type chemistry change with a whole bunch of downsides that ultimately make it fail.
for myself, It makes me happy that even if I get the "smaller" available battery (assuming for arguments sake 100kW vs the new 120 kW that will get released) I wont have to give up range which is something I struggled with when my options were 85kW (which I currently own) vs 75kW which was at least $10,000 cheaper but I would lose roughly 15 miles of range. 15 miles really isn't all that much.. until you actually need it.
my 85D will be 4 years old in June. Tesla has tried to get me to trade it in in the past.. but I love my car, with it's leather seats, its pano roof, the original midnight blue color, and (lets not forget) the free supercharging for life. I will probably keep the car until June 2020 or Jan 2021.. (to will be VERY nice to be able to put the monthly car payment into savings rather than paying off the car.. i'll tell you that much.) but I am excited to eventually get a more affordable S with greater range than my current 85D.
When I finally made the switch from my P85D to a 100D, I was a little skeptical that I'd notice much difference other than the obvious range. I was wrong. It's a much better made vehicle. The fake leather seats are much nicer that the prior genuine leather seats. And the interior is much better made in many small ways. It feels more solid on the road - quieter, fewer rattles, etc. The heating works better. And I love the glass roof. The car looks the same, but it's not the same.
Now I'm wondering if that's the real reason why the 75 kWh pack is being discontinued, in fact.
Because now Tesla has a model that more profitably falls under 60k Euro, and is designed for higher production volumes as well (getting more subsidy).
(If I'm right, that means that Tesla is actually making a compliance car. )