Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2015

[Drax7]

Musk mentioned last fall , after the intro of the D , not to expect any changes until September .

any way you look at , model x will underperform if the battery size is not
increased, and that is unlike Elon, and that makes me think it
could be the cause of the delay.

 

[Johan]

Tying this all back to point of this thread, I think it's considerably higher than 50% likely that we see an improved Model S product, one I don't think the market is anticipating, announced within three months, quite possibly within 5 weeks.

Somewhat agree, but not sure I agree with your "considerably higher than 50%" probability of this. I think it's lower actually and that they will look now to get about equal sales of S vs X, perhaps even a bit more X (with perhaps slightly better margin) and then, as the X launch is done and you have production cars coming of the line in good numbers without issues Q1 2016 it's going to be all about Model 3 (with few improvements for the S/X apart from better software and perhaps some hardware upgrades with regard to auto driving functions) - but no bigger batteries or even better performance.

This is how I think about it FWIW.

 

[dakh]

fwiw, on the last earnings call, Tesla said either the 10 kWh or the 7 kWh pack was using cells like the vehicles. I do not recall if they explicitly said the same cells, or just suggested they were similar. Of course, the transcript is available if you want to look into it.

Hi guys and gals, been a long time lurker.. I have an electric bicycle with a battery made with cells from crashed Model S pack The way those cells work is they don't like being fully charged or fully discharged. They will go through a lot more cycles without losing capacity if they're only charged to 90% and discharged to say 20%. I think it's likely that the 10KWh and 7KWh packs simply differ in how deep they charge those cells and how much they're allowed to discharge.

 

[Johan]

Hi guys and gals, been a long time lurker.. I have an electric bicycle with a battery made with cells from crashed Model S pack The way those cells work is they don't like being fully charged or fully discharged. They will go through a lot more cycles without losing capacity if they're only charged to 90% and discharged to say 20%. I think it's likely that the 10KWh and 7KWh packs simply differ in how deep they charge those cells and how much they're allowed to discharge.

Good thought and welcome to the forum! Good to have you posting, since you seem to be really in to Tesla technology! But no, this is what they said in the presentation of Tesla Energy products:

Elon Musk said his company would be selling consumers 10kWh batteries at $3,500 and 7kWh batteries at $3,000. The two kinds of batteries differ in cell chemistry as well as size—the larger battery uses a nickel-cobalt mix and can only be used for backup energy storage as its chemistry won't permit frequent cycling. The smaller battery is a nickel-manganese battery that is intended for daily cycling, and if you wanted to get off the grid entirely that would be the one you'd want for evenings after the sun goes down.

I remembered hearing this on the presentation, but the snippet above is from:
Tesla already has 38,000 reservations for the Powerwall, but use case is narrow | Ars Technica

 

[SteveG3]

Somewhat agree, but not sure I agree with your "considerably higher than 50%" probability of this. I think it's lower actually and that they will look now to get about equal sales of S vs X, perhaps even a bit more X (with perhaps slightly better margin) and then, as the X launch is done and you have production cars coming of the line in good numbers without issues Q1 2016 it's going to be all about Model 3 (with few improvements for the S/X apart from better software and perhaps some hardware upgrades with regard to auto driving functions) - but no bigger batteries or even better performance.

This is how I think about it FWIW.

Indeed, they could use a new higher density chemistry to make the 85 kWh Model S cheaper to manufacture rather than offer a bigger battery with more range. Obviously, there's nothing definitive re my considerably higher than 50% estimate... just several circumstantial bits I'm basing that call on. The main one I've not mentioned is Elon having suggested, I believe in Norway, that the timeframe for a bigger battery was probably about a year away. My memory is that he said this in the context of the Model S (but that may not have been explicit), and this happened over a year ago.

fwiw, from comments they've made about the popularity of SUVs, I sense they'd expect offering the same size batteries in both the S and X (that is, presumably an improvement to the S) would yield a roughly equal split, with the X taking a little more than half the sales.

 

[Johan]

Indeed, they could use a new higher density chemistry to make the 85 kWh Model S cheaper to manufacture rather than offer a bigger battery with more range. Obviously, there's nothing definitive re my considerably higher than 50% estimate... just several circumstantial bits I'm basing that call on. The main one I've not mentioned is Elon having suggested, I believe in Norway, that the timeframe for a bigger battery was probably about a year away. My memory is that he said this in the context of the Model S (but that may not have been explicit), and this happened over a year ago.

We're already overdue? Or this is not a Tesla priority.

This is what he said, back here in Norway February last year:

There is the potential for bigger battery packs in the future, but it would probably be maybe next year or something like that. The main focus is . . . how do we reduce the cost per kWh of storage in the battery pack?

<em>

 

[SteveG3]

We're already overdue? Or this is not a Tesla priority.

This is what he said, back here in Norway February last year:

There is the potential for bigger battery packs in the future, but it would probably be maybe next year or something like that. The main focus is . . . how do we reduce the cost per kWh of storage in the battery pack?

<em>[video]https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=video&amp;cd=2&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CCMQtwIwAWoVChMI1-mQ8YeQxgIVhegsCh3h8gzt&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DOJUA_dVVMj o&amp;ei=Gul9Vdf0LIXRswHh5bPoDg&amp;usg=AFQjCNF_Da8ZMOWoaRoW51SLhCwBapx3sg&amp;sig2=QK2-9Ei3pFyi_sKRojPjoA[/video]

I think it's all tied into the rollout of the Model X, which has been pushed out at least 6 months from what was expected in February 2014.

I mentioned upthread that I think transitioning to a new battery chemistry may well be a tricky timing dance of product launches and increasing supply of a new cell chemistry, which may well have begun with the 70D. If this is so, I think the biggest driver from the product launch side of the equation would be when they can roll out the Model X.

ps wow Johan, great find re the video in which he said this. I was thinking it would be a chore to find if someone asked for it : )

 

[Johan]

I think it's all tied into the rollout of the Model X, which has been pushed out at least 6 months from what was expected in February 2014.

ps wow Johan, great find re the video in which he said this. I was thinking it would be a chore to find if someone asked for it : )

Thnx, fixed the embedded video link too after you quoted me

Anyway I think you could very well be right on this, just unsure about the 50%+ probability.

In a way I hope you're right because:
1) More range is awesome and will create a lot of good PR
2) Would be a very positive signal with regards to battery cell production and capacity: If Tesla had unlimited access to batteries don't you think they may have come out with even bigger batteries as the saw the 40/60/85 take rate trend (more people wanted the biggest battery than Tesla had thought) after say 6-9 months of introducing the S?

 

[SteveG3]

Thnx, fixed the embedded video link too after you quoted me

Anyway I think you could very well be right on this, just unsure about the 50%+ probability.

In a way I hope you're right because:
1) More range is awesome and will create a lot of good PR
2) Would be a very positive signal with regards to battery cell production and capacity: If Tesla had unlimited access to batteries don't you think they may have come out with even bigger batteries as the saw the 40/60/85 take rate trend (more people wanted the biggest battery than Tesla had thought) after say 6-9 months of introducing the S?

Yes, more range would create very good PR. It would also help a wider audience realize that there will be more range improvements to come in the not so distant future. It's become quite common for people outside TMC to refer to the 500K vehicle target in ~2020. Perhaps it will become somewhat common for people to talk about ~400 mile Teslas in ~4-5 years. This will help people see that even though the Model 3 is going to be the focus, the S/X can very well significantly gain share from ICE in the years to come.

as to point 2), yes it may be a sign of increased capacity, though it may be more about switching to a higher density cell. Elon's said several times, ~we could make a bigger battery but it would just be too heavy.

fwiw, I'll admit that my estimating the likelihood of this might be skewed up somewhat as I'd like to see this happen as a shareholder, but I really want to see it as a consumer. I see it as ~70% or so likely, but even if a more level headed estimate is lower, it's a significant potential catalyst with a meaningful likelihood of happening. I mean, isn't it at least as likely as say a big Q2 delivery guidance beat or EPS beat (and actually more substantially positive than either of those).

 

[dakh]

Good thought and welcome to the forum! Good to have you posting, since you seem to be really in to Tesla technology! But no, this is what they said in the presentation of Tesla Energy products:

Elon Musk said his company would be selling consumers 10kWh batteries at $3,500 and 7kWh batteries at $3,000. The two kinds of batteries differ in cell chemistry as well as size—the larger battery uses a nickel-cobalt mix and can only be used for backup energy storage as its chemistry won't permit frequent cycling. The smaller battery is a nickel-manganese battery that is intended for daily cycling, and if you wanted to get off the grid entirely that would be the one you'd want for evenings after the sun goes down.

Thank you for the welcome! I'm also into Tesla stock.. big time :love: Now that I've looked at what they wanted to accomplish, yes it makes sense they had to use different cells for the pack that needs to be able to cycle 365 times a year and 10 year warranty.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

JB Straubel and Matthew K. Rose will be the keynote speakers tomorrow at the 2015 EIA Energy conference, from 8:45am - 10:15am EST.

2015 EIA Energy Conference

 

[TSLAopt]

Yes, more range would create very good PR. It would also help a wider audience realize that there will be more range improvements to come in the not so distant future. It's become quite common for people outside TMC to refer to the 500K vehicle target in ~2020. Perhaps it will become somewhat common for people to talk about ~400 mile Teslas in ~4-5 years. This will help people see that even though the Model 3 is going to be the focus, the S/X can very well significantly gain share from ICE in the years to come.

Im not so sure promoting expanded range beyond 300 miles would be a good idea for Tesla to keep talking about until it's actually available. By talking about it people who were on the fence about ordering a 300 mile Tesla will defer placing their order thinking a 400-500 mile range Tesla is around the corner...
As 99% of us who own a Tesla should know by now, 99% of the time 300 miles is more than enough miles since we charge it every night at home. 400 mile or 500 mile tesla is irrational for 99% of people to buy now that superchargers are all over the place

 

[SteveG3]

Im not so sure promoting expanded range beyond 300 miles would be a good idea for Tesla to keep talking about until it's actually available. By talking about it people who were on the fence about ordering a 300 mile Tesla will defer placing their order thinking a 400-500 mile range Tesla is around the corner...
As 99% of us who own a Tesla should know by now, 99% of the time 300 miles is more than enough miles since we charge it every night at home. 400 mile or 500 mile tesla is irrational for 99% of people to buy now that superchargers are all over the place

That's a good point TSLAopt. Only time in the past year or so I recall Elon mentioning it was when Andrea James brought it up a couple of earnings calls ago. It's likely this is just for the reason you suggested.

 

[AudubonB]

Im not so sure promoting expanded range beyond 300 miles would be a good idea for Tesla to keep talking about until it's actually available. By talking about it people who were on the fence about ordering a 300 mile Tesla will defer placing their order thinking a 400-500 mile range Tesla is around the corner...
As 99% of us who own a Tesla should know by now, 99% of the time 300 miles is more than enough miles since we charge it every night at home. 400 mile or 500 mile tesla is irrational for 99% of people to buy now that superchargers are all over the place

Mild-mannered Moderator IS from Alaska, you should know......but he'll try to stay mild-mannered and revel in the thought that he's in the 1 percent, and not go all irrational on you....:tongue:

 

[blakegallagher]

Mild-mannered Moderator IS from Alaska, you should know......but he'll try to stay mild-mannered and revel in the thought that he's in the 1 percent, and not go all irrational on you....:tongue:

Also in the one percent. The range on the Model S would not be sufficient for my job which requires a lot of miles on some days. The car does not really work either but the Model X will if it has a bit more range!

I should say that it would work 70-80 percent of the time but the 20-30 percent of the time of it not working is a deal breaker. I know I am in the minority but I also know that Tesla will come out with longer range cars.

 

[mejojo]

Im not so sure promoting expanded range beyond 300 miles would be a good idea for Tesla to keep talking about until it's actually available. By talking about it people who were on the fence about ordering a 300 mile Tesla will defer placing their order thinking a 400-500 mile range Tesla is around the corner...
As 99% of us who own a Tesla should know by now, 99% of the time 300 miles is more than enough miles since we charge it every night at home. 400 mile or 500 mile tesla is irrational for 99% of people to buy now that superchargers are all over the place

Keep in mind that the extra range will come at a hefty price, an option that most people will not choose. However, having the option available for those who want the "max" would be a big plus.

 

[pGo]

I would like Tesla to use new chemistry and provide 70kwh and 85kwh options while providing a bit more range (lower weight and less number of cells) and netting some margins in the pocket. With superchargers everywhere in the next few years, most people don't need more range.

 

[SteveG3]

Im not so sure promoting expanded range beyond 300 miles would be a good idea for Tesla to keep talking about until it's actually available. By talking about it people who were on the fence about ordering a 300 mile Tesla will defer placing their order thinking a 400-500 mile range Tesla is around the corner...
As 99% of us who own a Tesla should know by now, 99% of the time 300 miles is more than enough miles since we charge it every night at home. 400 mile or 500 mile tesla is irrational for 99% of people to buy now that superchargers are all over the place

I understand your larger point, and you do have more experience with a Model S than I do. Most of my long distance appraisal of the Model S is from looking at the interactive tool Tesla used to have on the website that indicated range at various speeds and outside temperature/climate control choices. I'd agree that a 300 mile real world Model S would be great for just about all drivers, but from what I've seen I think we'd need a 400 mile rated range Model S to get close to 300 miles of real world range year round at real highway speeds. If we're only SuperCharging to 80%, even a 400 mile rated Tesla would be a considerably below 300 miles. Maybe from actually driving one regularly you are seeing some positives on range I've missed in the modest amount I've driven one. In my own highway experience, a few 60-80 mile drives, I did even worse than I'd projected based on that tool from the website. I suspect I did worse than I expected mostly because of wind speeds. Don't mean this as a downer... actually, my point is I think the cars are going to become more attractive in a real way to a considerable percent of consumers, and this wont just be accommodating misperceptions of inexperienced consumers who don't really need more range.

- - - Updated - - -

Keep in mind that the extra range will come at a hefty price, an option that most people will not choose. However, having the option available for those who want the "max" would be a big plus.

Tesla is expecting great things with driving down the cost of the batteries. They've recently said they expect to get the cost per kWh to $100 or less by 2020. So, around 2020, even a 150 kWh pack would actually be about $4K cheaper for Tesla to make than today's current 85 kWh pack (assuming the cost today is $200-250). I highly doubt they'd need to or want to go quite as big as a 150 kWh pack... I just wanted to make the point about how much the falling battery costs take care of the economic challenge to offering more range. Of course, increasing the energy density is another requirement of bigger packs.

 

[RobStark]

In the end the market will decide how big is too big or just right. Not activist,opinion leaders, or the gliteratti telling people what they should want.

And I think the market is significant for 400 real world miles and above full size sedans and CUVs.

If Tesla does not make them eventually Audi will stop making press releases and actually build a long range BEV. Or someone else will.

 

[FANGO]

Rated range *is* real world range. That's why the rating exists. If you get worse than it, it's because you drive in an inefficient manner. The number on the sticker is the average.

I have zero problem beating rated range, and in fact I find it difficult to do worse than rated range. I can beat ideal range when trying. It's not difficult.

So no, 400 does not mean 300. 300 means 300.