-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2015
- Thread starter Robert.Boston
- Start date
-
- Tags
- TSLA
- Status
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
This is probably right, and one of the drawbacks of the "85 kWh" acronym for the big battery- it even gets us well-read people doing the math wrong. There is never 85kWh available to anyone, ever.
Just imagine what happens when the average consumer thinks: "Ok, the car is telling me I'm averaging 250 Wh/mile and the pack is 85kWh. This gives me 85000/250=340 miles of range. Right?.. Right???"
MartinAustin
Active Member
Would love to see your source for this, drinkerofkoolaid.
It makes perfect sense however. Assuming energy density gets 6.6% better every year, 20% improvement is easy to get when you compound improvements over 3, 4 or 5 years (depending on one's opinion of when Gen2 and Gen3 batteries were locked)
What JB probably didn't say is something like "the new energy density I just mentioned for Model 3 is also getting rolled out in our Gen2 pack form factor, starting with the 70D."
IMO the 70D is the first product with the new batteries. Model X larger battery will be the next product with the new batteries (surely they will not continue to charge $10,000 for 15kWh more battery? That $10,000 used to get you 25kWh back in the day...)
20% over the current largest capacity is 102kWh, and it would weigh the same as the current 85kWh battery, and work in Model X as well as Model S. Jus' sayin'.
Tesla's competition (Audi etc.) will be crushed.
(You can call me mini-drinkerofkoolaid)
The headline "We can recharge [the Model S] in about 20 minutes." is very misleading. If it is an actual quote it must be out of context. Recharging should always mean a full charge. Otherwise, the 10-60% in 20 min which is in the slide is just the status quo at 130 kW as noted above.
EldestOyster
Member
There's been a pretty good spread of guesstimates based on how you figure it...but the stated goal has been to get supercharging up to 135 kW, so that's as likely the number as any.
When charging from Superchargers, few users ever go for a full charge. The whole idea on a long cross-country is to get enough energy into the vehicle to reach your next supercharger with an adequate reserve, but not with an excessive amount. Thus, 20 minute charges are quite common when hopping between superchargers. I personally would choose to arrive with more than 10% battery charge at the next supercharger, but by charging a bit more at a slower rate I am prolonging the overall trip time. For these reasons the amount of time to charge from 10% to 60% is an important number. I appreciate your concern about the terminology "we can recharge [the Model S] in about 20 minutes," though, because that statement without qualification can be misleading.
I searched the web for information on the Intersolar information.
1. New 25 MW/100 MWh system concept (via pv magazine):
Here is the previous version from the Tesla Energy announcement
2. Model 3 will have 20% higher energy density. My guess this is part battery chemistry, part packaging improvement.
1. New 25 MW/100 MWh system concept (via pv magazine):
Here is the previous version from the Tesla Energy announcement
2. Model 3 will have 20% higher energy density. My guess this is part battery chemistry, part packaging improvement.
Nicola Sicchieri on Twitter:
Hogfighter
Professional Lurker
JB has stated several times that the 20% improvement for the Model 3 is from battery chemistry. Additionally, Elon has stated many times that with the GF, due to logistics and economies of scale alone, they expect to have a 30% reduction in cost/KWH for battery production. These are 2 separate improvements, and when taken together it's easy to see JB's
prognostication that $100/KWH is achievable.
That's really underwhelming : just last year JB was predicting energy densities to double every 10 years. At their respective launches, there will be 5 years between the S and 3 model (at least). Extrapolating his latest guidance scales back battery density growth from 100% over 10 years to, at best, 44% growth.
I suspect the estimate is conservative due to thermal issues, and is simply based on the packing of the larger cell size. The state of the art cells and supporting systems may not go in the model 3. The cells that meet price and capacity constraints go in the model 3.
Supercharging a Tesla Model S does not provide linear recharge results from start to finish. You can see so here: Finally 120KW Supercharging! - Page 21
See post # 208 in that thread.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Yes, it is underwhelming. It represents only a 2.6 year advance along the 10 year doubling curve.
10×ln(1.2)÷ln(2)
=2.6303440583
If this advance is actually ready for the Model X this year, then I will be satified. But if we must wait until 2017, we might need to recalibrate out long-term expectations. It may take 20 years to double density. Tesla can still be a huge financial success at that pace, but the transformation of energy markets may be delayed a decade. Even so it is still our best chance for putting a cap on global warming and very worth the effort.
Citizen-T
Active Member
Well, depends on price. I think the improvement curve that we are on is energy density per price (loosely speaking). So if we get half that improvement in density and half of it applied to price, we are still on track.
Think of computers. My phone is not twice as fast as last year's model. It is a lot faster and somewhat cheaper per instruction. If we only applied the improvement to computers to speed over the last 50 years then they would still cost $100,000 and they would be way faster than anyone really would have use for.
Likewise, a Model 3 with 400mi range that still costs $100,000 is probably not the right way to allocate the improvements in battery technology.
Is my reasoning wrong?
Think of computers. My phone is not twice as fast as last year's model. It is a lot faster and somewhat cheaper per instruction. If we only applied the improvement to computers to speed over the last 50 years then they would still cost $100,000 and they would be way faster than anyone really would have use for.
Likewise, a Model 3 with 400mi range that still costs $100,000 is probably not the right way to allocate the improvements in battery technology.
Is my reasoning wrong?
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Right. It has been my way of looking at it as well. Modest increases in performance and energy density but mainly price reduction is what will be important in the coming years.
CALGARYARSENAL
Member
CALGARYARSENAL
Member
ATH in play if we can hold $265.00. Lets show these negative jerks what saving our environment is all about.
ev-enthusiast
Active Member
I have to admit that I did not see this last downward movement coming.
Should have taken a more carful approach after the two doijs.
Should have taken the two analyst downgrades more seriously.
Could have saved me quite some money.
What I expected after that downward movement is some weak consolidation.
But what I see when I take a look at the daily chart is the same slow upwards trend during the last five trading sessions reconfirmed.
I see a door, a lot of people currently standing in front of this door and by heart everybody knows that Model X is waiting in the other room.
What will happen?!
Last edited:
CALGARYARSENAL
Member
Now your going to see some volume Bobbi Ducati. Well played. ATH here we come. We just have to hold $265.00.
- - - Updated - - -
Going to make me some real sweet lemonade this afternoon and watch Citron Research and their short get crushed. Sorry about their luck.
What an epic battle between bulls and bears. This is great fun.
- - - Updated - - -
Going to make me some real sweet lemonade this afternoon and watch Citron Research and their short get crushed. Sorry about their luck.
What an epic battle between bulls and bears. This is great fun.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked