Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[everman]

Yes, the side casing has greater surface area but the bottom has direct contact with the edge of each layer, not just the outer layer. A bottom cooling plate is also the design GM is using for the Bolt pouch cell based pack. Really interested in seeing your source material as I have not come across anything myself.

Elon addressed this a while back. I'll try to find it tonight. It was around the time of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problem. He was describing the size of the cell vs. the cooling potential. Basically, what is the farthest distance that heat would have to travel in order to be dissipated from anywhere in the cell.

Boeing had a few very large cells, meaning that heat generated in the center of the cell needed to travel all the way through the cell mass in order to reach the cooling capacity, whereas a smaller / thinner cell such as the cylindrical architecture ultimately meant that the farthest heat would have to travel would be 1 radius, given that the casing of the cell was cooled.

The scenario that Vlad is describing, cooling the cell through the bottom of the cell only, means that the heat dissipation capability is significantly changed, moving the heat dissipation from the long side of the casing (where the coolant contacted the cell in the original packs) to the bottom side of the casing (not the top either?). This means that instead of the heat energy needing to travel 1r or 10.5mm, some heat has to travel 700mm, from the top of the cell to the bottom. Even if the top of the cell was cooled as well, the maximum distance to a heatsink would be 350mm.

This layout significantly changes the ability of the cell to be thermally managed. I am not saying this is not what Tesla has done, I just wanted to point out the difference from a physics point of view. Liquid traveling around the long sides of the casing provide heat energy a very short path to escape the cell, whereas heatsinks only appearing on the bottom cross section will require heat energy to travel significantly further before escaping the cell.

I am very interested to see the teardown of the first 100kwh pack. My prediction is that they are still providing heatsink access to each cell along the long sides of the casings.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Yes, the side casing has greater surface area but the bottom has direct contact with the edge of each layer, not just the outer layer. A bottom cooling plate is also the design GM is using for the Bolt pouch cell based pack. Really interested in seeing your source material as I have not come across anything myself.

Yes, I was looking around after learning about Tesla's design and saw an article about Bolt's bottom cooling plate, but I believe the design is LG Chem's.

Just to make sure, similarities end at this point. l believe Tesla's approach more elegant and sofisticated as well as unique and have clear advantages from the point of view of dependability and auxiliary power requirements. It is IMO an indication of Tesla's systemic centered approach vs. GMs integration of black boxes. I am an electrical engineer and was quite impressed with what Tesla came up with.

 

[phigment]

... whereas a smaller / thinner cell such as the cylindrical architecture ultimately meant that the farthest heat would have to travel would be 1 radius, given that the casing of the cell was cooled.

The scenario that Vlad is describing, cooling the cell through the bottom of the cell only, means that the heat dissipation capability is significantly changed, moving the heat dissipation from the long side of the casing (where the coolant contacted the cell in the original packs) to the bottom side of the casing (not the top either?). This means that instead of the heat energy needing to travel 1r or 10.5mm, some heat has to travel 700mm, from the top of the cell to the bottom. Even if the top of the cell was cooled as well, the maximum distance to a heatsink would be 350mm.

I am far from an expert on this, but I don't think you can base this purely on distance from centre. The cell is layers of different material rolled up. The thermal conductivity varies based on materials. If one of those materials in the roll is a thermal insulator, then the quicker path of heat dissipation may be through the ends, instead of travelling in a spiral through the thermally conductive material.

 

[everman]

I am far from an expert on this, but I don't think you can base this purely on distance from centre. The cell is layers of different material rolled up. The thermal conductivity varies based on materials. If one of those materials in the roll is a thermal insulator, then the quicker path of heat dissipation may be through the ends, instead of travelling in a spiral through the thermally conductive material.

Agreed. Each layers individual thermal conductivity constant definitely plays a role.

 

[larmor]

Can someone do a market analysis for industrial solar and peak shifting rates? (if not all ready done, pls link to where it is) This would be germane to TE/Solar. It would be similar to when a VC asks a startup, what is total market, and potential achievable market share.

 

[AlMc]

Time to email @wk057 on the question of cooling in the 100 pack. Hopefully he will respond. Later.

 

[FredTMC]

Time to email @wk057 on the question of cooling in the 100 pack. Hopefully he will respond. Later.

Looking forward to when he rips one open...

 

[everman]

Elon addressed this a while back. I'll try to find it tonight. It was around the time of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problem. He was describing the size of the cell vs. the cooling potential. Basically, what is the farthest distance that heat would have to travel in order to be dissipated from anywhere in the cell.

Boeing had a few very large cells, meaning that heat generated in the center of the cell needed to travel all the way through the cell mass in order to reach the cooling capacity, whereas a smaller / thinner cell such as the cylindrical architecture ultimately meant that the farthest heat would have to travel would be 1 radius, given that the casing of the cell was cooled.

The scenario that Vlad is describing, cooling the cell through the bottom of the cell only, means that the heat dissipation capability is significantly changed, moving the heat dissipation from the long side of the casing (where the coolant contacted the cell in the original packs) to the bottom side of the casing (not the top either?). This means that instead of the heat energy needing to travel 1r or 10.5mm, some heat has to travel 700mm, from the top of the cell to the bottom. Even if the top of the cell was cooled as well, the maximum distance to a heatsink would be 350mm.

This layout significantly changes the ability of the cell to be thermally managed. I am not saying this is not what Tesla has done, I just wanted to point out the difference from a physics point of view. Liquid traveling around the long sides of the casing provide heat energy a very short path to escape the cell, whereas heatsinks only appearing on the bottom cross section will require heat energy to travel significantly further before escaping the cell.

I am very interested to see the teardown of the first 100kwh pack. My prediction is that they are still providing heatsink access to each cell along the long sides of the casings.

writes Musk in an email. "It is much harder to maintain an even temperature in a large cell, as the distance from the center of the cell to the edge is much greater, which increases the risk of thermal runaway."

Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe

Here is one occurrence of the comment. I think he extrapolated in subsequent interviews.

 

[mmd]

To update the above, in 24 hours list of new (not titled) Tesla Model S on EV-cpo.com (US + EU +HK) went down by 93 cars (from 1299 to 1206), so we are on track to clear all "demo" and "inventory" Model S cars currently listed on EV-cpo.com in less than 2 weeks.

Care to update us again on this? I'm still seeing1096 "new inventory" cars on sale. 110 fewer cars in 7 days isn't really that great.

You may want to re-examine the over confidence of your assertions in the future. May be, add a "may be" ?

 

[sdtslafan]

Care to update us again on this? I'm still seeing1096 "new inventory" cars on sale. 110 fewer cars in 7 days isn't really that great.

You may want to re-examine the over confidence of your assertions in the future. May be, add a "may be" ?

1096 "new inventory" cars is an EXTREMELY SMALL number. Remember that Tesla produces 2000 cars per week. So this "inventory" represents ONLY 3-4 days of factory production. It is advantageous to maintain a level of inventory so that customers who want the car immediately have a selection to choose from. When Vgrinshpun says this number is going down, that means Tesla cannot add to inventory fast enough.

Meanwhile, think of ALL the ICE vehicles from BMW, Mercedes, and Audi sitting on dealer lots around the world. MILLIONS!! Remember that if anyone wanted those cars they wouldn't be sitting there.

Please keep some perspective.

 

[MitchJi]

I don't believe that 500k per year is the maximum, but nice to see it.

Tesla factory expansion means major job boom Fremont

The Fremont City Council this week approved a vast expansion of Tesla’s operations in Fremont, which could lead the plant to top the peak employment of the former NUMMI auto plant on the same site.

Tesla’s current factory is on the site of the old New United Motor Manufacturing Inc., or NUMMI, a joint venture of General Motors and Toyota Motor. The NUMMI plant at various times produced the Chevrolet Nova, Geo Prizm, Chevrolet Prizm, Hilux,Toyota Voltz, Pontiac Vibe, Toyota Corolla and Toyota Tacoma.

“Tesla has announced a new vehicle model, the Model 3, and has a need to expand their current facility,” according to a city staff report.

Yet the approval marks more than a major new project for Fremont. It also represents a dramatic turnaround for the city.

<Snip>
All told, the project would add square footage equivalent in size to three major regional shopping centers the size of Sunvalley Mall in Concord or Valley Fair in San Jose.

“In 2015, Tesla produced 50,580 new vehicles,” the city report stated. “Build out of the master plan would increase production to 500,000 new vehicles per year."

 

[vgrinshpun]

Care to update us again on this? I'm still seeing1096 "new inventory" cars on sale. 110 fewer cars in 7 days isn't really that great.

You may want to re-examine the over confidence of your assertions in the future. May be, add a "may be" ?

I actually see 298 cars available as US "demo" and "inventory" cars and 654 cars available in Europe + HK for a total of 952 cars. There were total of at least 55 cars added as well (could have been more, but already sold within the last week) . So the list differential is 1206 - 952 + 55 = 309 cars, or an average of 44 cars/day. So at this rate the currently listed vehicles would be cleared in 952 / 44 = 21 days.

As far as your assertion of "over confidence", you are misquoting me. The post you quoted was an update on a previous post of mine which clearly stated that I was talking about clearing vehicles that were listed at that time. Obviously, you'll never see the list to be drawn to zero, as Tesla adds cars to it as time passes by. Once again, this list represents "demo" and "inventory" cars, so it should never go to zero.

Given the above, I am not sure what is the point you are trying to make.

For the reference, my original post that was left out by you stated: "BTW, list of new (not titled) Tesla Model S on EV-cpo.com (US + EU +HK) went down by 75 cars since midnight. At this rate all "demo" fleet and "inventory" Model S cars currently listed there will be sold-out in less than 2 weeks."

 

[JRP3]

If one of those materials in the roll is a thermal insulator, then the quicker path of heat dissipation may be through the ends, instead of travelling in a spiral through the thermally conductive material.

Exactly. The separator material between layers is probably not very good at conduction heat, though it is of course very thin.

 

[Green Pete]

Exactly. The separator material between layers is probably not very good at conduction heat, though it is of course very thin.

Considering heat rises it makes pretty good sense to cool and allow heat to escape from the bottom and top rather than the sides, also prevents 1 cells heat issues from impacting an adjacent cell.

 

[ggr]

Considering heat rises it makes pretty good sense to cool and allow heat to escape from the bottom and top rather than the sides, also prevents 1 cells heat issues from impacting an adjacent cell.

Heat rises from convection, and there is no gas or liquid in the cells, only the jelly-like ion transfer layer. So no convection.

 

[esk8mw]

I think it's notable that we haven't seen significant discounting or blowout lease deals this quarter, even as a bunch of old AP1 cars are in inventory. By this point in Q3 these types of deals had been going on for a few weeks. If Tesla can sell the same amount as in Q3 while refraining from pulling any inventory demand levers I'd say that's very bullish for demand - especially while adding high margin options, increasing delivery fees, increasing option prices, increasing base price and focusing on scaling 100 packs as noted on the call - all of which also increase margins.

I'll be shocked if they don't run at least a couple weeks of great deals here soon just to get every incremental sale they can, but they are quickly running out of time to do so given the time to transport and prep inventory cars for new owners.

They might be able to hit the trifecta: increase demand/sales, increase margins and beat on expenses guidance (as I suggested in earlier posts a couple weeks ago).

 

[Paracelsus]

I was worrying other way around. A flat stock price for nearly 3 years in a row must be pretty disheartening to existing employees. As I know Tesla expects grueling amounts of hard work from employees, especially on the corporate/development side. It would be good for these employees to see some rewards for the hardwork.

Thanks for posting this. It was exactly this feeling that made me go back and look at prices and longer-term trend lines last week. It was a good reminder for me to review that TSLA has actually done well when viewed on the Jan 1 - Dec 31 calendar that employees are likely rewarded by and that mutual fund investors review in their end-of-year reports, instead of where I had been watching it lately - which was somewhere down in the weeds for too long. TSLA grew from ~ $34 - $150 in 2013. TSLA grew from ~ $150 - $219 in 2014. And TSLA grew from ~ $219 to $240 in 2015. So after realizing last week that TSLA was going to be forced to break out of 1-year and 3-year converging trend lines somewhere between $182.50 and $187.50, I am not going to completely discount that TSLA can't once again end the year positive, since a break-out of that magnitude has resulted in 50+ point swings in the past (i.e. a breakout similar to April 2015...).

In the near-term, I am going to hope the large funds decide to reward their investors by letting TSLA run for now so they can report another year-over-year profit to their clients again. And I am going to hope this also translates to another Merry Christmas and Happy New Year for the hard working employees you mentioned as well. Oh yes, and I better take one more step back to make sure I am not looking at other things in my life too closely right now as well, and missing the good stuff over a larger timeline. The excitement of owning a few more shares of TSLA than I likely deserve has that effect on me.

 

[schonelucht]

Is there a possibility that comparison was not with an European Country, but with the Europe as a whole?

Doubtful because it would imply that the N-American market is decreasing (remember Q3-Q4 global deliveries guidance flat). There are no signs of that, on the contrary. Also, be careful to use that table. If you read the footnotes, the Asian Pacific number for Q2/Q3 is 'total speculation'.

 

[schonelucht]

I traded in my Perf Signature VIN S00285 last December when I purchased a S 90D.

I understand you didn't get the resale value guarantee, but was the price offered for the trade in below or above the resale value guarantee if you had gotten it? Because that is really what matters from a financial point of view. There is a big liability on the balance sheet. It could yet turn into either an additional profit center or a cash drain. Unfortunately there is no good info on what it is going to be.

 

[PaulRocket]

Samsung Electronics to supply chips to Tesla -Electronic Times