Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[WarpedOne]

So you think they're gonna be making packs from cells made in Japan under GF roof? That might be the case for some time, hopefully not for long though!

Such was the plan from day one: 35GWh cell production, 50GWh battery pack production.
Obviously 15GWh of cells would come from outside sources, Japan being the prime candidate.

 

[Lessmog]

Sorry that makes no sense to me. Why would they be making good old 18650's there? The whole idea is to make cells optimized for the application and then bundle them into packs that go into cars right then and there.

Edit: Oh I see what you've done there. So you think they're gonna be making packs from cells made in Japan under GF roof? That might be the case for some time, hopefully not for long though!

- - - Updated - - -



AFAIR they saved some room because of the way the ends of the cell are designed. So maybe pack-wise it'll be close enough to just, um, stick it in.

So overall it's a good point that folks might get some rude awakening with GF coming online but we don't actually understand how that is going to play out exactly. Need more solid info on details. The biggest of them being not even the geometry of the cells but the capabilities of the chemistry they're going to start with. I personally am pretty sure the 2mm in question isn't something we need to worry about. The end caps are different and it'll all fit just fine into existing stuff.

Well, as far as I can recall, the Tesla cell end caps were already inverted, so those 2 mm have been taken advantage of before. Can't use the same space twice.

Maybe we're straying off topic ... :redface:

 

[mrdoubleb]

Maybe we're straying off topic ... :redface:

You think? :tongue:

Then again, if we insist on keeping this thread on topic: It is fascinating how steady TSLA is since Friday 4PM ET! I am ready to make a bold guess: it will stay like this until Monday 9:30AM! You just watch! :biggrin:

 

[JRP3]

They may be able to remove thickness from the battery pack bottom shield by changing alloys, or going with carbon fiber, or more titanium. There might be enough space to make the top pack cover a bit higher. Or if the new cells have both electrode connections coming off one end that might save some space. Or the pack may just hang down a few mm more. Bottom line, I'm pretty sure they could fit the new cells into existing vehicles one way or another without too much trouble.

 

[MitchJi]

MS and MX 100kWh biggest pack option.
MS and MX 85kWh smallest opinion.

Means M3 smallest pack option 70kWh (about 80% of 85kWh). Plus a similar windshield to the MX. My two M3 predictions.

Agree with JRP3 that the existing packs can accommodate the extra height.

They will need to reduce the number of cells by about the same percent as the increased capacity that's due to the increased diameter. In other words there will not be any significant increased pack capacity due to the increased cell diameter.

 

[sub]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think Tesla has most likely considered everything that has to do with the battery size for both retrofitting into model S/X and moving forward with model 3. If anyone doesn't feel the same, not sure why you would be investing in TSLA. :wink:

 

[Yggdrasill]

MS and MX 100kWh biggest pack option.
MS and MX 85kWh smallest opinion.

The 85 kWh pack is unlikely to return. My guess is we'll see Tesla offer three pack sizes, 70, 90 and 100.

Means M3 smallest pack option 70kWh (about 80% of 85kWh). Plus a similar windshield to the MX. My two M3 predictions.

Disagree with both. Windshield is unlikely to be featured on the Model 3 due to cost and complexity, and 70 kWh is too big for the smallest pack. Assuming a target EPA range of 220-240, I would expect the smallest pack to be 55-60 kWh.

Agree with JRP3 that the existing packs can accommodate the extra height.

They will need to reduce the number of cells by about the same percent as the increased capacity that's due to the increased diameter. In other words there will not be any significant increased pack capacity due to the increased cell diameter.

You should get a modest increase in pack capacity for the same volume/weight. Larger cells means that more of the cell is active materials, and less is the casing, etc. The primary benefit is lower complexity and cost for the finished pack, though.

 

[Lessmog]

To continue speculating: I seriously doubt Tesla will change the physical spec on such an important part of the chassis. At all.

Yes, it might be possible to shave 2 mm off the 1/4" (6.35mm) hardened Al ballistic bottom shield. No, not worth it, all in all. In my humble mumbling opinion. It might invalidate crash testing, for one thing, and it will certainly reduce penetration resistance for another.

By all means improve cell chemistry to your hearts content, just stay the Nevada out of the battery box dimensions.

Call me conservative, I don't care.

 

[JRP3]

Agree with everything Yggdrasill said except the three pack sizes for S and X. I think it will remain two choices, the 70 and the 100, or maybe a 75 and 100.

 

[MitchJi]

My estimates are ready.

If you want me to do it I can easily show (I believe to everyone's satisfaction) that at the end of 2017, when the M3 is scheduled to launch, that Tesla's pack cost will be under $125 per kWh.

I am making one change to that statement:
I believe to the satisfaction of the majority of you. I realized that getting everyone here to agree on anything is an impossibly high hurdle.

I started a thread with complete details here:
Mitch's Thread-Starting With Cell and Pack Info, Pack Prices, Storage and GF Info

I am starting beginning this thread with a large post with information about Cell and Battery Technology, the cost of Tesla's Battery Packs (lower than most of us think), the GF and Stationary Storage Margins. If they don't lower their prices, by the end of 2017 their Stationary Storage Margins should be at least 50%! That figure is derived using the 15% current margin claim. With a target market of $3 billion to $5 billion by 2017!

I performed these calculations using IMO conservative estimates. For every unknown I am including the reasons for all of my assumptions, so if you think any of my prices are too high or too low you can easily revise my figures and obtain estimates that you feel comfortable with.

I am using the Powerpack prices for the foundation of my estimates. Having these on the market makes it possible to make much more accurate estimates of their car pack costs than were possible before they were introduced.

I believe that (reasons provided where I do the calculations) their current Stationary Storage margins are about 25% (not 15%), which I believe is a major reason for their confidence in their 2016 positive cash flow projections. IMO the 25% Stationary Storage margin the only aggressive figure that I use in my calculations. So I am including figures that assume both a 15% margin and a 25% margin.

Results:
My "TE 25%-margin" based estimates for automobile pack costs are:
At the end of 2015 $165 per kWh
By the end of 2017 $107 per kWh
By the end of 2020 $66 per kWh

My "TE 15%-margin" based estimates for automobile pack costs are:
At the end of 2015 $190 per kWh
By the end of 2017 $124 per kWh
By the end of 2020 $76 per kWh

 

[Papafox]

MS and MX 100kWh biggest pack option.
MS and MX 85kWh smallest opinion.

Means M3 smallest pack option 70kWh (about 80% of 85kWh). Plus a similar windshield to the MX. My two M3 predictions.

Agree with JRP3 that the existing packs can accommodate the extra height.

They will need to reduce the number of cells by about the same percent as the increased capacity that's due to the increased diameter. In other words there will not be any significant increased pack capacity due to the increased cell diameter.

I toured 49 states last summer in an S 70D with 240 miles range. It is plenty of range for the base model. There's no need to raise the size of the base model S battery and thereby raise cost as well.

 

[dc_h]

The Apple guys focus is on metal alloys, specifically the gold alloy for the watch and the aluminum for the iPhone 6. I think they'll to improve the battery pack sled strength and reduce weight. As they continue to increase battery density it would make sense to improve the packaging. The strength they were able to tweak for aluminum and the gold watch is a new level in material design. Applying this to the battery package seems like the lowest hanging fruit. It could cut weight, improve tensile strength, which will improve handling. This will allow more gains versus high performance ICE cars and provide range gains.

They may be able to remove thickness from the battery pack bottom shield by changing alloys, or going with carbon fiber, or more titanium. There might be enough space to make the top pack cover a bit higher. Or if the new cells have both electrode connections coming off one end that might save some space. Or the pack may just hang down a few mm more. Bottom line, I'm pretty sure they could fit the new cells into existing vehicles one way or another without too much trouble.

 

[Johan]

Charles Kuheman. Brilliant. Yes they are focusing on the alloys for weight reductions but not to make 20700 cells standing like 18650 cells did in the same enclosure. Forget "shaving off 2 mm" but try finding 50 mm of spare space/thick casing in the current pack!

 

[Lessmog]

The Apple guys focus is on metal alloys, specifically the gold alloy for the watch and the aluminum for the iPhone 6. I think they'll to improve the battery pack sled strength and reduce weight. As they continue to increase battery density it would make sense to improve the packaging. The strength they were able to tweak for aluminum and the gold watch is a new level in material design. Applying this to the battery package seems like the lowest hanging fruit. It could cut weight, improve tensile strength, which will improve handling. This will allow more gains versus high performance ICE cars and provide range gains.

Aha! That may change the scene for car battery pack enclosure, maybe saving (shaving) the 2 mm to accomodate the newer cell.

Interesting!

 

[Johan]

Aha! That may change the scene for car battery pack enclosure, maybe saving (shaving) the 2 mm to accomodate the newer cell.

Interesting!

Point in case. The cells are standing up so it would be increase in length (not diameter) that's important - forget about 2 mm, they would have to shave 50 mm!

 

[Yggdrasill]

Point in case. The cells are standing up so it would be increase in length (not diameter) that's important - forget about 2 mm, they would have to shave 50 mm!

5 mm. 18650 cells are 18 mm i diameter and 65 mm long. And I think it's probably little enough that it can be resolved somehow when it comes to the existing Model S/X designs. Losing 5 mm of ground clearence is one way to do it.

 

[Lessmog]

Point in case. The cells are standing up so it would be increase in length (not diameter) that's important - forget about 2 mm, they would have to shave 50 mm!

You're right of course, the cells are standing up. I got confused by the dimensions 18 -> 20 mm, but that's the diameter.

HOWEVER, the trailing zero is null&dummy, so increase in length is not 50 mm but maybe 5? 18650 is 18*65 mm. I forget the new name -- is it 20700?

Oh, I see Yggrasill types faster too.

 

[Johan]

5 mm. 18650 cells are 18 mm i diameter and 65 mm long. And I think it's probably little enough that it can be resolved somehow when it comes to the existing Model S/X designs. Losing 5 mm of ground clearence is one way to do it.

Math Algo screwed up bad there. 5 mm might be doable with some really high quality materials improvements. It was the 2 mm discussed above that confused me.

 

[Zhelko Dimic]

Point in case. The cells are standing up so it would be increase in length (not diameter) that's important - forget about 2 mm, they would have to shave 50 mm!

It's also possible that Tesla and Panasonic move to prismatic cells. Prismatics are space efficient, but have bunch of disadvantages in price, performance, how to warm them and reliability under physical stress. Having said that, if most issues are solved, I don't see anything wrong going in that direction. Tesla is not about religion, it's about pushing bondaries and staying 3 steps ahead of competition.

Mark Hibben on SK has couple interesting articles that argue that finished size of GF is enough for 50GWh of capacity with prismatic cells (one here Tesla Isn't Stupid - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha), and that GF could grow in the future, but only to achieve multiples of capacity that was discussed so far, i.e. 200 or 300 Gwh. This is all based on published sound scientific research (ANL model).

Now, going to dive into bunch of bearish articles on SA, in a search of at least one useful piece of info - yes, I'm still 300% invested in TSLA and don't want to be blindsided. Swimming SA is like swimming in a pool of sh..., looking for diamond, and most often not finding anything - wish me luck

 

[Lessmog]

Math Algo screwed up bad there. 5 mm might be doable with some really high quality materials improvements. It was the 2 mm discussed above that confused me.

I was confused too, but I now draw the opposite conclusion: 2 mm might be possible with esoteric new alloys; 5 mm is highly doubtful without compromising type approvals, crash tests etc.

Electrolyte and electrodes may still yield improvements though.