Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[MitchJi]

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.

Yes, but soon they will be able to increase the pack size, and reduce costs and increase margins.

Saying that their is no need is like saying that they didn't need ludicrous mode, true but they did it anyway.

I'm betting you that the M3 pack size is closer to 70kWh than 47kWh that you mentioned. I'll send you some gourmet chocolate/raw cacao if you're correct. I'm not expecting anything in return if you're correct.

IMO M3 pack size over 60kWh is a slam dunk.

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.

Not unless EM and JB have been lying.

Larger Cell Format:
I have wondered why I have seen statements that the new larger cell format would lead to 30% increased pack energy density. It will not. I think that the source of the confusion is the following statement by EM:

Right. We've done a lot of modeling trying to figure out what's the optimal cell size. And it's really not much -- it's not a lot different from where we are right now, but we're sort of in the roughly 10% more diameter, maybe 10% more height. But then the cubic function effectively ends up being, just from a geometry standpoint, probably a third more energy for the cell, if you -- maybe 30%-ish. And then the actual energy density per unit mass increases,...

To simplify the calculation in the following example I used an increase of 100%. But with a 30% increase the results would be similar. A circle with twice the diameter has four times the volume. But if the cells have twice the diameter only one fourth the number of cells will fit in a given space, e.g.:
A 100mm x 100mm space will accommodate 100 cells with a diameter of 10mm (10 x 10), but only 25 20mm diameter cells (5 x 5). So it roughly evens out, four times the capacity per cell, but in a space with the same dimensions only one fourth the number of cells will fit.

The reason they are changing the cell size is to reduce the cost, probably largely due to decreased pack complexity:

Yeah. Yeah, fundamentally the chemistry of what's inside is what really defines the cost position now. It's often debated what shape and size, but at this point we're developing basically what we feel is the optimum shape and size for the best cost efficiency for an automotive cell.

 

[Yggdrasill]

I don't see the problem with doing new crash testing and type approvals. It might cost something like 10 million, but it's a one time cost for moving to the new battery cell format that they will keep for the remainder of the Model S/X lifespan.

Doing something like going to prismatic cells will in all likelihood be *much* more costly.

 

[Zhelko Dimic]

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.

Agreed. But it would probably necessitate retesting of bunch of car dynamic parameters, so I think they'll try to get away from it if possible. As someone else said, Tesla has people working on this, I doubt they need our help with the options here

Lots of work in engineering comes to cost vs benefits, so I think this is where we're blind, compared to Tesla employees, we don't know if they're ready to move to next generation of packs, do they see enough benefits down the road etc.

I'm Director Of (Software) Engineering (background in E.E. Engineering), and I've given this answer thousands of times: Of course it's possible, everything is possible, the question is if you're ready to pay for it.

 

[MitchJi]

I don't see the problem with doing new crash testing and type approvals. It might cost something like 10 million, but it's a one time cost for moving to the new battery cell format that they will keep for the remainder of the Model S/X lifespan.

Doing something like going to prismatic cells will in all likelihood be *much* more costly.

They didn't choose to increase the length of the cells by some random amount.
IMO the reason they chose to increase the hieght by 5mm is because they could easily accommodate it. So it's "free" capacity.

Agreed. But it would probably necessitate retesting of bunch of car dynamic parameters, so I think they'll try to get away from it if possible. As someone else said, Tesla has people working on this, I doubt they need our help with the options here.

Lots of work in engineering comes to cost vs benefits...

It's only .2 inch. How hard can that be .

 

[Yggdrasill]

They didn't choose to increase the length of the cells by some random amount.
IMO the reason they chose to increase the hieght by 5mm is because they could easily accommodate it. So it's "free" capacity.

IMO, they chose it because they could use existing production equipment with minimal modification. So, they could get some improvement over the 18650-format without having to make anything drastically new, untested and expensive. It also allows them to use basically the same pack-design.

 

[MitchJi]

IMO, they chose it because they could use existing production equipment with minimal modification. So, they could get some improvement over the 18650-format without having to make anything drastically new, untested and expensive.

That makes sense, but it's incorrect.

The GF Will Use Custom Cell Manufacturing Equipment:
I just noticed that Tesla and Panasonic will be using custom cell manufacturing equipment at the GF, and that will have a big impact on the costs:

In your question you had [indiscernible] should be corrected, like the -- so the 30% savings is not just due to logistics. Logistics is a big factor. We are --

It's not even the biggest though.

Logistics [indiscernible] the fact that it's just go to one station to the next instead of going from multiple entities to multiple entities. But really when you get to the kinds of scale that we're talking about, you really get to design customer equipment that's much better at processing each step. And you really get to design the machine that makes the machine, not just do so with off-the-shelf equipment. So it took -- everything about it is going to get a whole lot better. That's why we think the 30% number when the Giga Factory is at full production is a conservative number...

It also allows them to use basically the same pack-design.

That's basically what I said.

 

[Papafox]

Yes, but soon they will be able to increase the pack size, and reduce costs and increase margins.

Saying that their is no need is like saying that they didn't need ludicrous mode, true but they did it anyway.

I'm betting you that the M3 pack size is closer to 70kWh than 47kWh that you mentioned. I'll send you some gourmet chocolate/raw cacao if you're correct. I'm not expecting anything in return if you're correct.

IMO M3 pack size over 60kWh is a slam dunk.

Mitch, My forecast was for 56KWH for Model 3 until I made an incorrect assumption about size of vehicle and momentarily gave a lower number until I agreed with Zhelco's math. I'm going to guess about 55KWH for Model 3 base pack. If Tesla can get the drag down far enough then they might even go with a 50KWH battery.

Tesla's decision will be based upon the cost of the new battery that is being developed for Model 3. Perhaps they'll go for more than 240 miles range for base model if the battery costs are way down, but I'm predicting they'll go for a battery of about 55KWH to give 240 miles range. Elon and J.B. have both been quoting "real world 200 miles range", and 240 miles total does indeed give the real world 200 miles range.

 

[MitchJi]

Mitch, My forecast was for 56KWH for Model 3 until I made an incorrect assumption about size of vehicle and momentarily gave a lower number until I agreed with Zhelco's math. I'm going to guess about 55KWH for Model 3 base pack. If Tesla can get the drag down far enough then they might even go with a 50KWH battery.

Tesla's decision will be based upon the cost of the new battery that is being developed for Model 3. Perhaps they'll go for more than 240 miles range for base model if the battery costs are way down, but I'm predicting they'll go for a battery of about 55KWH to give 240 miles range. Elon and J.B. have both been quoting "real world 200 miles range", and 240 miles total does indeed give the real world 200 miles range.

Hi Papafox,

I'll send you some gourmet chocolate/raw cacao if you're correct. I'm not expecting anything in return if you're correct.

IMO M3 pack size over 60kWh is a slam dunk.

Ok, free gourmet chocolate/raw cacao if it's not at least 60kWh when the M3 starts production.

 

[sundaymorning]

Looks like more activity than usual in the X forums as Tesla aims to meet end of Q guidance.

Starting to deliver Production P90D - Page 28

 

[Fallenone]

Hmm... I want some chocolate too. Betting the base version in 2017 will have a pack closer to 50kWh than 60kWh. I have this number from the 500k car per year, 70% of the 50 GWh output from GF1 going to cars. That's 500k cars sharing 35 GWh of battery. at least 150k cars of S+X with average battery size of 90 kWh eat up 13.5 GWh, 350k model 3 have average battery size of 60 kWh. Given the battery size for Tesla cars increase over time, in 2017 the base version of model 3 won't have a pack larger than 60 kWh.

Hi Papafox,


Ok, free gourmet chocolate/raw cacao if it's not at least 60kWh when the M3 starts production.

 

[dc_h]

Mitch,
If the base M3 has over 60Kwh pack, I'll send you a pound of Chocolate covered almonds from our local candy shop. Good and good for you. If your costs analysis is right, then Tesla Energy and Tesla Motors will both be more profitable than most models are predicting and internal investment in growth will be easier. PM me with your email on March 31st and I'll ship that chocolate the next day. I'll be in line putting down my deposit on the 31st.

Hmm... I want some chocolate too. Betting the base version in 2017 will have a pack closer to 50kWh than 60kWh. I have this number from the 500k car per year, 70% of the 50 GWh output from GF1 going to cars. That's 500k cars sharing 35 GWh of battery. at least 150k cars of S+X with average battery size of 90 kWh eat up 13.5 GWh, 350k model 3 have average battery size of 60 kWh. Given the battery size for Tesla cars increase over time, in 2017 the base version of model 3 won't have a pack larger than 60 kWh.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

This is very good news for Tesla. Basically, this means all low cost, poorly made EV's in China will cease to be practical. There are a ton of these that have been popping up lately. This will significantly increase the market for Tesla vehicles.

China Working on Plan to Regulate Low-Speed Electric Vehicles - Bloomberg Business

 

[Fallenone]

I don't think those who bought these low-speed EVs would buy a Tesla anyway.

This is very good news for Tesla. Basically, this means all low cost, poorly made EV's in China will cease to be practical. There are a ton of these that have been popping up lately. This will significantly increase the market for Tesla vehicles.

China Working on Plan to Regulate Low-Speed Electric Vehicles - Bloomberg Business

 

[larmor]

Just test drove a P90DL the other day... Wow! Here is my PSA for anyone wanting to short TSLA, better get to it now, once M3 is on the road will mark the beginning of the end of ICE cars.

The MS is of course expensive, but so was an IBM PC AT back in the '80s when we sold them, for a fat profit. Now a phone has more computing power.

 

[BobSk]

Just test drove a P90DL the other day... Wow! Here is my PSA for anyone wanting to short TSLA, better get to it now, once M3 is on the road will mark the beginning of the end of ICE cars.

The MS is of course expensive, but so was an IBM PC AT back in the '80s when we sold them, for a fat profit. Now a phone has more computing power.

Model 3 marks the end of ICE. Tesla will become a giant in EV and energy storage field, which are two trillion dollar markets. Shorts just can't get it. It's a gift for longs.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

this is noteworthy :

Tesla co-founder and CTO JB Straubel to share his energy vision with Ontario innovators at Discovery 2016

 

[Zhelko Dimic]

I finally remembered work that has influenced my thinking on the subject of battery size for Model 3. Randy Carlson has done some amazing analysis on SA, and is one of the authors that convinced me Tesla will gobble up the car world.

This is worth reading though long: It's Game Over, Tesla Wins - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
For Model 3 battery size, you can start reading from 'Tale of the Model 3'. Claim is that 44KWh will be all that's needed for 240 miles.

BMW has 328, 335, 340
Tesla will be starting from 344 and going up from there - yeah!

 

[Hogfighter]

If Tesla announces the number of reservations in the few days following the 3 presentation, that certainly could move the stock. But also realize that investors are tired of presentations and want to see results.

 

[JRP3]

I think Randy is a bit optimistic.

 

[Jgint]

Predictions for today?