Tesla Gigafactory Investor Thread

[TSLAopt]

TSLAopt, I simply don't know one way or the other on that, so I hope you know better :smile:

(fwiw, I was reading up on 328i specs a couple of hours ago. the thought of the Model E matching that for $35K was a bit of a rush. even if not, I am confident the car will be good enough to keep the company supply constrained).

think of it this way, if my 60kw Model S is already much much faster than a base 328i (which is what I had before so I know), don't you think a 40kw smaller Model E can at least be a little faster than a 328i as well? I'm not battery technology genius but this seems doable to me.

Im not entirely sure anyone on here knows how much it costs Tesla to produce a 60kw or 85kw pack but I've seen a lot of numbers thrown around. Lets just say its 25k.

If the 60kw battery now costs tesla 25k then I assume the 40kw would be 15-20k before the GigaFactory. After the Giga is built and after scaling up production further over the next few years I would think the battery cost could be brought down 20-50% so a 40kw battery might cost Tesla 10-15k USD to create lets say. That would leave another 15-20k of cost to build the rest of the smaller Mdel E car for 30k to achieve the 15% gross margins they are aiming for on the Gen III.

doesn't this sound achievable from a birds eye view? Or am I way off on something here.

 

[SteveG3]

think of it this way, if my 60kw Model S is already much much faster than a base 328i (which is what I had before so I know), don't you think a 40kw smaller Model E can at least be a little faster than a 328i as well? I'm not battery technology genius but this seems doable to me.

Im not entirely sure anyone on here knows how much it costs Tesla to produce a 60kw or 85kw pack but I've seen a lot of numbers thrown around. Lets just say its 25k.

If the 60kw battery now costs tesla 25k then I assume the 40kw would be 15-20k before the GigaFactory. After the Giga is built and after scaling up production further over the next few years I would think the battery cost could be brought down 20-50% so a 40kw battery might cost Tesla 10-15k USD to create lets say. That would leave another 15-20k of cost to build the rest of the smaller Mdel E car for 30k to achieve the 15% gross margins they are aiming for on the Gen III.

doesn't this sound achievable from a birds eye view? Or am I way off on something here.

To be somewhat on topic for a moment, I think the battery pricing is even friendlier to your assertions. I sense the consensus is that the current 85 kWh battery is no more than $20K now without the cost savings Giga factory could provide.

back to Off Topic...

TSLAopt, I was talking from 30 minutes of googling experience on BMW performance rather than any depth of knowledge, so I hope you are right. Just a quick google said on paper the current 328i does a 5.6 0-60 while 60kWh Model S does 5.9. To be fair only the Tesla has full torque all the time so I'd say a wash if not a win for Tesla.

A Model E with 60 kWh should clearly beat the BMW (being considerably lighter than the Model S), but I suspect wont be entry level $35K. A 50 kWh pack or 40 kWh pack beating the BMW, maybe, I'm sure there's many here who could give a more educated answer than I can. FWIW, I'd say the spirit of your point is valid even if it takes a $45K sticker price to create a 60 kWh Model E to clearly outperform the BMW... with gas savings the Model E will have equal/better cost of ownership, better performance, and upgradability the BMW just doesn't offer (most likely including a better battery pack when it's time to replace the original one).

 

[mrdoubleb]

While we are slightly off topic, it is very on topic because all of this (the car's appeal, competitiveness) will mainly depend on the batteries.

What people often forget is that the customer base of Model E may be vastly different from Model S. Let's face it, if you buy a 100K (EUR or USD) car, chances are it is not your only car, and also you most probably have a garage. Hence, you may be OK with charging overnight, and if you need to take a long trip you may take your ICE car. Not saying everyone who has a Model S/X will have several cars and garages, but I bet the majority do.

Now with a 3 series comeptitor, that car may be the one and only vehicle in the household and your customers may live in apartment buildings, downtown areas as opposed to the suburbs. Again, not all of them, but probably more than for Model S.

So the capacity/range and charging speed and infrastructure will be key. Whatever the giga factory will produce, i bet it is not the same cell as what the Model S has now. Remember, that one was designed 3-4 years ago.

 

[JRP3]

When comparing specs remember there are many models in the 3 series, and the Gen3 car only has to beat the base model for Tesla to be able to claim faster than a BMW 3 series. Current base model BMW 3 has 180 hp and 200 lb-ft of torque. The S 60 is 302 hp and 317 lb-ft of torque, so even dropping 100 hp and 100 lb-ft the Gen3 should have more than enough power.

 

[sleepyhead]

When comparing specs remember there are many models in the 3 series, and the Gen3 car only has to beat the base model for Tesla to be able to claim faster than a BMW 3 series. Current base model BMW 3 has 180 hp and 200 lb-ft of torque. The S 60 is 302 hp and 317 lb-ft of torque, so even dropping 100 hp and 100 lb-ft the Gen3 should have more than enough power.

But the 320 doesn't really count, it is just a way of trying to get college graduates into the BMW brand. The real base 3 series is the 328i. I don't really care about advertising. I want performance from Tesla.

 

[JRP3]

And I'm sure you'll get it, but possibly not from the $35K base model.

 

[Cobos]

But the 320 doesn't really count, it is just a way of trying to get college graduates into the BMW brand. The real base 3 series is the 328i. I don't really care about advertising. I want performance from Tesla.

In case you are still stuck in US-based car comparison. In BMWs home market, Germany, the entry level model is the 316i 136hp at a starting price of 29 050Euro (though including VAT). I have no problem seeing Gen 3 beat the 316's specs. The question in Germany and the rest of Europe is at what price. So the question is with a minimum 200miles range what kind of performance can Tesla squeeze out of the battery. As far as I've understood, too few high capacity cells will usually mean lower powerdraw. While a lot of cheaper lower-capacity cells gives you a weight disadvantage...

Cobos

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Then there is no need for your swap plan. Future cells will be more energy dense, and as long as they are able to produce the power needed for daily driving, especially in more pedantic vehicles, there is no need to use two packs. One pack in the 40-50kWh range, fast charge capable, with fast chargers everywhere, will do the job. In road charging as you drive is also another real possibility, already being used for buses in Korea.
http://www.cnet.com.au/electric-road-charges-buses-while-they-drive-339345092.htm

Charging speed will be a major determining factor. They still need to make Superchargers faster, so they can't shrink packs until they can do that. With Tesla looking for $2k per 10kWh or less, and the obvious advantages of improved range, performance, charging rate and discharge rate from additional capacity, I can see 60kWh remaining as the minimum capacity for a long time and high end capacities growing.

Capacity ~ range ~ performance ~ charging rate ~1/discharge rate.

If Supercharging sets a minimum capacity of 60kWh, the battery would clearly be enough for mid 5s performance. To cut costs could mean shrinking the inverter and motor and having 2.0L diesel-like performance, more than enough to surpass the current experience of most plug-in, hybrid and mainstream vehicle owners.

Back on topic: team up with Panasonic and other companies, and design scalable factories to allow for a ramp of Gen 3 with demand. Starting point is to have cheao land in a location that makes logistics simple and has a lot of sun so they can make use of solar power.

 

[JRP3]

The smaller, lighter, G3 will not need a 60kWh pack to get 200 miles of range. 45-50kWh should do it.

 

[bonaire]

For longevity, you don't use the whole state of charge of the pack. Range charging uses most of it but is not what someone would do daily. So, 50 kWh gives a 42-45 kWh SOC range. At 3.3 miles per kWh that is still way under 200 miles. It may just come down to waiting for new tech solutions of higher density batteries and going with 60 kWh but in a smaller package. Drive slowly, carefully and without hard acceleration and 4 miles per kWh is possible. Just like Volt drivers have seen 50 miles on a usable kWh capacity of 10.4 in the summertime driving under 55 mph, you can get 200 miles out of 44 kWh. Of course, add consumerism complaints from everyone once winter rolls in.

Los Angeles mileage cycle will be different than the Quebec cycle.

key to the future is a 4Ah cell or larger, use of a smaller 220hp motor in the Model E and light weight metals. Aluminum is nice but not cheap for a consumer car. Just about every accident would end up with a total loss insurance claim and also higher insurance rates for consumers than comparable Ice cars.

as for thee giga plant, i suspect Mexico as the location. Warm weather year round, solar energy capability, cheaper labor and so on. Most automakers do use plants in Mexico.

 

[Cattledog]

Wouldn't the cheapest land be the land they already own? The lot they just purchased just to the north of the Fremont factory? Auto production expansion, even for Model E, should be able to happen within the current Fremont footprint. Why transport 100,000,000+ lbs of batteries 1,500 miles when you can transport them 1,500 feet? Wouldn't it be easy to get raw battery materials to Fremont by land or sea? Wouldn't California want the world's largest sustainable battery factory to be in their state? Wouldn't they provide incentives for it?

I guess this is maybe too obvious to me, I am a big fan of proximity when the element is of the greatest core importance. Doesn't JB live on the Peninsula? Isn't he the battery genius? Wouldn't it make sense that he doesn't have to make a plane trip to be with his battery R&D team twice a month, in perpetuity, since they will ALWAYS be trying to innovate the batteries.

Lots of solar in California. Could put test track on the roof - Fiat did it 80 years ago. They make solar pavement you know.

For longevity, you don't use the whole state of charge of the pack. Range charging uses most of it but is not what someone would do daily. So, 50 kWh gives a 42-45 kWh SOC range. At 3.3 miles per kWh that is still way under 200 miles. It may just come down to waiting for new tech solutions of higher density batteries and going with 60 kWh but in a smaller package. Drive slowly, carefully and without hard acceleration and 4 miles per kWh is possible. Just like Volt drivers have seen 50 miles on a usable kWh capacity of 10.4 in the summertime driving under 55 mph, you can get 200 miles out of 44 kWh. Of course, add consumerism complaints from everyone once winter rolls in.

Los Angeles mileage cycle will be different than the Quebec cycle.

key to the future is a 4Ah cell or larger, use of a smaller 220hp motor in the Model E and light weight metals. Aluminum is nice but not cheap for a consumer car. Just about every accident would end up with a total loss insurance claim and also higher insurance rates for consumers than comparable Ice cars.

as for thee giga plant, i suspect Mexico as the location. Warm weather year round, solar energy capability, cheaper labor and so on. Most automakers do use plants in Mexico.

 

[JRP3]

The Tesla Roadster gets 240 miles with a 53kWh pack, which is 220Wh/mi. It's a smaller car than the G3 will be but has a relatively poor aerodynamic cd. If the G3 can get 230Wh/mi a 50kWh pack gives it 200 miles with a buffer left.

 

[kenliles]

The Tesla Roadster gets 240 miles with a 53kWh pack, which is 220Wh/mi. It's a smaller car than the G3 will be but has a relatively poor aerodynamic cd. If the G3 can get 230Wh/mi a 50kWh pack gives it 200 miles with a buffer left.

+1 matches my analysis (for what it's worth), which shows they will actually achieve a 250Wh/mi (based on the current projected density improvements). Regardless, my prediction in they will reach 200+ mile range (new Rating profile) at entry Model E. The remaining unknown for me is how much car is left at the $35k 20% margin. Only the shadow knows...

 

[bonaire]

How many roadster owners typically saw 230 on a charge? One owner near me said that because of moderately spirited driving, best to expect 150 or less.

 

[Discoducky]

How many roadster owners typically saw 230 on a charge? One owner near me said that because of moderately spirited driving, best to expect 150 or less.

Model E will be driven more conservatively (I doubt that is an arguable point) so in theory with a slightly larger CoD and maybe similar mass (due to improvements in design/materials/engineering) should be a reasonable expectation for similar #'s.


Also, with the given raw materials that are needed by the plant it would seem advantageous to build in CA as many are in state. I do wonder what the carbon footprint of such a plant is and what the MSDS sheets on hand would be (aka chemicals used in production), how much hazardous waste is created, hazardous conditions for workers...etc. These all need to be minimized or zero'd to get the kind of 'incentives' TM would need.

How amazing would it be that CA could produce the car from nearly scratch? Vizio panels anyone?

 

[adiggs]

How many roadster owners typically saw 230 on a charge? One owner near me said that because of moderately spirited driving, best to expect 150 or less.

I'm a n00b Roadster owner (<1 year) - standard charge was 180ish when I got the car and is 170ish now. The Range charge was 230s originally, low 220s now I would guess, though I don't anticipate doing one of those until Summer. During road trip driving over the summer, I completed a 175ish mile segment on slightly less than a full range charge. That was after being on the road for 2+ weeks and learning a lot about what I could actually do in the car. I'm convinced that even today with Range charge in the low 220s I could do a 200 mile segment in favorable conditions (which mostly means flat 55ish driving).

In practical driving I've found I can do 120 on a standard charge worth of in-town errands, heater on full-blast, and strong 0-40 accelerations (no regard for efficiency at all). With minimal effort, 150 is also reasonable, though in the winter that slides down towards 120.

Though the Roadster doesn't hit what I think of as the 200 mile threshold (I would look for 200 miles on the standard charge), it's close enough that the desired effect is achieved at least for me. Namely, my routine daily driving involves no regard or thought about efficiency or whether I have the range to complete whatever errand is before me. I also am not worried about battery degradation - if the battery slid from the 180s to 120s over an extended period (I have no expectation that battery degradation will be that high), that well broken in battery would still provide me much more range than I need for daily driving and errands.

I think that is a point frequently missed when thinking about battery capacity - it isn't just the ability to get things done when the car is brand new. The battery needs to have additional capacity for adverse conditions (winter cold for instance), and it needs additional capacity so that as it ages and that capacity starts to shrink, the car can continue to perform adequately for the owners. For me, this is the primary reason for the 200 mile range - it can age gracefully and still be a little or no effort vehicle for getting stuff done with.

 

[JRP3]

Model E will be driven more conservatively (I doubt that is an arguable point) so in theory with a slightly larger CoD...

The cd should be lower for the E. Cd only takes into account shape, not frontal area. The cdA is dependent on cd and surface area. With a low enough cd the cdA could be the same as or lower than the Roadster if the A is not too much larger. Also a longer vehicle can have better air flow characteristics than a short one.

 

[PeterJA]

Reuters:

Diarmuid O'Connell, Tesla's vice president of business development, said later that the company has no plans to work with a partner to develop a new family of compact cars, known internally as Gen III and slated for production in 2017. He said Chief Executive Elon Musk was committed to developing the cars alone.
Tesla fourth-quarter deliveries top expectations, stock surges - Yahoo Finance

I never saw discussion of a possible "partner" on the Gen3, only on a battery factory. Does O'Connell's comment mean Tesla will build the giga factory alone?

- - - Updated - - -

On second thought, probably not. Probably O'Connell was answering a dumb question about the car. Or Reuters made up the whole thing.

 

[JRP3]

Yes, I'm betting someone got confused between the G3 project and the battery factory project.

 

[bonnie]

Wouldn't the cheapest land be the land they already own? The lot they just purchased just to the north of the Fremont factory? Auto production expansion, even for Model E, should be able to happen within the current Fremont footprint. Why transport 100,000,000+ lbs of batteries 1,500 miles when you can transport them 1,500 feet? Wouldn't it be easy to get raw battery materials to Fremont by land or sea? Wouldn't California want the world's largest sustainable battery factory to be in their state? Wouldn't they provide incentives for it?

I guess this is maybe too obvious to me, I am a big fan of proximity when the element is of the greatest core importance. Doesn't JB live on the Peninsula? Isn't he the battery genius? Wouldn't it make sense that he doesn't have to make a plane trip to be with his battery R&D team twice a month, in perpetuity, since they will ALWAYS be trying to innovate the batteries.

Lots of solar in California. Could put test track on the roof - Fiat did it 80 years ago. They make solar pavement you know.

It makes the most sense to me to put the gigafactory where ever (in no particular order) 1) they can the best tax incentives from the unnamed state/local municipality, 2) high rate of unemployment / availability to labor pool (they're having a hard time hiring as it is), 3) planned expansion for a GenIII factory right next door so that there are not additional shipping costs getting the batteries and cars together, and 4) a nice central location to get cars able to ship cars all over the US [or] near enough a port location for shipping overseas.

It's critical to have a GenIII plant separate from Fremont. Tesla cannot afford to have a single point of failure - long term viability demands they have more than one manufacturing location. I'd expect that early GenIII would be brought up on the Fremont line and then duplicated exactly in another plant.