Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[KarenRei]

Is anyone actually reading these claims? No Tesla battery supercharges below 250v DC. Thats the absolute rock bottom of the pack's (SOC near 0%) It's simple math 96 cells in series at min 2.6 volts.

At the top, 500 volts DC would be 5.2 volts per cell. The max allowable is 4.2 volts before damage occures and is recommended to be used only seldomly.

This is a bad joke by some tech-head. Critical thinking? absent.

You find 180-500V capability implausible? Tesla would never provide 180V capability because it's too low? Here's V2:

Down to 50 VDC.

And you have no clue how high voltage Tesla plans to have with its next-gen battery packs, and thus what would be a reasonable max for Superchargers. 500V max is extremely common in CCS and CHAdeMO stations. If they did this, it would mean that Tesla is moving to the standard max voltage that the rest of the world uses.

No, I don't think that the person making those claims has any clue what they're talking about. Nor did they claim to have any personal understanding. They were just - according to them - passing on what info they had been given. Quote: "Just relaying what I saw on docs".

Could it be bad info? Sure it could. But your claim that the voltage range is a reason to think it is does not stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Fact Checking]

No, I don't think that the person making those claims has any clue what they're talking about. Nor did they claim to have any personal understanding. They were just - according to them - passing on what info they had been given. Quote: "Just relaying what I saw on docs".

His kW claim wrt. the Taycan was indeed a howler, but the 200 kW charging speed and 526A Model 3 current limit seemed like robust numbers that are hard to typo or misinterpret unless his intent is to mislead. (Which intent a brief view at his history didn't seem to be his motivation - FWIIW.)

So I'm cautiously optimistic about Supercharger v3 going not for a ~150-175 kW peak on the Model 3 but for ~200 kW.

 

[heltok]

Twitter

Did anyone see what’s happening in Taiwan? Taiwan Tesla Owners protesting about the price adjustment outside of the Supercharger Station and Store/Service Centre in Taiwan. Have they solved the issue?
@TeslaOwnersTwn
#Tesla #TeslaTaiwan $TSLA

Behavior explained:

 

[ReflexFunds]

Some further thoughts on u/NetBrown's Supercharger V3 comments on reddit, (alleging 200kW power and 20% to 80% charge in 13-15 minutes for Model 3).

As far as I understand, 2170 cells have max 4.2v. There are 4,416 cells in a LR model 3 pack. The peak charge rate achieved so far (CCS charger, reported by electrek) is 126kW. This suggests max amps for each cell at 126000/(4416*4.2) = 6.8A. This is presumably currently a Tesla software limit for the Model 3 pack. Tesla charging speed is close to maximum until c.50% SoC, after that the charge speed begins to taper. Again, i expect this is a Tesla software limit in the model 3 pack.

For the new supercharger, at maximum for Model 3, voltage would be 96 series cells * 4.2V = 403V. This would be the same for all Model 3 models. The Amps would be 200kW/403V = 496A.

To achieve a 15 minute 20-80% charge time for model 3, this would require the charge rate to average 200kW, so the amp limit per cell must be increased to 200k/(4416*4.2) = 10.8A. Also, the taper must be pushed back to 80% SoC.

I would also add, this all roughly lines up with Tesla's EPA document submission for Model 3, reported by Electrek in 2017. “The vehicle is also capable of accepting DC current up to 525A from an off‐board charger (Supercharger)”. This would correspond to 212kW max charge rate or 11.4 Amp max per cell.

Anyone have any views on the feasibility of this?

 

[Singer3000]

Specs for the Y will no doubt be compelling. What I want to hear are some tangible details on the production plan. The where, the when, the how many and for how much.

We’ve got some idea on each of those from past calls but now’s the time for firm guidance. Good for investors, good for potential customers, terrible for the competition.

 

[KarenRei]

His kW claim wrt. the Taycan was indeed a howler, but the 200 kW charging speed and 526A Model 3 current limit seemed like robust numbers that are hard to typo or misinterpret unless his intent is to mislead. (Which intent a brief view at his history didn't seem to be his motivation - FWIIW.)

So I'm cautiously optimistic about Supercharger v3 going not for a ~150-175 kW peak on the Model 3 but for ~200 kW.

Actually, that Taycan thing is part of what leads me to tend to believe that the info is legit. The person clearly has no personal understanding of electrical engineering whatsoever. And yet when listing the capabilities, there were some very specific, nontrivial electrical engineering claims made that do stand up to scrutiny. E.g. I have trouble believing that a person who doesn't understand that P=VI knows what things like foldback are. It very much sounds like someone reading off of a spec sheet.

Again, I'm not 100% sold, but I do tend to believe it.

 

[Antares Nebula]

Personally, I'm not a fan of the X design (I love the S design though). It's okay and even looks nice from certain angles. The falcon wing door is cool. I even think eventually it will be a collector's piece for various reasons. But it was clearly built on the sedan platform, as many other SUVs are. But look at the Lexus 350 SUV. That was designed from the ground up on its own platform and looks sweet (albeit getting long in the tooth these days). But it sold well from many years. Musk said as much when talking about the X (something about trying to fit/squeeze something into a different shoe/hole...) Just as with the Model 3, he would have preferred it be on its own platform. But obviously more cost effective to share platforms (we all remember the tug of war between Musk and the other executives on this (M3) a year or two back). Anyway, we'll see how it looks. I think though many people will overlook the aesthetics to a certain extent, given the many other benefits (similar to the X). Maybe one day when Tesla is rolling in the dough, they can create these SUVs on their own platforms.

 

[mongo]

Some further thoughts on u/NetBrown's Supercharger V3 comments on reddit, (alleging 200kW power and 20% to 80% charge in 13-15 minutes for Model 3).

As far as I understand, 2170 cells have max 4.2v. There are 4,416 cells in a LR model 3 pack. The peak charge rate achieved so far (CCS charger, reported by electrek) is 126kW. This suggests max amps for each cell at 126000/(4416*4.2) = 6.8A. This is presumably currently a Tesla software limit for the Model 3 pack. Tesla charging speed is close to maximum until c.50% SoC, after that the charge speed begins to taper. Again, i expect this is a Tesla software limit in the model 3 pack.

For the new supercharger, at maximum for Model 3, voltage would be 96 series cells * 4.2V = 403V. This would be the same for all Model 3 models. The Amps would be 200kW/403V = 496A.

To achieve a 15 minute 20-80% charge time for model 3, this would require the charge rate to average 200kW, so the amp limit per cell must be reduced to 200k/(4416*4.2) = 10.8A. Also, the taper must be pushed back to 80% SoC.

Anyone have any views on the feasibility of this?

It's feasible, but for particulars, (charge rate vs longevity), you'd need to talk to J.B. or Jeff Dahn.

One minor tweak to the numbers. The Supercharger output is rated at the main cabinet, so there is an additional voltage drop between it and the pack due to cable loss/ resistance. Due to that, the SC power will be higher than the pack charge power (hopefully not by much).

 

[Freder Reeve]

I'm reminded of a great comment I saw on youtube somewhere, "Shorting Tesla is shorting America." Never have I been so proud of an American company. Tragic how our own media has so lost it's way from presenting fair and balanced coverage of anything at all. The whole country should be experiencing goosebumps today.

 

[Fact Checking]

Specs for the Y will no doubt be compelling. What I want to hear are some tangible details on the production plan. The where, the when, the how many and for how much.

I think Tesla is going to use Model Y reservations count to measure demand - so they probably won't and can't yet give such details at this early stage.

 

[KarenRei]

I think Tesla is going to use Model Y reservations count to measure demand - so they probably won't and can't give such details.

And I'd prefer they don't, because they'll just be a source of FUD. "ZOMG, fewer than with Model 3, Tesla is doomed!" On the other hand, it would be a nice way to shut up the "Tesla needs more cash!" people.

Maybe they'll indirectly hint at them - e.g. "We won't be able to satisfy all of our preorders until at least X date".

 

[mongo]

I think Tesla is going to use Model Y reservations count to measure demand - so they probably won't and can't yet give such details at this early stage.

No timing info promised, but pricing is:

Detailed specs & pricing will be provided, as well as test rides in Y

Elon Musk on Twitter

 

[Reciprocity]

As important as charge rates are.. ie 200KW or 300KW. What's most important is how much range added per unit time and how much total time inconvenienced by charging. A 325-335 mile range Tesla starts out needing less stops to begin with when compared with the avg. Competitor at just over 200mi range at highway speeds. By competitors I'm taking about the premium luxury class vehicles out now or coming in the next 18 months.

The next factory is mph added while charging. If your car can get 3-4 mi of range per KWh of energy vs 2 mi range, then your KW charging rate adds 50-100% more miles per hour with the same KW of charging rate.

Elon and JB last quoted 250KW. 2C would require 125KWh pack to maximize the c-rate. At 100KWh pack, 200KW would be the realistic Max. At 50% greater miles per hour added, that is equivalent to 300KW charging in an ipace or eturd. At 250, it would be 375KW charging equivalent. For model 3, 160KW would be closer to 320KW due to how dramatically more efficient it is.

The other componant is how long can you charge at the max c-rate. If you have 200mi of highway range and you need to charge from near 0 to 90+ percent, you will spend more time charging while the charger is tapering, meaning not at 100% if the c-rate. If you start with an extra 100 miles of range and get to chargers at 10% or better and only need to charge to 80%, you will spend 30% more time at Max c-rates. This much larger range is only really needed to minimize time charging as most people don't need 300+ miles of range for their daily use.

Another added bonus of a much larger range pack is the life of pack is measured in charge cycles. Less cycles per week, the more weeks it will maintain full or near full capacity. Also you can charge to only 80% more often then someone with 30% less total range.

I can guarantee that if you take an equivalent size/performance/class vehicle to model s/x/3 and race over 500 miles, 1000 miles, 2000 miles and so on, you will spend less time charging and have more flexibility when choosing when to charge, like around meal and rest stops. I would also estimate that if you raced an ICEv using normal rules like driving 75mph and taking normal rest breaks, the Tesla would fare very well.

There is really only one place where ICEv us truly better and that's when you do zero planning and/or something comes up you were not prepared for and need a quick fill. Even then, the difference will be 30 minutes vs 10 and would be rare. Also people are very adaptive, they learn to adjust their behaviors very easily as things change. If someone is worried, they will find ways to be plugged in and topped off more often. Electricity is everywhere and charging will be soon enough.

 

[Vitold]

I have to find it, but I think it was in either Q3 or Q4 CC, where he said, in response to a question, that the MY will be revealed closer to production. So I asssumed, production being in 2020, reveal would be summer or later.

Based on this information, since showing is in March, it means that Y will be available by June!

 

[KarenRei]

As important as charge rates are.. ie 200KW or 300KW. What's most important is how much range added per unit time and how much total time inconvenienced by charging. A 325-335 mile range Tesla starts out needing less stops to begin with when compared with the avg. Competitor at just over 200mi range at highway speeds. By competitors I'm taking about the premium luxury class vehicles out now or coming in the next 18 months.

The next factory is mph added while charging. If your car can get 3-4 mi of range per KWh of energy vs 2 mi range, then your KW charging rate adds 50-100% more miles per hour with the same KW of charging rate.

Elon and JB last quoted 250KW. 2C would require 125KWh pack to maximize the c-rate. At 100KWh pack, 200KW would be the realistic Max. At 50% greater miles per hour added, that is equivalent to 300KW charging in an ipace or eturd. At 250, it would be 375KW charging equivalent. For model 3, 160KW would be closer to 320KW due to how dramatically more efficient it is.

The other componant is how long can you charge at the max c-rate. If you have 200mi of highway range and you need to charge from near 0 to 90+ percent, you will spend more time charging while the charger is tapering, meaning not at 100% if the c-rate. If you start with an extra 100 miles of range and get to chargers at 10% or better and only need to charge to 80%, you will spend 30% more time at Max c-rates. This much larger range is only really needed to minimize time charging as most people don't need 300+ miles of range for their daily use.

Another added bonus of a much larger range pack is the life of pack is measured in charge cycles. Less cycles per week, the more weeks it will maintain full or near full capacity. Also you can charge to only 80% more often then someone with 30% less total range.

I can guarantee that if you take an equivalent size/performance/class vehicle to model s/x/3 and race over 500 miles, 1000 miles, 2000 miles and so on, you will spend less time charging and have more flexibility when choosing when to charge, like around meal and rest stops. I would also estimate that if you raced an ICEv using normal rules like driving 75mph and taking normal rest breaks, the Tesla would fare very well.

There is really only one place where ICEv us truly better and that's when you do zero planning and/or something comes up you were not prepared for and need a quick fill. Even then, the difference will be 30 minutes vs 10 and would be rare. Also people are very adaptive, they learn to adjust their behaviors very easily as things change. If someone is worried, they will find ways to be plugged in and topped off more often. Electricity is everywhere and charging will be soon enough.

One thing I think people tend to forget is that they assume that all vehicle stats are fixed until the end of time (unless they worsen through degradation) - performance, range, charge rates at different SoCs, etc. But these are all software-configured, and Tesla can adjust them at will as they see how the vehicles perform in the real-world. They're forced to make conservative choices initially, but as they see how real-world durability plays out, they can make their choices less conservative over time - and such software updates affect the whole fleet.

We just saw them do it with performance and range. They absolutely can do it with charging as well (up to the fundamental limits imposed by ion mobility, cabling current limits, etc)

 

[Zaxxon]

The "prairie states" and neighboring sparsely populated areas have a population of about ~10 million people, which is less than 5% of the U.S. population.

While I expect Tesla to make the Supercharger network denser, I don't think the "prairie states" are expected to be a primary factor to the ~1 million annual Model Y sales target and addressable market. Residents of such states can buy the LR version if they intend to use the car for more than just local travel - and eventually the SC network will become much denser.

It's a mistake to focus on the population of such states. The primary reason for SCs in those states isn't to serve residents of those states but rather to enable efficient, enjoyable travel through those states. There are a bunch of interstate routes that an SR 3 or similar-range Y cannot comfortably travel, and therefore additional sites are needed.

 

[ReflexFunds]

Some further thoughts on u/NetBrown's Supercharger V3 comments on reddit, (alleging 200kW power and 20% to 80% charge in 13-15 minutes for Model 3).

As far as I understand, 2170 cells have max 4.2v. There are 4,416 cells in a LR model 3 pack. The peak charge rate achieved so far (CCS charger, reported by electrek) is 126kW. This suggests max amps for each cell at 126000/(4416*4.2) = 6.8A. This is presumably currently a Tesla software limit for the Model 3 pack. Tesla charging speed is close to maximum until c.50% SoC, after that the charge speed begins to taper. Again, i expect this is a Tesla software limit in the model 3 pack.

For the new supercharger, at maximum for Model 3, voltage would be 96 series cells * 4.2V = 403V. This would be the same for all Model 3 models. The Amps would be 200kW/403V = 496A.

To achieve a 15 minute 20-80% charge time for model 3, this would require the charge rate to average 200kW, so the amp limit per cell must be increased to 200k/(4416*4.2) = 10.8A. Also, the taper must be pushed back to 80% SoC.

I would also add, this all roughly lines up with Tesla's EPA document submission for Model 3, reported by Electrek in 2017. “The vehicle is also capable of accepting DC current up to 525A from an off‐board charger (Supercharger)”. This would correspond to 212kW max charge rate or 11.4 Amp max per cell.

Anyone have any views on the feasibility of this?

One consequence if this is accurate: Model 3 Long Range RWD charge time would beat Porsche Taycan.

Taycan is reported to be 310 miles NEDC (likely c.225 mile EPA), $85k base price and c.250 NEDC miles charge in 15 minutes from their 350kW/ 800V future chargers.
Model 3 LR is 325 mile EPA and was previously advertised in China at 413 mile NEDC, with the recent 315 to 325 range boost i guess this will now be 433 miles NEDC range. A 15 minute 20-80% charge time would add c.260 miles of NEDC range. Not bad for $43k base price almost half of the Taycan.
Model 3 SR is $35k, 220 mile EPA and likely c.293 mile NEDC. This could add c.176 NEDC range miles in 15 minutes.

I hope Tesla also has a plan to increase charge rates on S and X.

 

[jerry33]

It's a mistake to focus on the population of such states. The primary reason for SCs in those states isn't to serve residents of those states but rather to enable efficient, enjoyable travel through those states. There are a bunch of interstate routes that an SR 3 or similar-range Y cannot comfortably travel, and therefore additional sites are needed.

Correct. I'd be happy if they added two in the right places (Kansas/Nebraska border north of Salina (Hebron, NE would be ideal), and Sioux City, IA).

To be fair, they have the East-West routes fairly covered, except for the northern states and a glaring hole in Texas (Wichita Falls), but North-South routes are sadly lacking.

 

[pnungesser]

Correct. I'd be happy if they added two in the right places (Kansas/Nebraska border north of Salina (Hebron, NE would be ideal), and Sioux City, IA).

To be fair, they have the East-West routes fairly covered, except for the northern states and a glaring hole in Texas (Wichita Falls), but North-South routes are sadly lacking.

Don't forget about I-40 through Arkansas/Oklahoma.

 

[S3XY]

Wait for them to say China GF3 will produce Model Y from day one.

I doubt it will be day one but it won't be too long after it opens. I don't think Tesla will want to ramp up two different production lines at the same time. But since they should essentially be replicating the most recent Model 3 lines it shouldn't take all that long to get those lines ramped up. Installation of the Model Y lines will then be completed (it will have started shortly after the M3 lines have been installed) and production started.