-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Here's my guess as to what an ideal 'range table' and range based naming scheme of the new variants would look like:
| Standard Range |
| Mid Range |
| Long Range |
| Very Long Range |
Note how smooth the upgrade path from the Model 3 to the S/X becomes with such a unified naming scheme, but the S/X also maintains its 'premium upgrade' nature by not offering 'Mid Range' and 'Standard Range' options.
This naming scheme allows Tesla to offer 'Long Range' options both for the 3 and the S/X, while the battery pack sizes are different: 80 kWh for the 3, ~90 kWh -ish for the S/X.
Also note that by changing the marketing to "range based" Tesla puts legacy OEMs under pressure from two directions:
- Tesla has the largest battery packs that OEMs have trouble keeping up with
- Tesla has the highest efficiency EV powertrain that OEMs have trouble keeping up with
I like the 'very long range' name, as it directly addresses range anxiety, which still exists and is prominent in many ICE vehicle owners. Tesla might have different plans though.
Last edited:
Bending over dollars to pick up pennies.
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
I am starting to see some of the technical influences of their leaders showing through the products.
Here in asia, this year I am seeing quite a few surprising hardware products that are better than what we get in NA. It took China several decades but it feels like they have finally cuaght on and are making breaktheoughs and even pioneering in certain areas.
Maybe the techs were still invented in usa first, but in terms of quality of the products manufactured, made in China is the only ones I can find branded on these product. For examole, their LiPo rechargeable batteries are pretty hogh quality in terms of degradation and energy density(relevant to tsla)
Maybe this is because of their leader's engineering background, maybe not. We'll know in the next decade. Pioneering new products will be different from catching up and copying.
Last edited:
I'm not interested in WAITING another decade. Let's excel in tech now, from the lowliest worker through the Elons, Senators, and presidents among us.
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
Hehe. I used to believe ERTW (engineers rule the world). But reality smacked me in the head with politics.
Could he take my M3 order / my ~65k EUR? No country wants to...
I know the feeling...
That said, while technically I could import a Model 3 from elsewhere in Europe, I'm sitting tight. More time = better options, price, build, and tech, as always. I just want mine in time to do summer road trips...
cheshire cat
Member
As a side bar to this I see once we cut thro' all the JLR job losses U.K. Is getting a new battery plant and at another location motor/power Train? Plant.
bhtooefr
Active Member
...you know, how hard would it be for Tesla to move to a Model 3 rear drive unit in the non-Performance Model S/X?
It's probably too small to work in the Performance models, but that could improve efficiency (and range), while also improving the cooling situation relative to the current motor, and potentially reducing costs through parts sharing.
It's probably too small to work in the Performance models, but that could improve efficiency (and range), while also improving the cooling situation relative to the current motor, and potentially reducing costs through parts sharing.
jhm
Well-Known Member
This is a very important point. While some are concerned about the cost of redesign to accommodate a cell that is 5mm (1/4 inch) taller, it may be absolutely necessary to do so to get to a pack that has substantially more than 100kWh capacity. Longer term for the Model S/X to command a premium price it will have to offer longer range options.
So it will need not only a bigger battery, but a cheaper battery too. Let's suppose that the current 18650 pack is at about $170/kWh (shout out if you have better estimates) maxed out at 100kWh ($17k for the pack). Suppose Tesla sees a way to get to a 2170 pack at $100/kWh that can accommodate up to 150kWh. So they bite the cost and offer a 120kWh ($12k) and 150 kWh ($15k). With these options they can offer the 120kWh at the same price as the old 18650 100kWh price point and boost gross margin by $5k. They can also offer the 150 at a $20k premium to the 120 version and obtain an incremental $22k in gross profit over the old 18650-based 100kWh version. The margin on S/X goes up maybe $10k/veh, so this is an incremental profit contribution of $1B on 100k cars. Also they would be in a position to increase total S/X production from 100k/yr to 150 or more. This brings in an incremental profit contribution of about $2B. So all told the investment in redesign and building out new production capacity can contribute an extra $3B annually to the bottom line.
The fantasy above is all predicated on Tesla seeing a way to a battery pack cost of $100/kWh. Musk has been clear that he expects this by 2020. So if all is going well, $100/kWh is already in sight for 2019.
Are we still on track for the Roadster in 2020? This will need a 200kWh pack, right? Imagine the awkwardness of offering a 600 mile range 200 kWh for the Roadster in 2020 while Performance S/X are still limited to a 300 mile range on a 100kWh. Clearly Tesla is doing the R&D to make the Roadster pack possible. I think Tesla will want to offer a 150kWh version of S/X to fill the gap between the S/X 100kWh and the Roadster. I hope they can roll this out in 2019.
A lot of speculation in the Dutch subforum, but nothing solid yet.
This seems the most likely "major" (e.g. non-cosmetic) change. Tons of benefits (range, efficiency, track endurance). The component being swapped out is non-structural (battery packs are structural elements). Frees up Fremont space. Doesn't free up things made by Tesla/Panasonic for third parties to buy and use against Tesla in the marketplace. Not constrained by Panasonic. New motors are much cheaper than new battery packs. And perhaps most importantly, if anything developed for Model 3 has gone according to plan, it's been the drive units - their production is almost fully automated and has long run smoothly.
Would still be quite capital intensive, and only justified when they have to in order to keep maxing out their sales. But it shouldn't be nearly as much as a battery pack change, and lacks 90% of said disadvantages of a battery change.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Yes, JLR are quite well placed versus the German OEMs further into the future. They are not defined by their engine tech and so have to jump to Elec. However, could they lose 30% or more sales before they start climbing again?
HG Wells
Martian Embassy
Any one wonder why Elon is in the Netherlands ?
Any gigafactory possible locations near there ?
Preliminary talks in the Hague ?
Any gigafactory possible locations near there ?
Preliminary talks in the Hague ?
bhtooefr
Active Member
Also note that anything that improves MPH charging speed reduces demand on Superchargers (by getting cars moving out of bays faster) - doing it through improved efficiency is likely the cheapest way to do that, because it doesn't even require higher charging power or battery chemistry changes.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
It's not necessarily capital intensive: Tesla plans to use Model 3 drive units for the Semi as well - naively I'd expect it to be natural to use 2-4 of them in the Model S/X as well (two in the back, one per rear wheel, one or two in the front).
In the Tesla Pickup Truck I'd be very surprised if they didn't use four Model 3 drive units, one per wheel. That allows superior off-roading features.
Expansion of motor production is planned for the Semi, the Y and higher unit counts for Standard Range 3 anyway.
I'd be very happy with a car that if it was a bit cheaper, but Elon said "Tesla doesn't make slow cars"...
bhtooefr
Active Member
It is worth noting that the Roadster is a different unibody, and Musk has implied that the Roadster is using something along the lines of a double-stack S/X pack architecture (which almost implies that it's actually still on 18650?)
Model 3 rear drive unit already supports more power than the small induction rear drive unit in the S/X 75D/100D, so it wouldn't necessarily be a slow car. What I'm proposing is to replace the existing rear drive unit with a Model 3 rear drive unit, but leave the front alone, and also leave the Performance alone (unless Tesla wants to go to a dual Model 3 rear drive unit, or make a larger PMSRM motor for Performance S/X).
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
3-4 Model 3 drive units would make the Model S/X faster I believe.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
