Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
From photos taken at the Plaid Delivery event, the rear structure looks like a single piece traverse aluminum casting: (see the silvery colored component in the center of this photo)

View attachment 674807

It's also possible that rear side structures are castings as well (black-colored webbed casting in center-left of above photo).

This would allow Tesla to reuse the smaller casting machines that were used in first production of Model Y in 2020Q1 (well before the first Gigapress was operational sometime in 2020Q3). That's the kind of smart use of capital expense that allows Tesla to increase margins with every generation of new production. Brilliant. :D

Cheers!
@JohnnyEnglish Given Dodger's post I stand corrected on the casting part. Thanks for that @Artful Dodger.


My post wasn't made with detailed technical sources in mind, just that I gather from all things Elon/conference calls/Battery Day that the S and X refreshes do not use the structural battery pack.

Even though it has been debated heavily, we're 99,99% sure the new S/X have 18650s and these are not designed to be part of a structural battery. I assumed this would also mean no front and rear castings, but that was a wrong assumption on my part. Apologies.

Otherwise my point still stands: the S and X will not see a structural battery without there being another "refresh" (i.e. a completely newly designed S/X in another 5-10 years or so).
 
After the Huawai ban, it's definitely a good idea to build an open source OS to protect from future shenanigans that can be pulled by the US.
Some may dislike the comment, but that is obviously and logically a major reason for the plan. After all the US has proven it is not a consistent industrial partner. 5G is perhaps the most blatant example fo superior Chinese technology that has been blocked to allow national Champions to catch up.

Although many of us might disagree with tat it is rather difficult that Chinese officials don't believe it. They do, absolutely.

Tesla is a rare foreign company that has helpful technology and does not hide. In particular Tesla is helping every battery supplier to improve their own products.
China developing an open source OS will also benefit the foreign automakers which have JV's in China, i.e. all of them.
 
I'd encourage people to check out some of the plans for Giga Berlin posted on the @GF4Tesla twitter page:


You can also view the original documents here: Errichtung und Betrieb einer Anlage für den Bau und die Montage von Elektrofahrzeugen mit einer Kapazität von jeweils 100 000 Stück oder mehr je Jahr - Reg.-Nr.: G07819 - UVP but some of them are very large. There's a lot of detail in these plans and they show how impressive this gigafactory will be. I was already liking the way the design worked with the skylights providing excellent daylight throughout, but these plans show it will be even better!

Some of the highlights:
- A lot of tree planting and landscape all across the site including car parking areas that will make it a very green site (c/w say Shanghai)
- Plans showing the reception area that goes in front of the current SW corner precast panels, including the roof pavilion area.
- Solar panel layouts across large areas of the roof, eg BIW
- Detailed plans for the battery cell production building showing it will be 4 levels high and including detailed layouts of equipment

On the battery cell building, my rough area calcs show it has a footprint of around 25,000m2. This compares to the Giga Texas cell production area that has a footprint of around 43,000m2. Both buildings are 4 levels high. There is a key production line in the centre at GFBerlin that is where the deeper footing is currently being prepared. For Texas there were two of these deep footing areas. This and the footprint areas lead me to believe that Texas may have roughly double the initial battery capacity/lines compared to Berlin. So would that be 200GW and 100GW respectively, with the extra for Cybertruck? Note that the Berlin plans show future expansion to the West that would probably wrap around the Drive building, so capacity can be expanded.
 
So this is confirmation that Tesla uses a dry process? No mention of solvents and recuperation of solvents anymore.
That should give confidence that the Roadrunner battery production system is good enough for volume production.
I don't see it that way at all (that this implies it's good enough for volume production already). And Tesla would not have announced the dry process if they didn't think it would, at some point, become good enough for volume production.

While I'm fairly confident the Roadrunner production system will make it to full production if and when the process is perfected, permitting for a dry process does not change my confidence level. Tesla would permit for the dry process regardless of whether they had perfected it yet. The only way they would not permit for the dry process is if they had abandoned it. And the abandonment of the dry process would require a timely disclosure to shareholders and potential investors that it wasn't going to work as anticipated on battery day because that would be VERY material to Tesla's business and in direct conflict with what Tesla has led investors to expect.

In other words, this doesn't allow us to surmise anything we didn't already know. It didn't change the odds or move the needle because permitting would, in all cases, move forward based on the assumption the process would make it to production right up until it was fully permitted or Tesla decided to take another route and abandon the dry process.

Personally, I don't think Tesla would have had battery day if they weren't pretty much 100% confident all issues were solvable.
 
Last edited:
This and the footprint areas lead me to believe that Texas may have roughly double the initial battery capacity/lines compared to Berlin.
You can never have enough battery production. This is why I'm so bullish on Tesla compared to OEMs targeting (relatively) low battery cell output by 2030.
 
This and the footprint areas lead me to believe that Texas may have roughly double the initial battery capacity/lines compared to Berlin. So would that be 200GW and 100GW respectively, with the extra for Cybertruck?
I think the extra cell capacity will be for the Tesla Semi as well as the Cybertruck. They both will use a lot of cells. (And neither are currently planned for production in GigaBerlin.)
 
I don't see it that way at all.

While I'm fairly confident the Roadrunner production system will make it to full production if and when the process is perfected, permitting for a dry process does not change my confidence level. Tesla would permit for the dry process regardless of whether they had perfected it yet. The only way they would not permit for the dry process is if they had abandoned it. And the abandonment of the dry process would require a timely disclosure to shareholders and potential investors that it wasn't going to work as anticipated on battery day because that would be VERY material to Tesla's business and in direct conflict with what Tesla has led investors to expect.

In other words, this doesn't allow us to surmise anything we didn't already know. It didn't change the odds or move the needle because permitting would, in all cases, move forward based on the assumption the process would make it to production right up until it was fully permitted or Tesla decided to take another route and abandon the dry process.

Personally, I don't think Tesla would have had battery day if they weren't pretty much 100% confident all issues were solvable.
I'm going to flip that logic around.
The only reason Tesla would remove solvents and placeholders for ovens from the permit is if they knew they didn't need them. Otherwise they could end up in a position without a permitted process and no way to make cells. (With dry being easier to permit than wet)

Side note: I think the heavy foundations are for the high density vertical formation process racks (bookshelf looking things from the cell videos), sized for 10 days of production.
 
Yes, I'm relatively new here, and am not a prolific poster (nor do I plan to be)---no crime in that, I believe. I do enjoy coming here on occasion and reading some insightful (and friendlier than this) comments, especially regarding TSLA. And when I do post I try to stay on the topic of the thread.

Thanks, though, for what I hope was an attempt at constructive criticism.
When you learn who Curt is, you just click on what ever he posts, if it’s “interesting” or not, it is always useful information to some.
 
I don't see it that way at all (that this implies it's good enough for volume production already). And Tesla would not have announced the dry process if they didn't think it would, at some point, become good enough for volume production.

While I'm fairly confident the Roadrunner production system will make it to full production if and when the process is perfected, permitting for a dry process does not change my confidence level. Tesla would permit for the dry process regardless of whether they had perfected it yet. The only way they would not permit for the dry process is if they had abandoned it. And the abandonment of the dry process would require a timely disclosure to shareholders and potential investors that it wasn't going to work as anticipated on battery day because that would be VERY material to Tesla's business and in direct conflict with what Tesla has led investors to expect.

In other words, this doesn't allow us to surmise anything we didn't already know. It didn't change the odds or move the needle because permitting would, in all cases, move forward based on the assumption the process would make it to production right up until it was fully permitted or Tesla decided to take another route and abandon the dry process.

Personally, I don't think Tesla would have had battery day if they weren't pretty much 100% confident all issues were solvable.
Solvable yes, scaling was/is the question. But whenever I have doubts I calm myself by going back to the latest ER CC:


Pierre Ferragu -- New Street Research -- Analyst

Hi, guys. Thanks so much for taking my question. I'd love to get actually based on what you presented on the Battery Day. In the last six, seven months, I want -- I was wondering how much progress you've made on that front, first, in terms of process development.

So how are things coming together on your pilot line? Are you getting to the kind of production throughput you were aiming for? And second and actually on your production ramp. So I was wondering in which sites you're ramping production capacity for the 4680 cell and where you stand on ramping up that capacity as well. And I have a quick follow-up on energy as well if that's possible.

Elon Musk -- Chief Executive Officer and Product Architect

Well, so we have the -- and Drew can add to this. But we have the -- a small sort of pilot plant, which is still big by normal standards, expected to have like a 10-gigawatt hour per year capability in Fremont, California. And we made quite a few cells. We're not quite yet at the point where we think the cells are reliable enough to be shipped in cars, but we're getting close to that point.

And then we've already ordered most of the equipment for battery production in Berlin and then much of it for Austin as well. So we really don't flick the nitty-gritty elements. But overall, I think we still feel quite optimistic about this achieving volume production of the 4680 next year. What do you think?

Unknown speaker

Yes, thanks. Just one thing I would add is there's been a lot of questions about yields. Actually, I noticed people asking about that. The yield progress has been really strong every day, and we were really still in commissioning phase.

We were really still in commissioning phase with most of the tools to the point where we're confident that the yield trajectory aligns with our internal cost projections. We did talk about yield also at Battery Day, which is one of the reasons why it's useful to check in on that. It takes a while, as Elon just mentioned, to go from prototype to production. And it's not just parts.

It's processes, it's equipment. But as we've matured the process equipment, we've gotten to where we need to be on the yield side.

Elon Musk -- Chief Executive Officer and Product Architect

Yeah. And basically, this is just a guess because we don't know for sure, but it appears as though we're about 12 -- probably not more than 18 months away from volume production of the 4680. Now at the same time, we are actually trying to have our cell supply of partners ramp up their supply as much as possible. So this is not something that is to the exclusion of suppliers.

It is in conjunction with suppliers. So we want to be super clear about that. This is not about replacing suppliers. It is about supplementing the suppliers.

So -- and we have a very strong partnership with CATL, with Panasonic and LG. And we would -- our request to our strategic partners for cell supply is please make us -- please supply us with as much as you possibly can. Provided the price is affordable, we will buy everything that they can make.

Unknown speaker

Yeah. Yeah. And specific to that, we're on track to more than double the supplier capacity over the next year.

Elon Musk -- Chief Executive Officer and Product Architect

Yeah, exactly. We do expect from suppliers willing to receive double the cell output next year versus this year.




Personal notes:
- Elon says the Roadrunner cells are not going into cars yet, therefore they are going into Tesla Energy products;
- The design of the cell manufacturing process is basically complete, given the fact that Tesla ordered the equipment for use in Berlin/Texas and the fact that they've reached the yield they wanted to reach. My guess is they will still improve upon this but with the current known machines/processes they are able to do so.
- Therefore I am quite confident the dry electrode process is pretty much solved. I agree with @StealthP3D that this cannot be derived solely from the fact that Tesla applied for a permit, but all other elements combined it seems to be OK.

IMO this is one of those information advantages that we have over the market. WallStreet doesn't have a clue that in "12 months maybe, 18 months definitely" the 4680 production is at volume production. This translates to May 2022 to November 2022.

By Q4 2022 at the latest WallStreet will realise how much Tesla's lead has grown. Maybe some smart money figures it out before then. Our supersmart money knows right know. GLTA
 
Last edited:
From Twitter @ajtourville:

1624026945672.png


1624026964462.png
 
Governments will not allow Tesla to become a monopoly even if Elon wanted one
Nothing wrong with monopolies, which is contrary to belief, it is non-compete or bad actor tactics and strategies that get companies into trouble.

 
Just as a follow up to this, the gap is even crazier if we expand the window to 1 month. Other EV stocks have appreciated between 9-16x as much as TSLA in the past month:

View attachment 674424

Ironically and in contrast with most of the people here (including myself), within the past month, the stock market has significantly increased it's bullishness on all of TSLA's competitors.

Wow, and we thought TSLA was volatile! Ho-hum...

Edit: is all the movement post Biden victory...?

1624027271731.png
 
That's does not mean that old models are not refreshed and updated to sell them another decade or two. It also does not mean they stop selling ICE as wrongly reported from Bloomberg and Reuters and copied from everybody else.

Also, there is no official statement but just rumors about it.

I totally agree and thanks for clarifying it as a native German speaker. I would add that even if Audi made an official statement, either no new ICE models or even no ICE cars at all after a certain date, it doesn't legally preclude them from changing their minds at a later date and based upon new information.

Honda dedicated themselves to growing a hydrogen fleet very publicly. That doesn't stop them from stopping production of hydrogen cars.

Corporations are free to change their "minds" at any time on any issue that is not legally mandated. Sometimes they say are going to do something specifically to fend off the mandating of that very thing!

That's why we look at what corporations actually do, not just take their words at face value. Ford wants to make EV 1/2 ton trucks? Great! Just do it! They have wanted to do that since SEMA in 2008 which is almost 14 years ago! Don't tell us, show us! And don't do it with a couple thousand here, a couple thousand there, prove your true intent by manufacturing them in high volume. Let's see it!
 
3-Witching day. Max pain in $560 likely due to *sugar* puts.

Liking the stalemate and green so far.

Some more shuffling. Rolled some more Jan 22 CC to Jan 23 CC's at 95% profits, and got me Jun 23 Calls ( +4 @ 800, +4 @900) - OPM (other people money) trades ~ cheers!!
(+ risking a lot of my shares for Jan 23, but Delta at present stayed the same)

(+ macro play seems/hope to be a rotation back to growth)
 
Last edited:
Um, Ford's autonomy capability was shown at the reveal, it was one of the top features shown, and here is an article on it.

Thanks for your input, I appreciate it.

Unfortunately for me I grew up with FORD ~ Fix or Repair Daily. And one automaker complaining about labor leaving a coke bottle inside the door during assembly. I bought a new VW in the mid-seventies ~ the engine was rusty and paint had rust specks ~ not a happy camper. Bought a new Saturn, again excessive rust in the engine compartment. Our second Volvo, one of the first 960s off the assembly line blew its engine before 50K miles. For the most part, I have avoided America made cars based on the Ford and Chevy stories during my youth ~ never found the fountain:)

Toyota has impressed me ever since our first one in 1976. Since I do not drive from the back seat of our cars; well, I have never suffered a catastrophic accident. Our two year old Tacoma, if I enable it, will squawk nearing a line and slow when approaching a car at too high a speed. It has cameras and a radio. When I bought cars way back when JC was a corporal we could buy a radio as an option. Later I would buy a super radio thru the PX and install it myself. My drivers side widow will go down with a touch of a finger; but my year model still requires me to hold the toggle switch until the window fully closes.

When I was a kid, my mom left my sister and I in the car while she would shop. I would tell my sister she was adopted, and manually roll the windows down if the discussion would get too heated. Electric windows prevent that safety relief valve.

Enough of remember when. Most cars have some version of driver assist, it is called Cruise Control. Yes, I insisted on installing my first one on our car myself.

While teaching, one of my students got really upset in his technology report on Google‘s self driving vehicle that drove the speed limit. My point, Google was developing software for driverless cars ~ not Ford.

Competition is heating up; and I am grateful, as more and more automakers move towards electric vehicles. I found it interesting that someone wanted Elon to share Tesla patents ~ he has, but the fossil fuel industry fails to acknowledge Elon’s/Tesla’s contributions. VW or Mercedes bought a Model S and backwards engineered it to educate themselves. The US did that with a stolen Russian MIG (fighter plane) back in my youthful days.

FYI ~ I think the CEO of Ford recently stated that they would ”Crush Tesla”; followed by Jim Cramer stating ”Ford Will Crush Tesla.” My bottom line is no one in ten years +/- has crushed Tesla. Tesla is raising production all the time with growth all around us. Austin according to input is becoming a boom town ~ not based on “Oil,” based on “Tesla the Crusher of fossil fuels.”

Thanks again for the articles and input. Things I say often are seeking to fill missing gaps in what I see or read.