I agree Tesla will do it better and cheaper, but I was over-optimistic before.
Before, I thought Cruise would have a $90k vehicle. Before I thought Cruise would have a 250k mile life. Before I thought map creation and map maintenance would be large cost factors.
so my thinking has evolved from Tesla having a $0.50 / mile cost advantage to maybe only a $0.20 / mile advantage. Still huge. Just not as great as I thought before.
This may be something everyone already knew, but it was a new revelation for me.
To be clear, I doubt Cruise/GM’s ability to deliver, but if they do, it reduces Tesla’s advantage from what I personally thought it would be.
No, I'm not concerned. Tesla should be able to beat the average commercial rate and still sell electricity at a profit to the semi customers.I was looking at the pricing of a supercharger near me on my map and was SHOCKED to see that during 10am to 7pm it was $0.42/kWh! That’s really getting up there. I was surprised that it’s as close as it is to gas prices. And yet Tesla promised semi buyers they would guarantee a price of 7¢/kWh? Hmmm.
To avoid the back and forth on my “close as at it is to gas prices” comment, here’s my math:
Anyone else concerned about that guaranteed semi rate?
- Tesla LR M3, at 80 MPH gets around 250 miles per 75 kWh tank. 75 x $0.42 = $31.50. $31.50 / 250 miles = $0.126/mi
- ICE, at 80 MPH gets around 450 miles per 18 gal tank. 18 x $4.00 = $72.00. $72.00 / 450 miles = $0.16/mi
- Almost 80% of the price of gas….
FUD is directly proportional to Tesla‘s success.
U.S. auto safety regulators said on Thursday they have opened 30 investigations into Tesla (TSLA.O) crashes involving 10 deaths since 2016 where advanced driver assistance systems were suspected of use.www.reuters.com
Yes, I believe Tesla should informationally advertise.
The spreadsheet also notes NHTSA has opened six other investigations into six other crashes involving driver assistance systems, including two involving Cadillac vehicles in which there were no reported injuries.
The other four include two involved a 2012 Lexus RX450H and 2017 Navya Arma in which there were no reported injuries.
The remaining two involved 2017 Volvo XC90 vehicles, including an Uber Technologies self-driving test vehicle that struck and killed a woman in Arizona in 2018.
That will depend on how fast the 2nd and 3rd players reach autonomy. If Tesla has a 2 year lead in autonomy then maybe they get a quarter but if Tesla has an 8 year lead I'd expect them to get more than a quarter.Elon responded to Cathie directly and said "winner takes a quarter.....manufacturing is hard."
You´re right. The subitle reads:I'm not sure they read their own article before making that headline.
In the article:
...nothing about stopping building fossil cars.
Only that they would stop introducing them. As in launching new models.
My interpretation is that they can still build fossil car models introduced in 2025 several years later.
Trying to read the German source I come to the same conclusion. Audi will stop launcing new fossil fuel models by 2026. And a few years later they will only launch EVs.
Perhaps @avoigt is a better interpreter of German language than I am and could clarify?
Von 2026 an will die VW-Tochter keine neuen Verbrenner mehr herausbringen - als erster Hersteller in Deutschland. Ein paar Jahre später soll es dann nur noch E-Autos geben.
(Translation mine)Starting in 2026 the VW subsidiary won´t launch new ICE cars any more - as first manufacturer in Germany. A few years later there will only be electric cars.
Almost perfect job by google, few remarks:
This must surely back up the notion that the car continues to use 18650, and hasn't graduated up to something newer.Tesla cut the battery size of the Model S from 104 to 100 kWh
Tesla has confirmed that it has reduced the energy capacity of the new battery pack in the new Model S. Still, it has increased range over the previous model. It’s all about the efficiency. For the new Model S, Tesla has developed a brand new powertrain under its Palladium program, as Electrek...electrek.co
I think we will eventually see 4680 LFP cells, either made by Tesla or a supplier.
Agree. FSD may, in fact should, become mandatory, at least in some jurisdictions, once it has proven itself.This must surely back up the notion that the car continues to use 18650, and hasn't graduated up to something newer.
(Yes there have been some pretty authoritative statements on the matter already)
It amazes me to think about the improvements that loom on the horizon for Model S/X - when its performance is now so incredible:
* front casting piece
* rear casting piece
* switch to 4680 cells
* structured pack
These improvements will all allow Tesla to "dial in" the exact performance improvements they want - acceleration, range, and profitability. Tesla might upgrade the range of the car a bit more, keep the acceleration the same, but make the car lighter, for better handling+range again, and a cheaper cost of construction. Will we see a reduction in retail price or just take more profit per vehicle? It's Tesla's choice... and possible they will add FSD as standard and keep the base price of the car the same at $79,900.
(While I'm here... it's my opinion that FSD will become standard on all Tesla vehicles at some point)
This all assumes that Tesla will be selling vehicles. That would be a financial mistake, a safety mistake and a climate control mistake.Agree. FSD may, in fact should, become mandatory, at least in some jurisdictions, once it has proven itself.