Intel does have a pretty good 14nm process which can be used to fab all sorts of highly capable processors. Their main advantage is their ability to pump volume, which runs circle around TSMC.
-
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
ZachF
Active Member
I'm pulling for Samsung (the manufacturer of Tesla's FSD chip) with a new FAB in Austin, TX:
Cheers!
Austin all of the things!
Unsurprisingly, census has released 2020 data and Austin topped the list for population growth in large metros, growing 33% from 2010 to 2020.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Sure but AFAIK both HW4 and D1 will require better than 14nm process.
I suppose they could partner with them for larger-process output of general car controller chips--- but everyone needs those, and if we're assuming federal $ is going to "fixing" the shortage then Intel doesn't need to partner with anybody- they just take the fed funds and sell to all buyers. It's unlikely the fed funds would be available for a one-customer-only setup anyway.
Last quarter Toyota took the first place from GM in the US for the first time in over two decades.
All they’ve been doing is basically stockpiling chips after they forecast the potential supply issues.
HW4 and D1 are not high volume products. Intel Fabs can help out with the world wide chip shortage problem because they pump out volume. Most chips in cars are not some exotic 7nm process chips. They are a bunch of 22nm, 16nm commodity chips. Intel is more than capable here.
ZachF
Active Member
Ford's handling of the chip problem has been biblically poor...
And if I were Elon, all of those 1M+ sales would be outside Texas. Furthermore, I would put out lots of tweets with circumspect verbiage about how Texas sales will occur two weeks after all non-Texas sales have been fulfilled, you know because it’s the best business decision (I.e., maximizing profits because of the extra costs involved with shipping vehicles outside the state and turning around and shipping them back in).
ZachF
Active Member
HW4 will be though, when Tesla is selling millions of cars and bots per year, all of which need their "brains" updated periodically.
This is chart is pretty misleading because I'm 100% sure they're counting Model S/X line capacity into Tesla's total US production capacity utilized.
In reality, if the S/X refresh hadn't happened, Tesla's percentage would be much higher than Toyota's. Tesla has by far been the most nimble company to maintain production capability when it comes to chip supply.
Last edited:
mblakele
FSD Beta (99)
There's some discussion here:
2021-10-07 Tesla Annual General Meeting
Let's make this a place to discuss voting on the agenda items for the 2021 AGM. From the annual report: We are pleased to inform you that our 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “2021 Annual Meeting”) will be held on Thursday, October 7, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. Pacific Time, at Tesla’s Fremont...
teslamotorsclub.com
My thought was that the drilled pilings are needed to support the very high ceilings and loaded gantry cranes from the bottom of the trench.
Without docks on the one side, General Assembly has too few docks. So by deduction, it must be a logistics hall of some type.
As for Boring readiness, drone footage from Jeff Roberts has shown a TBM cutter head finished at the Bastrop test site.
I find this interesting. About 6 years ago I sat in an audience regarding the discussion of the future of Trikes vs motorcycles (2 wheeled). Trikes being safer for some cyclists and preferred. The discussion then drifed into future trends and Govt regulation since motorcycles do not have safety features that autos have. Autos are required to have certain data recovery technology (blackbox) but not motorcycles.You raise some interesting points bordering on the philosophical.
I've given the transition to fully autonomous vehicles a lot of thought over the years.
I assume full autonomy is guaranteed in the long run, and that it will be forbidden for humans to operate automobiles. (Insert Elon's elevator analogy)
However, I don't believe the transition will be as sudden as some believe. A full ban of human operation of vehicles is far far away, and will require the FSD-tech to be widespread among car manufacturers.
Also before a ban is in order - even in a small(ish) region such as California for example - the ban could quite possibly be imposed per person. I'm imagining the possibility of (at first) imposing "manual driving bans" on convicted drivers in Court (after DUI, road rage, hit-and-run, heavy speeding, causing a heavy collision, etc).
This would be similar to the withdrawal of ones driving licence we know currently, which prevents you from driving for a set amount of time. In severe cases, a permanent driving ban can be imposed by the Court (currently, in Belgium at least, but this is most likely similar in US/EU). Once FSD is available - even in few brands (cough TSLA cough) - the current driving-ban-system can evolve into forcing FSD on certain people (bad drivers), to increase overall safety on public roads.
This would be similar to the "alcohol lock" a Belgian judge can impose upon a heavy drinker, meaning you are only allowed to operate a vehicle equipped with a built-in alcohol test (by exhalation). Said vehicles can only start their engines in case of a negative alcohol test.
The more I think about it, the more logical it becomes: the FSD revolution will start with forced FSD (besides all the voluntary users of course). Then the flywheel can gain speed and one or two decades later the permanent switch can be made to FSD all around.
The topic of the Gov't vision of autonomous driving regulations was then discussed related to motorcycles.
The approach was not to ban motorcycles but to restrict them to surface streets and not be allowed on divided highways.
woodisgood
Optimustic Pessimist
We’re going to close within pennies of yesterday’s close aren’t we.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
It seems clear that a lot of folks have bought into this fake news hook, line, and sinker.
Reality: Texas is full of Tesla models that people have purchased. The numbers on the road increase daily. Texas may be one of the most Tesla rich states after California.
Essentially (see what I did there?), to put this sentiment quoted in context, you are saying how in a perfect world you would prefer that Amazon set up stores so you could go to the Amazon store to purchase from Amazon, rather than doing it from your home, phone, work computer, etc. Have I got your feelings on this correct? You think that having a Tesla "dealer" for customers to come in and have a sales person do the actual ordering (rather than standing in a Tesla showroom yourself and using your phone to order) is somehow preferable? Sounds miserable to me.
That is precisely how you purchase a Tesla in Texas, or, from Amazon for that matter. Easy-peasy. Go online, press the Buy Now button after making your selection. How, exactly, would changing the dealer-related statutes make this any easier?
Please stop propagating this FUD. You misunderstand the Texas Dealer Association's lobby whose decades-old statutes were instituted to insulate them from manufacturer-owned sales outlets. It is really almost a Blue Law at this point. There seems to be no impact on Tesla showrooms, the service centers, or product delivery to customers in those states who have these laws in place. The statutes will go away (or simply be ignored) once peak irrelevancy has been reached for the "dealer model" of sales.
In the mean time there seems to be no barrier to anyone in Texas wanting to purchase a Tesla.
Edit: For those who disagree, please explain what the impact is currently to sale of a Tesla in Texas? Buyers already have to wait weeks or months for delivery in every locale. How, specifically, do you imagine the Texas Dealer Association's protectionist statute affects Tesla sales? It might add a day or two to those weeks or months if there is any truth to the alleged "must move the physical vehicle out of state, then bring it back in" FUD. As far as I can tell, only the paperwork has to originate out of state.
Last edited:
Millions is not volume to a fab. They talk in hundreds of millions. The iphone ships in the range of 220-250 million a year. Then you add on playstations, xboxes, AMD products..etc etc. TSMC is in the business of moving over half a billion chips a year. Intel runs circle around that number...
Yeah 5 million HW4 or 10 million HW4 chips takes these fab a week to make....
So basically you don’t see the need for Tesla to own a FAB in the future? They are better off without one?
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
ZachF
Active Member
Tesla will need 5 million HW chips a year by about 2023.
Remember, each HW takes two chips.
Now, Tesla making 20m cars per year and 20m bots per year early 2030s is 80m chips.
Tesla needs a fab to keep up with mega dramas till the year 2040. What is Tesla without drama? Borrrrrringgggggg
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
