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

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

TheTalkingMule

Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Oct 20, 2012
7,523
31,356
Philadelphia, PA
Excited to see a rare Elon interview on PBS. Not familiar with the program, but PBS is usually pretty legit. Would like to see us get some separation from the likes of Bezos and Branson.

 

StealthP3D

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2018
9,966
82,321
Maple Falls, WA
Anyone willing to take one for the team and listen in and report back?

Btw it’s obnoxious that they’re doing this. Just give the information. Stop trying to make money off your sources (who are wrong half the time anyways 🙄)

I agree, a real sh!tshow. But it gets worse than that. The claim that they will "share what they can about the latest information they've received regarding Tesla 4680 production sitrep at Kato & Giga Texas", implies they have inside information they can't share. If true, that makes them insiders by definition under rules regulating insiders and trading.

I hope they are not buying or selling Tesla stock or options. If they are, I hope they get investigated for insider trading.

As an investor, I heavily discount any info released by such a sh!tshow.
 

EnzoXYZ

Member
Aug 11, 2016
784
2,810
Chicago
Excited to see a rare Elon interview on PBS. Not familiar with the program, but PBS is usually pretty legit. Would like to see us get some separation from the likes of Bezos and Branson.

I got popcorn and beverage all ready……then it was just a preview. Will add to must watch with inspiration 4 all end of September.
 

Singuy

Active Member
Jun 28, 2018
4,623
37,102
US
Nasty. So prediction from last week is coming true. Macro in total correction territory. Spy has about another 6.5% downside. Tesla may fair better but let's just hope it can keep beating macro like today.

Gap close at 749, strong resistance at 755, need to break to get to 800. On the downside 714 is support and 692 is the support that will reverse tsla's bull trend to a bear trend. Expect more red in the macro environment ahead as vix closed above 23 two days a row while all indexes are closing below 50 Ema 3 days in a row. Just gonna be a sh%# show the next couple of weeks.
 

Tronguy

Member
May 4, 2019
62
433
New Jersey
Wow. That’s big bucks. So I’m guessing they won’t be building their own chips at all then.

in other news. We contributed to the cause again. Ordered our model y last night. Woohoo.
Actually, with respect to chips...
There's two divisible parts of building an IC (saying this as a person who had actually done this.. with a cast of many).
  1. Designing the device. This is typically in Verilog or VHDL or some similar, more complex tool set, where one (actually, a bunch of people) are architecting, documenting, and laying out the device. It's a bit like writing software.
    • When I write software, being a EE, I tend to be very aware of the fact that each line of code, after compilation, becomes assembly code with JMP, LOADREG, indirect (machine) addressing, and all that jazz. Want a SWITCH statement? The compiler generates different code for one of them as compared to playing multiple IF/THEN/ELSE blocks.
    • When I'm writing VHDL - every line of VHDL translates into honest-to-golly NAND, NOR, AND, OR, D-Flip Flops, and so on. In addition, specialized VHDL/Verilog code can pull up different kinds of RAM blocks and all that; and, yes, one thinks hard about where all this hardware is going on the die that one is going to build. At the end of all this, the compilation process results in gates and such with signals, propagation delays, I/O buffers, and lots of floor planning.
  2. The Foundry. The Foundry supplies libraries and tools to the people doing #1; what they get back from the designers is stuff that's extremely close to actual layout, but not quite. The Foundry people then take the design data and generate actual mask sets that are used for photolithography; and these, then, are actually made into actual silicon (or GaAs, etc.)
The serious, billions of dollars of construction, care and feeding, and making it all work: That's in #2. #1 is coding, tools sets, simulation (the actual device files bounce back and forth between the chip designers in #1 and the foundry types in #2, refining the design, doing simulations, Simulations, SIMULATIONS until everybody on both sides of the fence are ready to die. Mind you, a good deal of the expenses in #2 are, when going to a particular sub-nanometer technology, is building test chips with all sorts of gates, memories, I/O buffers, and what-all which then get characterized. The characterization gets stuffed into the libraries that get handed to #1, designed to work with the design tools (Synopsys, Mentor Graphics, tons of others), and then the #1 types do the design.

Tesla designed the neural network chips for the computer in the car; but they didn't run the foundry. The foundry, an outside company, built the actual devices, and both crowds validated working silicon.

Costs for the #1 crowd is expensive in people, software seats, and specialized simulation and design support hardware; but it's not billions of dollars.

And, if you're wondering, the fact that Intel still does both #'s 1 and 2 is a continuing source of amazement to the industry at large.

Thing is.. Once one has a working silicon design, the cost per chunk of silicon is very, very small. So doing #1, despite the expense, only makes sense if one is going to buy zillions of a device. If you're only going to do 1000 of a chip, you buy somebody else's FPGA with the right feature set and pay $50-$1000 per chip. If you're going to buy 10 million, then it's cheaper by far to pay the NRE (Non-Recoverable Expense) to the Foundry people for the first hundred devices and pay your design team to work their butts off for a year or more.

So, consider Bosch. They do engine controllers. And the devices they design (assuming that they don't just buy a general purpose controller from somebody else) they sell to everybody who'll buy the box with the chip in it. They can sell a million each to three or four different car companies and make money; if the car company tries to roll their own, they won't beat Bosch on price since they'll have the fixed costs to get the design done, but won't have the volume to make it better. Hence, while I could be wrong on this, I betcha none of the big car companies do any of their own silicon designs (#1), because they can get the same, changing slowly over time, designs built by a specialized design house (a la Bosch) who can sell to all the big design houses.

Which is fine, reduces the cost of manufacture - but, when something Really Different shows up, like the neural chips Tesla is building, this whole incestuous relationship between the car companies and their suppliers falls apart:
  1. The car companies don't even have #1 design teams. They have system integrators that mess around with catalogs of what the likes of Bosch & its competitors are building, Even if they wanted to do the whole-car-make-it-go-on-a-test-track, they would have to work with a selected supplier to get the silicon built, knowing all the while that any technology so built would also be going straight to the car company's direct competitors. Ouch.
  2. The companies like Bosch who actually have #1 design teams would have to spend serious money with no guarantee they're getting it back, and they don't have, really, the knowledge that the car companies do. What do they do - partner with one car company? They could get stuck into a contract where any new stuff is only shared with that car company, and no other. That wrecks their whole business model of selling to everybody.
  3. Eventually, the two points immediately above will get sorted - but this is one place where Tesla's vertical integration must be driving their competitors absolutely nuts.
  4. Let's get this straight: Nvidia, a graphics card company for crying out loud, is a direct competitor to Tesla in the neural, self-driving computer space. Why? Because they make really, really, fast CPUs and parallel processors for (wait for it) better game playing on PCs. This is not stuff optimized for driving a real car around: It's stuff that's just close enough so that people without a #1 design team and the design rules to back it up can get something, anything out the door so they don't end up in the trash heap of failed businesses. I got no doubt that an Nvidea-based driving computer can do some self-driving; but is it going to be as good, or as cheap, as purpose-built silicon designed from scratch for the purpose?
This is what it looks like when your competitor is literally a few years ahead of you and you don't have the human and technological resources to compete. Because, when you did have them, you looked around, figured that nobody else needed to spend any money on New Stuff anyway, and fired them all, instead of competing because ten years down the road the barriers to entry were going to be low enough that a real competitor would show up and wipe you away.
You might have a chance if, when that competitor got started, you got started, too - but, from all accounts, the Big Iron Auto Companies spent most of their time saying, "Tesla will never succeed!" and staring at their navels.

And that's just the hardware. Don't get me started on the software.
 

heltok

Active Member
Aug 12, 2014
1,316
11,841
Sweden
Probably Toyota or VW.

Solid state batteries are like the holy grail of batteries: cheap, high range, high charge rate, and high energy output. However, they are a tough problem to also solve. Typically liquid electrolytes acts as a conductor for energy transfer and they are easier to mass produce, scale and cool in a traditional form factor. They can be easily scaled. Since this is solid state, it relies on an anodeless design. The material that acts as a dendrite barrier is also a mystery as it must also allow for energy transfer while preventing a short circuit. It is also drastically different than conventional batteries since each cell is like a playing card. So far stacking these haven't really been tested. I really hope they do indeed have the formula and this isn't another Theranos.

Time will tell.
9:30 and forward

Imo people need to stop hyping Solid State. It will not be the killer technology that saves Toyota or VW from Tesla. It will prevent the pain GM is going through that Tesla has solved, it might lower costs slightly by the end of the century and it might improve range a little. But 4680 accomplishes a lot of these goals also. And in the end it will be costs and scale that matter and there 4680 LFP will be king for the next few years. Maybe later solid state will improve things a little bit more, but by then Tesla might sell more cars than Toyota and have their own tech that is even better.
 

Krugerrand

Enough of the 🐩, back to 🐈‍⬛
Jul 13, 2012
11,591
66,070
Tesla friendly place
Nasty. So prediction from last week is coming true. Macro in total correction territory. Spy has about another 6.5% downside. Tesla may fair better but let's just hope it can keep beating macro like today.

Gap close at 749, strong resistance at 755, need to break to get to 800. On the downside 714 is support and 692 is the support that will reverse tsla's bull trend to a bear trend. Expect more red in the macro environment ahead as vix closed above 23 two days a row while all indexes are closing below 50 Ema 3 days in a row. Just gonna be a sh%# show the next couple of weeks.
Didn’t you say, though, that there would be a rotation of funds into high tech???
 

RobDickinson

Active Member
Jun 23, 2019
1,537
4,730
New Zealand
Actually, with respect to chips...
There's two divisible parts of building an IC (saying this as a person who had actually done this.. with a cast of many).
  1. Designing the device. This is typically in Verilog or VHDL or some similar, more complex tool set, where one (actually, a bunch of people) are architecting, documenting, and laying out the device. It's a bit like writing software.
    • When I write software, being a EE, I tend to be very aware of the fact that each line of code, after compilation, becomes assembly code with JMP, LOADREG, indirect (machine) addressing, and all that jazz. Want a SWITCH statement? The compiler generates different code for one of them as compared to playing multiple IF/THEN/ELSE blocks.
    • When I'm writing VHDL - every line of VHDL translates into honest-to-golly NAND, NOR, AND, OR, D-Flip Flops, and so on. In addition, specialized VHDL/Verilog code can pull up different kinds of RAM blocks and all that; and, yes, one thinks hard about where all this hardware is going on the die that one is going to build. At the end of all this, the compilation process results in gates and such with signals, propagation delays, I/O buffers, and lots of floor planning.
  2. The Foundry. The Foundry supplies libraries and tools to the people doing #1; what they get back from the designers is stuff that's extremely close to actual layout, but not quite. The Foundry people then take the design data and generate actual mask sets that are used for photolithography; and these, then, are actually made into actual silicon (or GaAs, etc.)
The serious, billions of dollars of construction, care and feeding, and making it all work: That's in #2. #1 is coding, tools sets, simulation (the actual device files bounce back and forth between the chip designers in #1 and the foundry types in #2, refining the design, doing simulations, Simulations, SIMULATIONS until everybody on both sides of the fence are ready to die. Mind you, a good deal of the expenses in #2 are, when going to a particular sub-nanometer technology, is building test chips with all sorts of gates, memories, I/O buffers, and what-all which then get characterized. The characterization gets stuffed into the libraries that get handed to #1, designed to work with the design tools (Synopsys, Mentor Graphics, tons of others), and then the #1 types do the design.

Tesla designed the neural network chips for the computer in the car; but they didn't run the foundry. The foundry, an outside company, built the actual devices, and both crowds validated working silicon.

Costs for the #1 crowd is expensive in people, software seats, and specialized simulation and design support hardware; but it's not billions of dollars.

And, if you're wondering, the fact that Intel still does both #'s 1 and 2 is a continuing source of amazement to the industry at large.

Thing is.. Once one has a working silicon design, the cost per chunk of silicon is very, very small. So doing #1, despite the expense, only makes sense if one is going to buy zillions of a device. If you're only going to do 1000 of a chip, you buy somebody else's FPGA with the right feature set and pay $50-$1000 per chip. If you're going to buy 10 million, then it's cheaper by far to pay the NRE (Non-Recoverable Expense) to the Foundry people for the first hundred devices and pay your design team to work their butts off for a year or more.

So, consider Bosch. They do engine controllers. And the devices they design (assuming that they don't just buy a general purpose controller from somebody else) they sell to everybody who'll buy the box with the chip in it. They can sell a million each to three or four different car companies and make money; if the car company tries to roll their own, they won't beat Bosch on price since they'll have the fixed costs to get the design done, but won't have the volume to make it better. Hence, while I could be wrong on this, I betcha none of the big car companies do any of their own silicon designs (#1), because they can get the same, changing slowly over time, designs built by a specialized design house (a la Bosch) who can sell to all the big design houses.

Which is fine, reduces the cost of manufacture - but, when something Really Different shows up, like the neural chips Tesla is building, this whole incestuous relationship between the car companies and their suppliers falls apart:
  1. The car companies don't even have #1 design teams. They have system integrators that mess around with catalogs of what the likes of Bosch & its competitors are building, Even if they wanted to do the whole-car-make-it-go-on-a-test-track, they would have to work with a selected supplier to get the silicon built, knowing all the while that any technology so built would also be going straight to the car company's direct competitors. Ouch.
  2. The companies like Bosch who actually have #1 design teams would have to spend serious money with no guarantee they're getting it back, and they don't have, really, the knowledge that the car companies do. What do they do - partner with one car company? They could get stuck into a contract where any new stuff is only shared with that car company, and no other. That wrecks their whole business model of selling to everybody.
  3. Eventually, the two points immediately above will get sorted - but this is one place where Tesla's vertical integration must be driving their competitors absolutely nuts.
  4. Let's get this straight: Nvidia, a graphics card company for crying out loud, is a direct competitor to Tesla in the neural, self-driving computer space. Why? Because they make really, really, fast CPUs and parallel processors for (wait for it) better game playing on PCs. This is not stuff optimized for driving a real car around: It's stuff that's just close enough so that people without a #1 design team and the design rules to back it up can get something, anything out the door so they don't end up in the trash heap of failed businesses. I got no doubt that an Nvidea-based driving computer can do some self-driving; but is it going to be as good, or as cheap, as purpose-built silicon designed from scratch for the purpose?
This is what it looks like when your competitor is literally a few years ahead of you and you don't have the human and technological resources to compete. Because, when you did have them, you looked around, figured that nobody else needed to spend any money on New Stuff anyway, and fired them all, instead of competing because ten years down the road the barriers to entry were going to be low enough that a real competitor would show up and wipe you away.
You might have a chance if, when that competitor got started, you got started, too - but, from all accounts, the Big Iron Auto Companies spent most of their time saying, "Tesla will never succeed!" and staring at their navels.

And that's just the hardware. Don't get me started on the software.

Another part of this, highlighted by Intel this week is that companies like Bosch are using old designs on old production nodes. They do this to save money because they dont want to redo their stuff for newer nodes/production lines. This would cost them a fair bit.

But only a fraction of what it would cost intel to add new capacity for their old designs. something Intel etc just wont do.

So you are in a situation where there is limited production capacity, increasing demand, and the companies that would benefit most from the shift dont own the technology or have the capability to do anything but wait and hope for parts.


Remember Ford is talking about a mach-e needing 10 times the number of chips than a fossil car (3000 vs 300), but they have no way of integrating functionality or breaking out of the supplier fed structure they have now.
 

Singuy

Active Member
Jun 28, 2018
4,623
37,102
US
Didn’t you say, though, that there would be a rotation of funds into high tech???
I said high growth. We see many high growth stocks doing WAY better than expected but a correction is strong. Tsla is beating macro. AMD, ARK, and Fiverr are some of mine beating macro. Lets just see how well they all hold on as the market rolls over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tronguy and M|S|W

Paul_SF

Member
Feb 12, 2020
580
6,701
US
Actually, with respect to chips...
There's two divisible parts of building an IC (saying this as a person who had actually done this.. with a cast of many).
  1. Designing the device. This is typically in Verilog or VHDL or some similar, more complex tool set, where one (actually, a bunch of people) are architecting, documenting, and laying out the device. It's a bit like writing software.
    • When I write software, being a EE, I tend to be very aware of the fact that each line of code, after compilation, becomes assembly code with JMP, LOADREG, indirect (machine) addressing, and all that jazz. Want a SWITCH statement? The compiler generates different code for one of them as compared to playing multiple IF/THEN/ELSE blocks.
    • When I'm writing VHDL - every line of VHDL translates into honest-to-golly NAND, NOR, AND, OR, D-Flip Flops, and so on. In addition, specialized VHDL/Verilog code can pull up different kinds of RAM blocks and all that; and, yes, one thinks hard about where all this hardware is going on the die that one is going to build. At the end of all this, the compilation process results in gates and such with signals, propagation delays, I/O buffers, and lots of floor planning.
  2. The Foundry. The Foundry supplies libraries and tools to the people doing #1; what they get back from the designers is stuff that's extremely close to actual layout, but not quite. The Foundry people then take the design data and generate actual mask sets that are used for photolithography; and these, then, are actually made into actual silicon (or GaAs, etc.)
The serious, billions of dollars of construction, care and feeding, and making it all work: That's in #2. #1 is coding, tools sets, simulation (the actual device files bounce back and forth between the chip designers in #1 and the foundry types in #2, refining the design, doing simulations, Simulations, SIMULATIONS until everybody on both sides of the fence are ready to die. Mind you, a good deal of the expenses in #2 are, when going to a particular sub-nanometer technology, is building test chips with all sorts of gates, memories, I/O buffers, and what-all which then get characterized. The characterization gets stuffed into the libraries that get handed to #1, designed to work with the design tools (Synopsys, Mentor Graphics, tons of others), and then the #1 types do the design.

Tesla designed the neural network chips for the computer in the car; but they didn't run the foundry. The foundry, an outside company, built the actual devices, and both crowds validated working silicon.

Costs for the #1 crowd is expensive in people, software seats, and specialized simulation and design support hardware; but it's not billions of dollars.

And, if you're wondering, the fact that Intel still does both #'s 1 and 2 is a continuing source of amazement to the industry at large.

Thing is.. Once one has a working silicon design, the cost per chunk of silicon is very, very small. So doing #1, despite the expense, only makes sense if one is going to buy zillions of a device. If you're only going to do 1000 of a chip, you buy somebody else's FPGA with the right feature set and pay $50-$1000 per chip. If you're going to buy 10 million, then it's cheaper by far to pay the NRE (Non-Recoverable Expense) to the Foundry people for the first hundred devices and pay your design team to work their butts off for a year or more.

So, consider Bosch. They do engine controllers. And the devices they design (assuming that they don't just buy a general purpose controller from somebody else) they sell to everybody who'll buy the box with the chip in it. They can sell a million each to three or four different car companies and make money; if the car company tries to roll their own, they won't beat Bosch on price since they'll have the fixed costs to get the design done, but won't have the volume to make it better. Hence, while I could be wrong on this, I betcha none of the big car companies do any of their own silicon designs (#1), because they can get the same, changing slowly over time, designs built by a specialized design house (a la Bosch) who can sell to all the big design houses.

Which is fine, reduces the cost of manufacture - but, when something Really Different shows up, like the neural chips Tesla is building, this whole incestuous relationship between the car companies and their suppliers falls apart:
  1. The car companies don't even have #1 design teams. They have system integrators that mess around with catalogs of what the likes of Bosch & its competitors are building, Even if they wanted to do the whole-car-make-it-go-on-a-test-track, they would have to work with a selected supplier to get the silicon built, knowing all the while that any technology so built would also be going straight to the car company's direct competitors. Ouch.
  2. The companies like Bosch who actually have #1 design teams would have to spend serious money with no guarantee they're getting it back, and they don't have, really, the knowledge that the car companies do. What do they do - partner with one car company? They could get stuck into a contract where any new stuff is only shared with that car company, and no other. That wrecks their whole business model of selling to everybody.
  3. Eventually, the two points immediately above will get sorted - but this is one place where Tesla's vertical integration must be driving their competitors absolutely nuts.
  4. Let's get this straight: Nvidia, a graphics card company for crying out loud, is a direct competitor to Tesla in the neural, self-driving computer space. Why? Because they make really, really, fast CPUs and parallel processors for (wait for it) better game playing on PCs. This is not stuff optimized for driving a real car around: It's stuff that's just close enough so that people without a #1 design team and the design rules to back it up can get something, anything out the door so they don't end up in the trash heap of failed businesses. I got no doubt that an Nvidea-based driving computer can do some self-driving; but is it going to be as good, or as cheap, as purpose-built silicon designed from scratch for the purpose?
This is what it looks like when your competitor is literally a few years ahead of you and you don't have the human and technological resources to compete. Because, when you did have them, you looked around, figured that nobody else needed to spend any money on New Stuff anyway, and fired them all, instead of competing because ten years down the road the barriers to entry were going to be low enough that a real competitor would show up and wipe you away.
You might have a chance if, when that competitor got started, you got started, too - but, from all accounts, the Big Iron Auto Companies spent most of their time saying, "Tesla will never succeed!" and staring at their navels.

And that's just the hardware. Don't get me started on the software.

Thank you for this! And please, do start on the software! 😁
 

heltok

Active Member
Aug 12, 2014
1,316
11,841
Sweden
Karpathy retweeted this one:

Seems like a breakthrough in training transformers, for language models and for image recognition(that Tesla are using), that in itself might be 4x faster to train to the same level of performance. There might be other work that brings part of this benefit that Tesla are already doing, but it seems likely that Tesla can use this to train their neural networks faster. Code is opensource and out on github. Here is the paper:
 

Singuy

Active Member
Jun 28, 2018
4,623
37,102
US
Karpathy retweeted this one:

Seems like a breakthrough in training transformers, for language models and for image recognition(that Tesla are using), that in itself might be 4x faster to train to the same level of performance. There might be other work that brings part of this benefit that Tesla are already doing, but it seems likely that Tesla can use this to train their neural networks faster. Code is opensource and out on github. Here is the paper:
My speculation is that Karpathy's team either knew about this prior or also contributed to the use of "Primer" from this paper. Karpathy and team talked about them working on optimizing/reduce resource usage with current hardware during AI day.
 

heltok

Active Member
Aug 12, 2014
1,316
11,841
Sweden
|
Yeah I looked through that paper, it has many words and pictures, I knew some of the words too.
Haha, true. I understood like 90% of it. Anyway I think it can be summarized in the graph to the right here. The old transformer for 72k hours got beaten by the new Primer transformer after ”only” 24k hours of training. And if you let the new one run for 72k hours performance improved.
1632282419903.png


There is a small cost to intialize the system but if you train the same system over and over you don’t need to redo this step. So for Tesla who are retraining the same network often this is less of a problem…
 

Blue horseshoe

Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Aug 15, 2020
175
2,848
Los Angeles
Haha, true. I understood like 90% of it. Anyway I think it can be summarized in the graph to the right here. The old transformer for 72k hours got beaten by the new Primer transformer after ”only” 24k hours of training. And if you let the new one run for 72k hours performance improved.
View attachment 712613

There is a small cost to intialize the system but if you train the same system over and over you don’t need to redo this step. So for Tesla who are retraining the same network often this is less of a problem…
This must be what it's like for Ford execs trying to figure out how Tesla does so well 😂
 

NZ10K

Member
Jun 21, 2017
33
73
CA
Haha, true. I understood like 90% of it. Anyway I think it can be summarized in the graph to the right here. The old transformer for 72k hours got beaten by the new Primer transformer after ”only” 24k hours of training. And if you let the new one run for 72k hours performance improved.
View attachment 712613

There is a small cost to intialize the system but if you train the same system over and over you don’t need to redo this step. So for Tesla who are retraining the same network often this is less of a problem…

Are you sure what you were the paper is talking about? 72k hours is close to 8 years.
 

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top