dhrivnak
Active Member
I agree, I was amazed to find my tiny Chevy Volt had a much more usable rear hatch. I couild fit more in the Volt than I can in the Model 3.
-
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
For what it's worth, the record at the end of January and final record for last 3 years
2021 : 12-7, 136-116
2022 : 9-11, 122-128
2023 : 13-7, ????
Hopefully this old adage is correct .... "As goes January, so goes the year”
For those expecting Tesla to get a heap of Federal NEVI funding for expanding the Supercharger network, I think that is even more unlikely now that they have walked away from $1.6M of funding from California for 4 large Supercharger sites they are building:
I suspect that means that they won't be putting CCS connectors in as originally planned. Maybe the Magicdock isn't ready yet, or maybe the requirements for the funding were too demanding. (Like I think the NEVI requirements will be.)
Edit: It looks like a couple of the requirements that Tesla probably didn't like are:
I suspect that means that they won't be putting CCS connectors in as originally planned. Maybe the Magicdock isn't ready yet, or maybe the requirements for the funding were too demanding. (Like I think the NEVI requirements will be.)
Edit: It looks like a couple of the requirements that Tesla probably didn't like are:
- Onsite, non-app, payment methods.
- It has to be setup to allow members of other charging networks to use the chargers using an open protocol. (i.e. you could pay via your ChargePoint or Electrify America account instead of using the Tesla app.)
- You have to have a toll-free support phone number that is staffed 24x7 posted on the site.
- You have to have a support email address posted on the site.
Last edited:
CA demanded 50% of all connectors be CCS. Big requirement for just $6M in funding. If Tesla can convince another major EV maker to use the Tesla plug, this might start a preference cascade. I suspect this is where Tesla is going with this. I hope we will get some clarity on this March 1st.
Seeing how much of a train wreck EA is, I wonder if some of it is the fact that it's not worth $6m to deal with those clowns.
Ogre's super cynical take:
Six months ago it looked like EA and some of the other CCS charging networks are getting their stuff together and so the Tesla Supercharger advantage was going away. By opening things up they could scoop up those customers from the nascent competitors. Now, after seeing how terrible the EA expansion went, with bricked trucks, frozen chargers, and exceedingly bad reliability.... maybe Tesla figures they can just retain their competitive advantage for their vehicles for a bit longer.
Slightly less cynical, maybe Tesla figures this is the opportunity to push harder on the NACS effort to get some other companies onboard. I could genuinely see Ford throwing in the towel here and switching to NACS. If they did, I think the rest of the industry would eventually as well.
That’s a big enough reason to say nope. Outdoor CC readers are super unreliable. Just not worth the hassle.
FSD took me to Lathrop today, so I thought I would take some pictures. Lots of activity, but I didn’t see any actual mega packs because the fence was masked and most activity was in the building or the tent. I estimated about 300 employee cars in the parking lot. Security was tight.
KBF
Model X owner (formerly Cdn Signature Model S)
I just read an article about how a Canadian lab recently discovered that batteries self-discharge due to the PET tape most manufacturers use inside batteries.
Does Tesla use PET, or are they already using more stable chemistries? I imagine it would be an advantage to make that fix more quickly than others...
In the article they mention they have spoken to EV makers, but not which ones.
Does Tesla use PET, or are they already using more stable chemistries? I imagine it would be an advantage to make that fix more quickly than others...
In the article they mention they have spoken to EV makers, but not which ones.
Tesla is very much in contact with Dalhousie, the academic lab that published this finding. I am quite sure they and their suppliers know about it.
No, that was the full, installed price by their authorized dealer in West Palm Beach. BUT, it was 2 years ago. Actually, the quote was from 3 years ago, and it took 13 months for them to be able to get the Powerwalls and install them almost exactly 2 years ago.It's hard to imagine they have gone up that much in price, and I can only hope that the same drop in commodities cost that allowed Tesla to drop car prices will allow Tesla to lower the PW price too. I hated waiting 13 months, but it actually worked out great because I ended up with the newer PLUS units that had more surge capacity.
Or maybe Tesla thinks that they can build a "open" network without all those requirements and it wasn't worth $6m. But best if Ford and others went to NACS in the US
Yep. That is a nasty list of requirements. Would have required some kind of POS system at each site (maybe 1 for the whole place?) and some kind of agreement and interface with EA and EV Go.
The sole requirement for these charging stations should be **Supports Plug & Charge** and CCS.
Notice the one thing which isn't required to cash this $6m check?
Reliability.
I wonder if Tesla thought that they could qualify with 50% of the stalls having CCS connectors, but it was clarified that they would have to have 100% of the stalls with CCS if they went with a dual cable, or MagicDock, solution.
Carl Raymond
Active Member
A random thought. I’ve been pondering what major efficiencies remain to be found. Folks who did Airfix kits as kids will be way ahead of me.
A single piece front and rear casting will have a big empty middle for the structural battery pack opening. What if all the remaining 3D parts needed for one car could be integrated into the mould in that space? Exactly like an Airfix piece fresh from the box, only without the outer frame.
Pop out the pieces, press or twist lock them together. Half way done?
A single piece front and rear casting will have a big empty middle for the structural battery pack opening. What if all the remaining 3D parts needed for one car could be integrated into the mould in that space? Exactly like an Airfix piece fresh from the box, only without the outer frame.
Pop out the pieces, press or twist lock them together. Half way done?
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
B.A.F.
He was misquoted by CNBS. Here's a more accurate version.
Jim Chanos warned, "Tesla has an enormous valuation gap.
Other carmakers will close (permanently) once the market realizes it isn't just another car stock."
Other carmakers will close (permanently) once the market realizes it isn't just another car stock."
Last edited:
I don't know how the economics of a single large casting stacks up against 2 smaller castings.
This would help, but my guess is that 2 smaller castings works out cheaper.
With the advent of so many battery factories, we're likely to get so many compliance EV's flooding the world market over the coming years. Tesla's cars aren't going to be worth what they're worth now in market cap (i.e. deliveries). You can see it happening via the price cuts.
The prediction from Elon that the value of Tesla is directly on FSD is becoming more and more reality. Glad they're always ahead of the curve and have had such a huge jumpstart in the transition.
The prediction from Elon that the value of Tesla is directly on FSD is becoming more and more reality. Glad they're always ahead of the curve and have had such a huge jumpstart in the transition.
Carl Raymond
Active Member
The press delivers one casting per 45 seconds, afaik. Single cast and you double the press output. Add parts to the casting and it’s almost like getting those parts for the material cost. If they can be mated immediately to the body you’ve eliminated a stock item. A part minus the normal headaches of a part.
You might be right, I was under the impression the smaller machines were faster.
You can get a lot of numbers from the IDRA website:- Catalogues and Datasheet | Media | Idra Group
Nothing conclusive, but it seems like all machines might have around the same cycle time...
Looking at Dimensions:-
Machine dimensions (LxWxH) m (5500)19,8x7,37x6,0, (6100) 19,8x7,37x6,0, (8000) 26x8,4x7,7, (9000)26x8,4x7,7.
It is interesting that the 5500 and 6100 are the same size and the 8000 and 9000 are the same size, the main difference is clamping force.
Previously I assumed a 9000 might cost more than 2 x 5500s, looking at the weights and dimensions, I now doubt that.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
