EVNow
Well-Known Member
Why do people not read the TMC autopilot/ FSD subforum ? There are a very large number of reports of 11.x being a very mixed bag. Come and post there and see the reaction you get from people who use FSD daily.
-
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
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Wow ... The old bury the news politicians use
I'm more interested in seeing what they do in UK and Germany.
It should be noted that the Model Y (SR) USA edition (AWD, 4680 pack) has a fair bit more range than the shanghai produced Model Y SR (RWD, LFP pack).
USA Y SR range is an accurate 279m EPA range, while Shanghai is a 283m WLTP range in global market where WLTP usually overstates real world range by 10-20% (so more equivalent to a 250m+ EPA range). Considering the extra motor, I assume the USA edition has a has a bit larger KW count as the extra motor reduces range.
Compared to the RWD lower range Shanghai produced Model Y SR, the USA AWD Model Y 4680 could almost be called the Model Y “Mid Range”.
At the very least they are not comparable products at all, the USA “non-LR” model Y is definitely a product that sits squarely in the middle between the global Y SR and the Y LR. No surprise it sits much closer in price to the LR Y.
Last edited:
Mongo confused:
Model 3 RWD Federal credit gets halved in 11 days
Oregon credit goes away in 24 days or less (as of April 4, the available funds were less than 2200 cars worth at the standard amount*).
How many new orders can Tesla ship and deliver before those cut offs?
*Oregon Rebate is $2k for standard, $7.5k for low income (400% federal poverty, family size adjusted)
Department of Environmental Quality : How the EV Rebate Program works : Clean Vehicles : State of Oregon
Very true.
But I'm less excited about the car itself and more excited for what it says about 4680.
The 4680 cell is finally here. It is now indesputable that Tesla is confident in their ability to manufacture 4680's at scale.
A new model 3 only costing $25k (after incentives) in Oregon for a limited time is definitely worth tesla investing in at least a small amount of Oregon advertising currently.
Thats basically free money If anyone buying there just wanted to arbitrage.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Can't arbitrage the Oregon $7,500 rebate (lower income tier), $2,000 rebate is not restricted.
It'll be interesting to see if there's any push back on the federal IRA incentives, because I have a feeling the numbers being produced out of the guidance so far will absolutely destroy the original projections in terms of how many vehicles will qualify for the credits and what it will cost
Original analysis from the Congressional Budget Office had an $85million impact from the tax credits in 2023, which observers had calculated to just over 11,000 full $7500 credits or a larger mix of $3750 & $7500. If vehicles like the usual Model Y trims and F150 Lightning qualify for the full credit, on top of a swath of vehicles apparently qualifying for $3750, those numbers are a massively huge underestimation.
Source: Inflation Reduction Act seeks to jumpstart electric vehicle market | DLA Piper
Original analysis from the Congressional Budget Office had an $85million impact from the tax credits in 2023, which observers had calculated to just over 11,000 full $7500 credits or a larger mix of $3750 & $7500. If vehicles like the usual Model Y trims and F150 Lightning qualify for the full credit, on top of a swath of vehicles apparently qualifying for $3750, those numbers are a massively huge underestimation.
Source: Inflation Reduction Act seeks to jumpstart electric vehicle market | DLA Piper
Last edited:
Oregon rebate is a check you get months after purchase. So at the moment, you have to finance the full amount.
If you are low enough income to qualify for the full rebate, you are likely not going to be able to afford to swing the loan. Or even qualify for it.
I wish people like Sawyer would quite shouting this stuff from their megaphones when they clearly don't quite get how the program works.
That always seems to be a good idea, but…captive finance companies in most countries do give an array of subsidized finance (called ‘subvened’). They also tend to have higher creditworthiness than does the parent because:
1) most loans and leases end out oackaged as securitized pools, structured to give high credit ratings through both aging and over-collateralization;
2) Captives tend to have parent company support through high capitalization and a variety of credit and subvention programs for floor planning, fleet, consumer and other techniques.
3) There is not now and inherent advantage to captives since a wide array of financing solutions exist nearly everywhere that can accommodate the same tools.
4) Many people think there is major advantage because financing profits appear to be the largest profit source for several traditional ICE OEM’s. That is true, but reflects financial engineering more than reality because the vehicle arms tend to assume the risks while recording finance profits.
Why? Because they need good captive credit ratings and public market access to keep funding sales.
5) For people who have excellent credit the access to favorable terms is usually widely available. Captives are good for such people primarily when there are subventions not provides for independents.
6) Tesla does do direct leases and does securitizations despite these issues. Why? Because rating agencies penalize Tesla asserting lack of experience.
7) FWIW, similar logic applies to insurance products. There Tesla does have advatages, especially in collision, where they can optimize vehicle design to reduce complexity and time to do repairs. Of course that can be done without underwriting, but time lags, among other things inhibit rapid inventory allocation and other issues when Tesla is the underwriter.
Really, for the Tesla customer base to date there is minimal chance to have better interest rates/money factors than available elsewhere. For leases it is different due to Tesla efficiencies in resale and disposition of lease returns.
Which incidentally leaves a slot in Tesla's lineup for an even lower priced Model Y SR with an LFP pack about $3000 less than the Model Y AWD.
Tesla is likely to increase US Model Y production in the next year or so so, so prices will be lower across the board as well. Solid chance by this time next year base Model Y is under $45,000. Maybe as low as $40k.
Yeah the wildcard in pricing is probably interest rates and whether those stay high or are cut down, with the latter likely providing some room for price increases although not guaranteed
But if interest rates stay high and production output keeps increasing, as it should, that combination feels like almost a guarantee that further decreases are coming
But if interest rates stay high and production output keeps increasing, as it should, that combination feels like almost a guarantee that further decreases are coming
You really need to check James Murdoch before make such a statement.
Clue: check his wife’s record and his contributions.
Tesla directors are crucially relevant to us as investors. Making assumptions without checking for accuracy can result in poor decision making for shareholder votes among other things.
Clue: check political and foundation records for the Clinton Foundation and the Biden 2020 campaign. They are public records, you can Google them, or just Google James Murdoch.
Clue: James is his father’s biological son, not his political acolyte.
You don’t need to hope you’re wrong. you are!
Historically, auto interest rates are at around 4+%. Even though auto loan interest rates are high today, it is 2% above multiple decade's interest rates.
Putting these numbers into a calculator with a borrowing of 50k, the difference in monthly payment is $46/month with a 5 year loan. Is $46 dollars a month enough of a reason for the demand problem to emerge?
Increase production I think has way more of an impact on fulfilling orders than interest rates.
Historical auto loan rates in U.S. 2014-2023 | Statista
A chart depicting the monthly car loan rate in the United States reveals a substantial increase over time since early 2022.
www.statista.com
GhostSkater
Member
Screw it, lets waste a holiday morning on Cybertruck pack size
A few key facts:
- Frontal area of 3 m² on the original prototype, if we assume they reduced it a bit, let's go with 2.9 m²
- Rolling coefficient of 0.01 from this awesome post from Wugz
- Drag coefficient of 0.3
- Motor efficiency of 96%
- 96% gear reduction efficiency for a two stage helical gear set
- Battery and inverter efficiency at lower power are quite close to 100%, 99% for good measure
- 6500 lbs vehicle weight
Total battery to wheels efficiency of 91%
EPA highway test cycle has an average speed of 48 mph, with the data above, this means a 190 kWh pack for 500 miles, if we improve drag coefficient to 0.28, it goes down to 185 kWh
Now, this is just using the average speed of the highway portion, which isn't how the EPA range is calculated, there is multiple tests and involving acceleration and deceleration, but total average speed is much lower, so a pack could be smaller than that and still achieve 500 miles on EPA test cycle
www.fueleconomy.gov
To the part that concerns this thread more, 185 kWh @ $100/kWh means $18500 cost for Tesla to make it's pack, they probably aren't at that cost with 4680s yet, but let's think on the future when it's fully ramped up. Add on top the IRA credit of $45/kWh and it costs Tesla $10k
Best case scenario for customers would be for even the 500 miles one to be priced under $80k, so the pack is 1/8 of the vehicle selling price, for the Model Y that ratio is 1/8.3, assuming half of the IRA credits, other half goes to Panasonic
So cost and relative profit to battery pack size, they are on par with each other
If they price the top trim over $80k, which let's be honest, has a high likelihood of happening, at least for a while, that turns into a even better case for the Cybertruck, specially with all the manufacturing efficiencies and cost reductions all other parts and systems also will have
Now, the right way to do this calculation above would be to get the test data from EPA and simulate the whole test cycle, which would likely result in a even smaller pack, but that demands way more time
A few key facts:
- Frontal area of 3 m² on the original prototype, if we assume they reduced it a bit, let's go with 2.9 m²
- Rolling coefficient of 0.01 from this awesome post from Wugz
- Drag coefficient of 0.3
- Motor efficiency of 96%
- 96% gear reduction efficiency for a two stage helical gear set
- Battery and inverter efficiency at lower power are quite close to 100%, 99% for good measure
- 6500 lbs vehicle weight
Total battery to wheels efficiency of 91%
EPA highway test cycle has an average speed of 48 mph, with the data above, this means a 190 kWh pack for 500 miles, if we improve drag coefficient to 0.28, it goes down to 185 kWh
Now, this is just using the average speed of the highway portion, which isn't how the EPA range is calculated, there is multiple tests and involving acceleration and deceleration, but total average speed is much lower, so a pack could be smaller than that and still achieve 500 miles on EPA test cycle
Detailed Test Information
EPA tests vehicles by running them through a series of driving routines, or schedules, that specify vehicle speed for each point in time during the laboratory tests.
www.fueleconomy.gov
To the part that concerns this thread more, 185 kWh @ $100/kWh means $18500 cost for Tesla to make it's pack, they probably aren't at that cost with 4680s yet, but let's think on the future when it's fully ramped up. Add on top the IRA credit of $45/kWh and it costs Tesla $10k
Best case scenario for customers would be for even the 500 miles one to be priced under $80k, so the pack is 1/8 of the vehicle selling price, for the Model Y that ratio is 1/8.3, assuming half of the IRA credits, other half goes to Panasonic
So cost and relative profit to battery pack size, they are on par with each other
If they price the top trim over $80k, which let's be honest, has a high likelihood of happening, at least for a while, that turns into a even better case for the Cybertruck, specially with all the manufacturing efficiencies and cost reductions all other parts and systems also will have
Now, the right way to do this calculation above would be to get the test data from EPA and simulate the whole test cycle, which would likely result in a even smaller pack, but that demands way more time
Last edited:
At the beginning of this year, US Model Y production was around 400,000. By this time next year it should be closer to 700,000 - 800,000.
I'm pretty sure prices are going to have to come down even more in order to move that many more vehicles. Maybe that means we get an SR model at $45k, or maybe the whole lineup moves down again.
I'm pretty sure prices are going to have to come down even more in order to move that many more vehicles. Maybe that means we get an SR model at $45k, or maybe the whole lineup moves down again.
There’s the direct impact on car loans themselves but higher rates have knock-on effects throughout finances: existing lines of credit are more expensive, homes are more expensive to buy, etcHistorically, auto interest rates are at around 4+%. Even though auto loan interest rates are high today, it is 2% above multiple decade's interest rates.
Putting these numbers into a calculator with a borrowing of 50k, the difference in monthly payment is $46/month with a 5 year loan. Is $46 dollars a month enough of a reason for the demand problem to emerge?
Increase production I think has way more of an impact on fulfilling orders than interest rates.
Historical auto loan rates in U.S. 2014-2023 | Statista
A chart depicting the monthly car loan rate in the United States reveals a substantial increase over time since early 2022.
Ummm, unit issue there?
I wouldn't be surprised to see a SpaceX/Tesla collaboration on shipbuilding. Fact is that Musk will need to sharpen his sword on the naval domain anyway because Starship soon will require the construction of offshore launch platforms. SpaceX already has a few vessels of various types. And Musk has expressed some conviction about the naval domain recently.
The counterpoint is that shipbuilding has a lesser impact on the mission (as described in the MP3) and I wonder whether Musk Inc. can bring enough new to the table to make the effort/reward worthwhile on a comparative basis.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
