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

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
also there will be an enormous temperature delta between coldest and hottest spot on the pack, meaning uneven aging inside the pack which will show up after a few years on the road
This was THE problem with the early Nissan Leaf packs. Uneven heating, leading to uneven degradation and as a result the battery pack overall was only as good as the most degraded module
 
Ford CEO Jim Farley weighs in on the electric vs. gas vehicle debate


Ford definitely hedging their EV transition. 6 minute video. He said they plan to be 50/50 Ev and Ice by 2030. Also that larger vehicles will take much longer to transition. Also they will be break even with EV's by end of next year, lol.
It is quite apparent after watching this that legacy OEM'S are already backtracking on their pie in the sky forecasts over the last few years. "Gas is here to stay baby" is what they are saying when the cameras are off.....Shame Shame.

Found
On
Road
Dead
 
This was THE problem with the early Nissan Leaf packs. Uneven heating, leading to uneven degradation and as a result the battery pack overall was only as good as the most degraded module

And it still the case with newer EVs, I’ve seen over 15° C on E-GMP vehicles

Meanwhile newest Model S/X most of the times keep it lower than 3°C

Tesla really did a awesome move using a cross flow cooling ribbon, meaning fluid goes in through one half and back through the other, this makes you have practically the same cooling potential on every single cell in a given row

And split the flow the right way and pump it fast enough, and you have that tiny delta across the whole pack

Makes it last longer, be able to keep at higher power deeper into a charge session and allows spirited driving for longer

But hey, competent engineering is too much to ask seems like
 
Last edited:
Or not realizing it's in Drive still. Tricky stuff, and main reason IMO they made the car image spin into drive vs park for visual cue at least. In the beginning, they only highlighted the letter D, and even that was tiny. Hopefully this is filtered with FSD so I don't plow my house someday. So no cliffs, walls etc...
They've also since added an audible "ding" when shifting into D or R or P. Folks with bFSD aren't on this build yet though. I actually appreciate the audible on my non-bFSD MY...
 
Lars is wowed by the magic show when visiting his Tesla service center...


This is the sort of presentation that would make a great ad extolling the virtues of the Tesla ownership experience.
Shareholders really ought to listen to this. This is an ecosystem that continues to amaze. Very well done Tesla!
 
Have you ever verified your shareholder status? Tesla SSO - Sign In

What does yours say? I submitted a brokerage screenshot instead of using say.com and I've always wondered if it was accepted. Mine says:

Shareholder Status

Your verification submission has been received.
As a verified Tesla shareholder, you're able to:
  • Participate in shareholder events
  • Vote and submit questions during earnings calls
  • More to be announced
 
Ford CEO Jim Farley weighs in on the electric vs. gas vehicle debate


Ford definitely hedging their EV transition. 6 minute video. He said they plan to be 50/50 Ev and Ice by 2030. Also that larger vehicles will take much longer to transition. Also they will be break even with EV's by end of next year, lol.
It is quite apparent after watching this that legacy OEM'S are already backtracking on their pie in the sky forecasts over the last few years. "Gas is here to stay baby" is what they are saying when the cameras are off.....Shame Shame.

Found
On
Road
Dead
If there's a time when max pain happens, that's when legacy auto is at 50/50 EV and ICE. I think every car manufacture believes they are doubling production and sales, in which their EV sales will be an addition to their current ICE sales. Too bad this is not the case since the pool of buyers of metal box transport stays the same. So how will Ford hit profitability even from their ICE manufacturing department when they are producing at half the amount today is a huge mystery.
 
Seems like

If you were following the options this morning, the number of puts at 175 and especially 177.5 grew a lot so there was actual incentive for MM's to keep it above that number. Surprised it closed above 180 but if I remember correctly, what matters is what is closes at after hours so they'll likely easily push it back down to 179.99
Was this you 😂 Screenshot_20230520-015138.png
 
Really good

And for all I've seen, calculated and extrapolated so far on 4680s, their charge curve might be better or on par compared to those ones

Good news all around

I agree. This is true for 4680 Gen I currently produced at Kato Road in a dry/wet process (capacity target 10 GWh/a). The current Model Y AWD uses these Gen I batteries. The Gen II 4680 factories in Austin and later in Nevada will be Gen II in a dry/dry process and the targeted capacity in Austin is 40 GWh. To reach this capacity I expect the catode plant also in Austin is a pre-requisite.

Gen II 4680 is a prerequisite for a meaningful production of the Cybertruck. For Model Y in Austin and in Berlin, 2170 was the fallback option. For the Cybertruck there is no fallback option, the project will just be delayed until everything is ready.

The Battery Day presentation, there stated 5 major goals.
1684558079916.png

Of these goals, Gen I 4680 includes
- “cell design” (the tabless cell enables the increase of the diameter).
- “cell factory”
- “cathode materials” (with nickel so far)
- “cell vehicle integration” (structural pack combined with front and rear casting)

Gen II 4680 includes the “anode materials” according to slides 41 to 45 of the Battery Day presentation.
“Silicon stores 9x more lithium than graphite” but involves the challenge “volume expansion” which Tesla intends to solve by using a design which can cope with this expansion. Benefits of ”anode materials” are a 20 % range increase (page 44) and a 37 % $/kWh reduction.

I honestly have no idea if the silicon - lithium anode will enable a faster charging rate in 4680 Gen II. We will figure out after the frist Cybertrucks are handed out to customers.

Now I would to look further to the consequences to the model Y and the model 3. Troy Teslike explained with this table that the energy density (Wh/kg) of the Model Y AWD (range 279 miles) is 13 % lower than of the Model Y LR with Panasonic 2170 batteries (range 330 miles)

As stated above, (Gen II cells) with silicon/lithium anodes will offer a 20 % range increase: 279 miles + 20 % is 334.8 miles for the Model Y with 4680 Gen II. So with a small software limit, the range is the same as today.

Therefore, Tesla is currently able to use 4680 Gen II batteries as soon as they are ready instead of 4680 Gen I batteries at their Austin plant and rebadge the Model Y AWD as a Model Y LR. Benefit of this strategy is that Tesla will have a lot of real world experience for the Cybertruck battery system, so there is little to worry about in this regard.

When I watched Munro Live’s Teardown of the 4680 Model Y battery pack I saw that there is about 10-15 % unused space left in the pack. By making the modules wider, a model Y extended range configuration with about 370 miles would be quite easy to build with Gen II 4680 batteries. However, I don’t expect this range increase as long as Tesla is 4680 batteries constrained, so until 2025 or 2026.

For the model 3, there will be simply no space left in the battery pack to further increase the range by adding additional cells. I expect the same Gen II battery pack of the model to fit into the model 3. 4680 Gen II offers a 4 % range advantage over Panasonic 2170 batteries. But in the meantime Tesla has switched to 2170 Batteries from LG which offer a slightly lower range (and as a benefit are eligible at least for a partial IRA credit). So when the switch to 4680 Batteries happens in January 2024 at the earliest imho, the range increase will look a bit more substantial than it actually is. So all together, yes I think at some point we will see a model 3 highland with 400 miles range at some time. But Tesla is for now seriously 4680 battery constrained (Model Y Austin, Cybertruck), so I would not be surprised to not see this configuration for another two years. Another issue of this rumored Ludicrous Model Y configuration with more range is that it can only be produced in Fremont which increases shipping costs for Europe and Asia. Also this version will be more expensive than the limit of 55’000 USD of the IRA credit. Another issue is a further cannibalizing of the Model S which is already low in demand. So the Model 3 Ludicrious could be the suscessor of the Model S, but only after the Roadster 2 as a new halo product is out in 2025 as we learned at the annual meeting.

Last, it makes no sense to ship 2170 batteries from Nevada to Austin since this invovles additional logistics cost of about 1 $ per kWh according to my estimation due to the longer trip. Lowering costs is a current top priority at Tesla. So the Model 3 Highland made in Fremont will use 2170 batteries as soon as the IRA credit expires end of December 2023 and therefore not offer a range real increase compared to the old model 3 LR with 2170 Panasonic batteries. I expect the price to go up a bit again due to the higher range. Of course also a configuration with a lower range will be available. I expect the Model 3 highland will be first handed out to customers in February and March 2024. This makes also sense since this is the quarter with the lowest demand, therefore a demand boost due to a model 3 relaunch is welcome from a business point of view.

In summary it appears that Tesla has a sophisticated plan and is constantly adapting the plan as soon as issues and opportunities arise.
 

Attachments

  • 1684559987767.png
    1684559987767.png
    35.3 KB · Views: 72
Now I watched, and as expected, Ultium is nothing, actually it's worse than nothing

This is one of the worst battery pack designs I've seen so far, and they are putting similar ones on every new product, there is no way in hell they can scale production with those designs, much less making a profit

It's to the point that the only explanation is that they took their best engineers, and told them to put their abilities and uttermost care to make the worst design possible as a way to hamper production and continue building ICE, because it's too many bad decisions at the same product to be made by incompetence alone

What boils my blood is the thermal design (pun intended), a engineer has to be pretty stupid to use the smallest contact area possible between a cell and a cooling plate

Now, Ford did exactly that on the Lightning pack, but GM managed to one up them, and took the cooling plate which the cell make contact and oriented such as the bumpy side that are the fluid channels face the cells, so instead of having a thin layer of thermal adhesive, you have a thick bead that insulates the cells from your cooling

The cells basically have no heating or cooling at any meaningful rate, sure it works, but your 10-80% charging session takes 60 minutes, also there will be an enormous temperature delta between coldest and hottest spot on the pack, meaning uneven aging inside the pack which will show up after a few years on the road

But wait, they managed to make it even worse, the thermistors (temperature sensors) are placed on each module in a place where you don't get a good estimation of the hottest temperature or the coldest, and also in a way that it doesn't have proper contact with the hottest or coldest cell

This circle us back to the traction control subject, if you have good engineering and can be on the edge, you can extract the maximum of your product, else you have to be conservative

Let's hope GM is being quite conservative and that the cells aren't cooking themselves and we will have another Bolt incident with the Hummer

But from what we've seen so far with the water intrusion recall, it wouldn't surprise me. Would you guys believe that a battery enclosure made of more than a hundred stamped and welded steel pieces that need to be properly sealed between each would have had problems with being water tight? Shocking

Thank you for your analysis. The battery pack housing is made of steel with thousands of weldings, which is a design suitable for low number of quantities. Also the design didn’t show obvious signs to be optimized for automated production. There are literally two 400 V batteries in the Hummer with 102.5 kWh each with only one charging cable. So charging takes forever 1h 48 h from 40 % to 100 % for additional 184 miles (121 kWh) at a charging station.

So the Hummer was clearly designed as a halo car. The question is what is the next step for GM. An obvious move would to use one Battery with 102.5 kWh and this size will be required considering the poor efficiency. Surely their goal will be to improve this and that, but generally you would re-use big parts of the design of the top product line (Hummer), standing in their shoes.

The Cadillac Lyriq actually has a 102 kWh battery and the charging curve is similar to the charging curve of a Tesla Model Y RWD with 2170 LG Batteries, however with a 60 % bigger battery.

The sweet point is < 80’000 USD to be eligible for the tax credit, otherwise the quantities will be so low that margins will be negative.

So yes, after diving in it seems to be though for GM to be commercially successful with their EV product line (Chevrolet Blazer, Equinox and Silverado EV and Cadillaq Lyriq).
 
I agree. This is true for 4680 Gen I currently produced at Kato Road in a dry/wet process (capacity target 10 GWh/a). The current Model Y AWD uses these Gen I batteries. The Gen II 4680 factories in Austin and later in Nevada will be Gen II in a dry/dry process and the targeted capacity in Austin is 40 GWh. To reach this capacity I expect the catode plant also in Austin is a pre-requisite.

Gen II 4680 is a prerequisite for a meaningful production of the Cybertruck. For Model Y in Austin and in Berlin, 2170 was the fallback option. For the Cybertruck there is no fallback option, the project will just be delayed until everything is ready.

The Battery Day presentation, there stated 5 major goals.
View attachment 939382

Of these goals, Gen I 4680 includes
- “cell design” (the tabless cell enables the increase of the diameter).
- “cell factory”
- “cathode materials” (with nickel so far)
- “cell vehicle integration” (structural pack combined with front and rear casting)

Gen II 4680 includes the “anode materials” according to slides 41 to 45 of the Battery Day presentation.
“Silicon stores 9x more lithium than graphite” but involves the challenge “volume expansion” which Tesla intends to solve by using a design which can cope with this expansion. Benefits of ”anode materials” are a 20 % range increase (page 44) and a 37 % $/kWh reduction.

I honestly have no idea if the silicon - lithium anode will enable a faster charging rate in 4680 Gen II. We will figure out after the frist Cybertrucks are handed out to customers.

Now I would to look further to the consequences to the model Y and the model 3. Troy Teslike explained with this table that the energy density (Wh/kg) of the Model Y AWD (range 279 miles) is 13 % lower than of the Model Y LR with Panasonic 2170 batteries (range 330 miles)

As stated above, (Gen II cells) with silicon/lithium anodes will offer a 20 % range increase: 279 miles + 20 % is 334.8 miles for the Model Y with 4680 Gen II. So with a small software limit, the range is the same as today.

Therefore, Tesla is currently able to use 4680 Gen II batteries as soon as they are ready instead of 4680 Gen I batteries at their Austin plant and rebadge the Model Y AWD as a Model Y LR. Benefit of this strategy is that Tesla will have a lot of real world experience for the Cybertruck battery system, so there is little to worry about in this regard.

When I watched Munro Live’s Teardown of the 4680 Model Y battery pack I saw that there is about 10-15 % unused space left in the pack. By making the modules wider, a model Y extended range configuration with about 370 miles would be quite easy to build with Gen II 4680 batteries. However, I don’t expect this range increase as long as Tesla is 4680 batteries constrained, so until 2025 or 2026.

For the model 3, there will be simply no space left in the battery pack to further increase the range by adding additional cells. I expect the same Gen II battery pack of the model to fit into the model 3. 4680 Gen II offers a 4 % range advantage over Panasonic 2170 batteries. But in the meantime Tesla has switched to 2170 Batteries from LG which offer a slightly lower range (and as a benefit are eligible at least for a partial IRA credit). So when the switch to 4680 Batteries happens in January 2024 at the earliest imho, the range increase will look a bit more substantial than it actually is. So all together, yes I think at some point we will see a model 3 highland with 400 miles range at some time. But Tesla is for now seriously 4680 battery constrained (Model Y Austin, Cybertruck), so I would not be surprised to not see this configuration for another two years. Another issue of this rumored Ludicrous Model Y configuration with more range is that it can only be produced in Fremont which increases shipping costs for Europe and Asia. Also this version will be more expensive than the limit of 55’000 USD of the IRA credit. Another issue is a further cannibalizing of the Model S which is already low in demand. So the Model 3 Ludicrious could be the suscessor of the Model S, but only after the Roadster 2 as a new halo product is out in 2025 as we learned at the annual meeting.

Last, it makes no sense to ship 2170 batteries from Nevada to Austin since this invovles additional logistics cost of about 1 $ per kWh according to my estimation due to the longer trip. Lowering costs is a current top priority at Tesla. So the Model 3 Highland made in Fremont will use 2170 batteries as soon as the IRA credit expires end of December 2023 and therefore not offer a range real increase compared to the old model 3 LR with 2170 Panasonic batteries. I expect the price to go up a bit again due to the higher range. Of course also a configuration with a lower range will be available. I expect the Model 3 highland will be first handed out to customers in February and March 2024. This makes also sense since this is the quarter with the lowest demand, therefore a demand boost due to a model 3 relaunch is welcome from a business point of view.

In summary it appears that Tesla has a sophisticated plan and is constantly adapting the plan as soon as issues and opportunities arise.
Not sure how to nominate this but hopefully someone does. Nice simple overview, realistic. They will be battery constrained for a while yet and this will limit CT production. My cheapo version won’t get built til 2026–7 I guess.
 
If there's a time when max pain happens, that's when legacy auto is at 50/50 EV and ICE. I think every car manufacture believes they are doubling production and sales, in which their EV sales will be an addition to their current ICE sales. Too bad this is not the case since the pool of buyers of metal box transport stays the same. So how will Ford hit profitability even from their ICE manufacturing department when they are producing at half the amount today is a huge mystery.
Ford and other OEMs are in a terrible spot. Of all I think Ford is being the most savvy and EM agreed. Ford will split the company ditching all the liability that holds the stock down. The ev brand wil have new factories and almost no debt. On paper they should be a much healthier company. I will be very curious to see if the ev engineering continues to improve.
 
What does yours say? I submitted a brokerage screenshot instead of using say.com and I've always wondered if it was accepted. Mine says:

Shareholder Status​

Your verification submission has been received.
As a verified Tesla shareholder, you're able to:
  • Participate in shareholder events
  • Vote and submit questions during earnings calls
  • More to be announced
ditto
 
  • Informative
Reactions: MikeC
If Teslabot can replace human labor … let’s use round numbers, a factory worker costs $100K/yr. So the utility of a Teslabot is at least $500K. And Tesla will be able to make it for around $10K. Now that’s some real margins!! And I suspect Tesla will simply rent them out at $10/hr. So immediate huge market. Timeline? Based on what I saw in their latest video, I suspect we’ll see a Teslabot doing useful work inside a Tesla factory within a year.

I’m incredibly bullish on Optimus/Teslabot, but what is the math around current factory workers costing $100k/yr? seems rather high, especially if we are talking about global averages.
 
I’m incredibly bullish on Optimus/Teslabot, but what is the math around current factory workers costing $100k/yr? seems rather high, especially if we are talking about global averages.
With bullish assumption it can bot around the clock, then if we take Mexico average: 4.2 x 8765.25 = 36,814.05. That's just direct pay. Add in any other additional overhead. $100k still seems high, but not ridiculously high.