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.
No chance this will be for car charging. Heavier cars, less efficiency. According to Wiferon's page, 7% additional efficiency loss. Multiply with Tesla's loss that they worked excruciatingly hard to reduce. Would be ludicrous to throw that work out the window by adding wireless charing.

I can see them buying this for onboard phone chargers, for factory equipment and for Optimus. Also, could be a cheaper way to hire all these engineers that Tesla needs anyway, instead of going through the HR process.
 
No chance this will be for car charging. Heavier cars, less efficiency. According to Wiferon's page, 7% additional efficiency loss. Multiply with Tesla's loss that they worked excruciatingly hard to reduce. Would be ludicrous to through that work out the window by adding wireless charing.

I can see them buying this for onboard phone chargers, for factory equipment and for Optimus. Also, could be a cheaper way to hire all these engineers that Tesla needs anyway, instead of going through the HR process.
Required for Robotaxi perhaps? Just a couple per site at first so they can do the SF->NY run. Could even be in parallel, user choice
Induction or Conduction, what's your Construction...
 
Required for Robotaxi perhaps? Just a couple per site at first so they can do the SF->NY run. Could even be in parallel, user choice
Induction or Conduction, what's your Construction...
IMO not for Robotaxi. The added mass and efficiency loss matter because the large size and volume of cars. Tesla filed a patent years ago for Robotaxi charging connecting from beneath straight to the battery pack.

If electricity were free, it would be wireless all the way due to the benefit of no moving parts. Solid state, to use a buzz word ;).
 
No chance this will be for car charging. Heavier cars, less efficiency. According to Wiferon's page, 7% additional efficiency loss. Multiply with Tesla's loss that they worked excruciatingly hard to reduce. Would be ludicrous to throw that work out the window by adding wireless charing.

I can see them buying this for onboard phone chargers, for factory equipment and for Optimus. Also, could be a cheaper way to hire all these engineers that Tesla needs anyway, instead of going through the HR process.
Onboard phone charging is a solved problem with readily available chips from major semiconductor companies.
Besides phone charging is low power. This startup specializes in high power wireless charging.
It is possible to significantly reduce the charging loss by greater integration with the receiving vehicle. The charging plate could extend upwards and reduce the air gap for instance. Tesla excels at that kind of engineering that takes an emerging technology and brings it to its fullest potential.

Wiferion’s page does not say 7% additional loss; it says 93% efficiency. The additional loss is 7% - some assumed loss for a charging cable.
 
Last edited:
It was a Sawyer Merritt video of a brief interview after the meeting. I summarized because I hadn't seen it on the board and I thought that it was important.

There was a copy of the Musk/Modi tweets several posts back. Looked like more than a relationship was formed ... maybe a friendship. I'm a big, big fan of Modi.
My best Technocrat & Entrepreneur meets the best PM. Hope it ends in a fruitful endeavor that benefits humanity and the world. Musk says, "I am a fan of Modi".

Interesting that earlier today Modi participated in a Yoga practice on the Lawns of United Nations.

1687367910261.png
 
Last edited:
Here are my thoughts as a shareholder: Five benefits of spinning off a company in general and Tesla's particular situation in brackets ():
  1. Focus: After a spin-off, both the parent company and the spun-off entity can concentrate more closely on their core operations. This enhanced focus can lead to improved operational efficiency. This applies more to stale companies that have a lot of uncontrollable culture, e.g Ford's Model E division was probably a good move. (Tesla's leadership is still largely in control of the organization so I don't think this applies. They would also lose the benefits of shared resources and synergies that existed when they were a single organization. They might face increased costs in areas like purchasing, operations, administration, loss of economies of scale)
  2. Value realization: Sometimes, a division might be undervalued as part of a larger entity due to being overshadowed by the parent company's primary operations. By spinning it off an increased total market value for the parent and the new entity combined. (Doesn't seem to apply in this case. If the last days' stock run is resulting from the NACS announcements, TSLA has already gained more from the SC network than it would be worth in its own. The spin off process can also lead to immediate costs, such as those related to restructuring, legal work, and potential tax implications.)
  3. Access to capital: You may need capital for one division without wishing to dilute another that you want more control over (I don't think they need more capital for one or the other right now)
  4. Risk isolation: If a particular division has a different risk profile compared to the rest of the company, spinning it off can isolate this risk. (While spinning off can isolate risks, it may also expose the spun-off entity to increased risk if it was previously relying on the parent company for support or protection. Also, the process of separation might bring to light undisclosed liabilities or hidden risks.)
  5. Compliance with Antitrust Laws: If a company has grown so large or dominant in its market that it's coming under scrutiny for potentially anti-competitive behavior, such as gouging non Tesla customers on fees, it might choose to spin off a division as a proactive measure, to avoid punishments and before it is forced to separate anyway. (I would imagine that Tesla wouldn't be allowed to keep their chargers branded in this case. Huge loss. I really hope that the government refrains from antitrust action on this)
On balance, I believe that it would be a huge mistake to spin off the SC network.


link with Tesla's official listed benefits from doing the opposite of a spinoff:
  • "Strategic rationale:
    • The acquisition of SolarCity will create the world’s only integrated sustainable energy company, from energy generation to storage to transportation.
    • Just as Tesla has demonstrated the superiority of electric vehicles, the solar roof and Powerwall 2 will transform energy generation and storage."
I also remember Elon saying something along the lines of how operationally wasteful and bureaucratic it is to buy and sell components such as batteries between the two companies.
Also should have added that IMO, analysts and media have blown these NACS deals out of proportion. Once Robotaxi takes off, it's charging network will dwarf the SuC network and 3rd party NACS.
 
Last edited:
According to Wiferon's page, 7% additional efficiency loss.
Also, who says 7% is the efficiency limit? For example, what if the coil is lifted up against the car - soft touching it. Plus, what's the losses from the existing systems considering the cooling requirements for a charging handle and cable + cable resistance. And further, does this offer any other advantages if we keep doubling the charging speeds? Like the car itself is part of the heat sync or something else new.

It could also be a legal move. Keep the tech away from other companies to maintain the lead... or simply prevent competition from locking up the patents and throwing away the keys. I don't know their IP portfolio, but I'm confident that it's significant enough to want to own the company and get going more quickly.
 
Also, who says 7% is the efficiency limit? For example, what if the coil is lifted up against the car - soft touching it. Plus, what's the losses from the existing systems considering the cooling requirements for a charging handle and cable + cable resistance. And further, does this offer any other advantages if we keep doubling the charging speeds? Like the car itself is part of the heat sync or something else new.

It could also be a legal move. Keep the tech away from other companies to maintain the lead... or simply prevent competition from locking up the patents and throwing away the keys. I don't know their IP portfolio, but I'm confident that it's significant enough to want to own the company and get going more quickly.
I don’t think there are any technical advantages to wireless charging. There are likely some logistical advantages. It reduces the visual impact of blanketing major urban centers with road side chargers for instance. More chargers can be moved out of garages and onto the roadside in Manhattan for example. The chargers would be less susceptible to vandalization in areas where it is a problem
 
Well let's see how much Wall St wants to "correct" the macro's and TSLA before the next CPI print destroys what's left of Powell's integrity and reputation. I think Nasdaq definitely tests 13k, the S&P tests 4200. TSLA I think drops back to 225 before it continues its uptrend.

Wall St/Hedgies have until July 12th to make it happen. Obviously in the case of TSLA, the P/D numbers will have a big say in terms of what happens with the stock during a macro correction.
 
Last edited:
Onboard phone charging is a solved problem with readily available chips from major semiconductor companies.
Besides phone charging is low power. This startup specializes in high power wireless charging.
It is possible to significantly reduce the charging loss by greater integration with the receiving vehicle. The charging plate could extend upwards and reduce the air gap for instance. Tesla excels at that kind of engineering that takes an emerging technology and brings it to its fullest potential.

Wiferion’s page does not say 7% additional loss; it says 93% efficiency. The additional loss is 7% - some assumed loss for a charging cable.
We think alike! It's usually what happens to me when someone tells me something is impossible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Olle
Mr. Chang has more important things to worry about before deciding on the NACS :)


"Yeah but you can't get tools from over the side"
-white collar guy on Twitter who has never worked a day of manual labor
Over played "get tools from over the side", I've worn many different colored collars in my 16 years of toyota Tundra ownership and I can't say I ever unloaded from the side, why would you there's a tailgate?
 
By the time Cybertruck has worked through the current order backlog, Tesla will have sold approximately a million cumulatively and the trucks will have been on the road for years. I expect the gawking and staring due to novelty interest will have worn off by then.

The radical departure from the norm is the biggest wildcard factor in my opinion. It might be positive, negative or neutral and it’s hard to tell the net effect until deliveries start. One thing is for certain however: the Cybertruck’s radical design is the reason why it will crush all competitors on every objective performance comparison that matters, such as range, towing, durability, miles per hour of charging speed, total cost of ownership, etc.

The design also is a reason why Cybertruck is somewhat of a hybrid between a pickup and a large SUV. Most trucks don’t come with this much lockable internal storage volume and this much cabin room. Cybertruck is uniquely positioned to cross-market itself to buyers who otherwise might’ve gone for a Chevy Suburban or a Toyota Highlander.



Yes, and the Cybertruck will do very poorly outside of North America for quite some time…because it’s not even for sale elsewhere anymore. Since May last year, reservations can be placed only on the US, Canada and Mexico versions of Tesla.com. Tesla might still fulfill preexisting orders beyond this continent, but at what level of priority in the queue remains to be seen. Elon even stated in an interview in 2020 that “We’re really, fundamentally making this truck as a North American ass-kicker, basically.”

North America is the primary relevant market for large pickup trucks in general. I’m having trouble finding good data on this that’s not behind a paywall, but from what I can find it seems the USA + Canada buy approximately twice as many new pickup trucks as the rest of the world combined. Mexicans also buy trucks, but not nearly as many new ones. The fact is that North America is uniquely the only area on Earth with all of: large wealthy population, wide roads, cheap energy, and a large percentage of the population living in low density communities, which is the recipe for making pickup trucks culturally common. Also, almost 90% of the North American sales volume is going to 🇺🇸 , not 🇨🇦, due mainly to the vast 9x population size difference. Ford alone sold 1 million trucks wholesale last year just in the USA according to their 2022 10-K (although this is including medium and heavy duty trucks too). The domestic market is by far the most important for Cybertruck, and especially with the Inflation Reduction Act now in effect, there’s a huge financial incentive for selling production from Giga Texas within the US.

A smaller Cybertruck variant is likely coming in the future for the rest of the world, and when I’m talking about potential for 1M per year sold I’m including all sizes of CT that eventually get made, because that’s how other companies group their pickup truck families.

I need the full size CT, because I’m fitting it with the CyberLandr. Hoping to retire in a few short years (let’s go, TSLA!) and see a lot of this country in luxurious detail. Will be named Ark3 (for anyone who remembers the silly 70s Ark2 TV show).
 
Over played "get tools from over the side", I've worn many different colored collars in my 16 years of toyota Tundra ownership and I can't say I ever unloaded from the side, why would you there's a tailgate?
Not to mention for tools, you can use the Frunk which is also secure so don’t have to buy a tool vault for the bed. And then there’s the jacked up pickup problem where to high to reach up anyway.
 
Momentum Dynamics does inductive charging with the same or less loss (grid to battery) than conductive charging, project with some taxis in Oslo. Upto 70kW over an airgap of like 18-20 centimeters (lookup magnetic resonance)

The biggest problem of inductive charging is not (anymore) the efficiency or the costs.

The biggest hurdle is the chicken-and-egg situation: no car makers will build it into the cars if there are no chargers, nobody will put the infrastructure in place if there are no cars.

Now if only there would be a company that makes the cars and also installs charging infrastructure…
 
Last edited: