I’ll be very interested to see the production numbers for July out of Shanghai. If they skew heavily towards Y with just a small amount of 3’s, they pretty much the final confirmation that Highland 3 is coming in SeptemberSure we do. Wu Wa had to stop his drone overflights because they erected a GPS jammer over the factory airspace.
Further, Jason Yang has posted videos recently of a car with camoflauge covers in the screened-off pen near the Giga Shanghai R&D Centre.
These are as many, or more, of the same sort of clues we have for Project Highland in Fremont.
Cheers!
-
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
UkNorthampton
TSLA - 12+ startups in 1
And no numbers for Turkey (not part of the organisation that reports numbers). Seems to be large demand & only Model Y coming from Germany.
Per Electric Viking M3 Highland "goes on sale for October delivery"
Wish we knew what that really is, looks like and how much it costs.
Wish we knew what that really is, looks like and how much it costs.
Reuters published an article about a proposed class action lawsuit in California over range of Tesla cars. No author named. CNBC picked it up. It's so dumb! Are all gasoline car manufacturers quaking in their boots at the prospect of the same lawsuits? It's going to boil down to this: if you drive your car like it is being tested by the EPA - slowly and gently, dry conditions, level ground etc. etc. - you will get the range figure. If you drive it the way we normally drive cars, or even faster, in rain, or up a hill... you will get less range. Also, water is wet.
However the end fate of this proposed lawsuit will get no media coverage
I concur that Tesla has really just used the available EPA rating rules appropriately and completely legally....and those systems are actually what is apparently confusing people who don't bother to understand what they mean. In my opinion, EV range should be advertised with a "Typical" range defined by something like charging to 90% and driving down to 10%. So, just give people the 80% estimate, and a big note saying: "Weather, terrain, load, driving style, vehicle modifications, and many other factors may increase or decrease the available range. Physics is real and is good to understand."
The EPA EV range is generally based on using 100% of the accessible battery capacity, of a new vehicle. Nobody should even expect to use 100% of the range of a new car -- it isn't "real world" at all to expect to achieve the number of miles defined by charging to 100% and driving the car until it can't go any farther. Nobody drives a gas car hoping to run out of gas just as they pull up to a pump.
Another part of it is that people just don't understand math or what the EPA numbers mean. The EPA MPG or EV range rating is based on averaging 55% city/"stop and go" test results and 45% highway test results. And of course those tests aren't actually real world. And even the highway results have a lot of lower-speed driving as part of the test.
In an ICE car, driven carefully at not-too-fast highway speeds, I've always found it pretty easy to exceed EPA average MPG, because you eliminate all the city driving that is inefficient for an ICE. If you drive a lot of short, city trips, and ICE MPG falls to the floor. It all makes sense.
In many EV's, the city driving is more efficient than highway. I think I recall seeing several years ago Model S range records where they drove at 27 miles per hour and got ~600 miles out of it. But on the other hand, drive at only highway speeds and the range should be expected to be lower than the EPA average rating. Drive exclusively at fast highway speeds, and range will drop further.
And the Government/EPA website even illustrates part of this effect for those who care to actually use it -- you can actually "Personalize" the FuelEconomy.gov data with your own percent of stop and go vs. highway driving, and get the correspoding range estimates. For example:
I'm not sure why the Model X range estimate goes away for the 100% and 0% versions...but anybody that can internet can see that even within the EPA test parameters, Model 3, Model Y, and Model S range varies by 23-32 miles just by toggling that one variable. It is quite logical that driving well outside the parameters of the test will increase this variation....and potentially in either direction. You can drive at 27 miles per hour with the AC off to go 600 miles, or you can drive at 90 mph with the windows open and the heat blasting in the winter to drastically reduce your range. It is physics, not Tesla being deceptive.
navguy12
Active Member
I agree with your observations; that said, the intent of my original comment still stands: when “they have it”, they will flaunt it to the maximum under all circumstances.I don't see this happening for current production cars with paid FSD. For the ones with a physical connection between the steering wheel and the steering rack, the driver (or any sufficiently determined occupant of the vehicle) will always be able to override FSD. The only thing it can do is give up control.
No way “Tesla assumes all liabilities while FSD is in use”, regardless of circumstances, for the existing fleet. That's where the 3/Y interior camera will help, but there are also a non-trival number of refreshed S/X cars that DON'T have that feature.
TL;dr robotaxi's won't have a steering wheel, and Model 2/Z likely uses "drive-by-wire":
Cheers to the Robots!
- FSD computer software can override driver imputs in an emergency
- Right-hand drive countries can be easily supplied from the same factory as LHD
- a stolen car can drive itself home (or to the Police Station)
Anything less means ”they don’t have it” yet (“it” being the true AI driven FSD software package).
Agree! I think they should actually provide more numbers, but the test should be SIMPLER than the current test methods. Currently, they have a rather arbitrary test for City driving with various speeds and stopping, another for Highway driving that also varies speed over a wide range, and then what most consumers see is just the "Combined" estimated result. Instead, I think the EPA range/efficienty numbers should have something like:
- Crude estimate for "Stop and Go" efficiency - this would still need to be a somewhat arbitrary but consistent pattern of varying speed.
- Typical estimate for constant-speed driving at 50 mph (averaging results with moderate heating and AC use).
- Typical estimate for constant-speed driving at 65 mph (again, assume moderate heat and AC use).
- Typical estimate for constant-speed driving at 85 mph (again, with some heat or AC).
- A big note saying: Speed, driving style, wind, temperature, vehicle load, hills/slopes, accessory use, window position, and vehicle modifications can all affect the above estimates.
And, as I noted above, the EPA estimated range for EV's should be more like the range with an 80% charge....it's unrealistic to expect to regularly go 100% of the full "when new" range on a car you'll own for years.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
navguy12
Active Member
I had to chuckle at your obviously tongue in cheek note.
Great idea, but would be viewed by a portion of the total addressable market as some sort of lecturing.
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
As usual, let's all repeat it now. "A single month's numbers never matter. Especially in a single country."
Small beat for Apple....Rev still down 1% YoY (but that is an improvement).
Krugerrand
Meow
It’ll be a hatchback.
If it makes us feel any better, Apple beat both top and bottom lines and the stock is down 2% after hours
Little interesting tidbit here, or at least I find it interesting, think I've located the spreadsheet used to populate these values
Note the second tab where manufacturers can voluntarily reduce their test results to account for whatever they want -- I don't know if it's realistic for the EPA to do all these things so maybe the onus should be on the manufacturer adjustments to at least provide a less-optimistic range that will be beaten more often than not.
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
Solid analysis on Tesla's vehicle electrical architecture evolution, past, present and future. (Ignore clickbait title)
There are several possibilities;-
- The batches of older Model 3s might be to fill existing orders.
- Highland might not yet dual motor and performance versions (these may require 4680s)
- Regulatory approval is needed before customers can order Highland.
- Highland parts supply might be ramping, with parts volumes lagging the peak production rate.
Out of this list, 2. seems likely to me, Highland will become SR and higher trims might be a conventional 3 for a while.
I think it’s more likely that Tesla plans on sending some of the older 3 to markets where they don’t plan on sending Highland 3’s for the next couple of quarters. Likely the rest of 2023, Highland will only be available to order for North America, China, and Europe (probably not even all of Europe)
If that rumored price for Highland is actually even remotely close to being real, they’ll likely have a ridiculous backlog for a while (I have a hard time believing the rumored price myself)
While that could be true, surely it would be a reason to ramp Highland production ASAP?
There are rumours that Highland deliveries might happen in Australia on October.
But in the first quarter of production, I can easily believe that regulatory approval for the new model might not yet exist in all markets, and logistics might dictate some deliveries of the older models to particular markets.
The other question is:- What battery pack does Highland use? Initially this may be a structural LFP or M3P pack unsuitable for LR and performance models.
The combination of low price, high margin and long range seems unlikely to me, IMO pick any 2 from this list.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
