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.
To make that work though, charge voltage may need to be upped. Porsche didn't go for 800 V just to make a prettier number than 400 V. And seeing how thin Tesla's water cooled cable is, I don't know that there is no voltage doubling switch in there. And I don't know if such would even be noticed by excellent hackers if they weren't look for it. That's pure speculation on my part. But surely going 350 kW or even 400 kW which I bet at the cell level would be fine with the new parallel cooling tech, 1,000 Amps may be pushing it. Cool (no pun intended) for dashes and even crazy regen but for a multi-minute charging session...
I fear that Tesla slightly dropped the call and is stuck with <400 Volt architecture. And 256 kW may be all even S and X are going to get. They got a lot right but I fear that here they miss out due to a simple historical self inflicted limitation. Hope to be proven wrong, S and X buyers pay enough to deserve Mach 1.5 charging, if you ask me.
This seems silly. I've been on many trips over the past six years, and wherever SCs are the normal distance apart, charging time is about fifteen minutes. That's just about enough time for a pit stop and getting a drink. As the V3 rolls out, even where there is a missing SC, it's still going to take 15 minutes. Because Tesla charges for every idle minute you're plugged in, an 800V charge will cost a bunch or you will have to stay with the car while it charges, increasing your charge time. My opinion is that Porsche just did it because it makes the specs look better. Practically, there's little value added.
 
Lidar is also ugly and expensive. You will never have personal cars that are shared via ride services with a giant LIDAR array on top.


Expensive, yes at this moment only high end cars can afford it.
Ugly? Maybe not.

Laserscanner_Detailskizze_beschriftet-1600x1131.jpg
 
Never been a big fan of SolarCity, as you all know. So not a big surprise :

Telsa quarterly said:
The in-process research and development (“IPR&D”), which we acquired from SolarCity, is accounted for as an indefinite-lived asset until the completion or abandonment of the associated research and development efforts. ... In April 2019, the Company determined that it would abandon further development efforts on the IPR&D and will impair the remaining $47.0 million in the quarter ending June 30, 2019.
 
I will say that I think Tesla is seriously working on the service issues. Last time I communicated, comms were far better than before. Every report is saying that parts availability is improving substantially and quite quickly. And they've actually got a service center in Albany, which shows some attention to geography!

Thanks god, if I were to exit the services going down the drain would be the reason
 
For the sides and the rear radar is enough.
Radar's issue is detecting steady objects. Having a steady objects on the sides and behind the car is not a safety issue.

I'm not sure what you mean by "steady objects". Radar's limitation is its low spatial resolution - a consequence of its orders-of-magnitude longer wavelength than light. To separate targets that are far enough away, you have to combine it with visual data.

Its upsides are lower cost, a faster frame rate, a much lower sensitivity to weather, an ability to (sometimes) see multiple vehicles ahead, no "human eye damage" power limitations, an ability to see through "intangible" objects (leaves, plastic bags, etc) but detect even small metallic objects, and to "see" surface roughness.
 
Not sure if already mentioned but it seems the FCA deal is $140M over the next 2 to 3 years. For those doing cash balance projections, this seems to be a one time item only.

TSLA quarterly said:
Deferred revenue related to sales of automotive regulatory credits was $140.0 million and $0 as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. We expect to recognize the deferred revenue as of March 31, 2019 over the next 2 to 3 years.


Tesla lost $20M on interest swaps recorded against other income. So when doing an implied average cash balance calculation based on interest income + average short term interest rates, we need to add that amount. Implied inter-quarter cash therefore higher than previously reported (also higher than shorts report, since they don't include swap losses)
 
I bought into the 2016 Feb dip as it was a general market correction and Model 3 was on the horizon as a growth story. Now it is a bit more complicated as the big growth story Model 3 is done and it looks like it is not as big of a cash cow as I expected.

New story is FSD but I am not buying it and most of the institutional investors are also not buying it.

If TSLA makes a raise to speed up production of Y end of this year on the line of 3 then it would give the stock another growth story. Currently Y is too far out to have any material impact on the stock price.
 
This seems silly. I've been on many trips over the past six years, and wherever SCs are the normal distance apart, charging time is about fifteen minutes. That's just about enough time for a pit stop and getting a drink. As the V3 rolls out, even where there is a missing SC, it's still going to take 15 minutes. Because Tesla charges for every idle minute you're plugged in, an 800V charge will cost a bunch or you will have to stay with the car while it charges, increasing your charge time. My opinion is that Porsche just did it because it makes the specs look better. Practically, there's little value added.
Let's get our perspective right.
Goal is to get everyone on zero emissions ASAP, right? Well, people refrain from going BEV due to theoretical corner cases. It's how the mind works.
In 15 minutes, a Model S on V2 before update may gain just over 25 kWh. Good for about 125 km on the highway, just about an hour in most countries. And there may well be a next SC then.
People don't want to change their routine. It's not even a corner case to driver 2 hours between leg-stretch-potty-breaks. And I've seen 15 minutes to be quite average. So double the charge rate is called for. And you cannot always be right at 7% SOC coming in, so actual charge gotten over 15 minutes (especially with shared charger) is likely less than 125 km worth in today's reality.

It may seem like everyone and their sister are buying BEVs but in the grand scheme of things, they're still extremely unknown and frankly, most people can't afford it, nor charge at home.
Even if most people can't buy Teslas and Tesla will nevver rampup enough to make enough cars even if they can afford to give them away or make available as cheap robo taxis, an appealing Tesla will boost the rest of the market to step it up.
So it's GOOD and NEEDED for Tesla to go for a best effort.

Also, and most BEV fans refuse to see this in the eye... High charge rates at the cell level allow for smaller batteries, more affordable cars to WORK for actual people looking to replace their super average petrol car, which are a majority of the market. And personal transport emissions. An econobox with even 1/3 the battery size of the Porsche Taycan, same cells, charging at 4C most of the way, will get 150 km or so per 15 minutes. And that makes it doable for Mr. Everyman. Now all he needs is for it to work out financially, but Mr. Everyman doesn't have money in the bank and zero discretionary spending after clothing, car and holidays. Give up holidays to own a BEV?
 
Hoping some others can help me out with an explanation here around M3 production volumes in relation to cell production.

Assumptions:
  • GF3 is currently producing cells at 24GWh per year, as per Elon's recent tweet Elon Musk on Twitter
  • 10% of production is used for storage, leaving 21.6GWh for autos
  • Average M3 has a 60KWh pack (40% LR@75KWh, 60%SR@ 50KWh)
  • Dividing production by average usage gets us to 400k M3s able to be produced p.a based on current cell production
  • 400k M3 p.a is 7.7k per week, or 100K per quarter

Tesla produced 62k M3s in Q1. Where are all the remaining cells going? Should I be diverting more cells to storage or was LR a greater % of vehicles produced? Was the ramp in cell supply late in the quarter? Even if LR was 100% of production we should still expect enough cells to produce 80k M3s per quarter.

Another question. If less than 80k M3s are produced this quarter, how can we justify the cell production vs demand?
GF3 doesn't have a roof yet ;-)
Battery capacity goes by total capacity, not what the car can use. Model 3 LR takes at least 80 kWh.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: neroden
Now it is a bit more complicated as the big growth story Model 3 is done...

Huh?

SR+ was only just recently launched in Europe. Not "Europe as a whole", but rather, "west Europe and Scandinavia, but not RHD countries, E. Europe, and Iceland". No versions are available in the latter - not even M3P. Nor in Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, or other broad chunks of the planet.

and it looks like it is not as big of a cash cow as I expected.

Margins are holding quite solid at 20%, with an apparently rising ASP in the US, while production costs continue to fall. What sort of margins did you expect?
 
I stopped posting VIN reservations, but Tesla just reserved 40k VINS, 40% dual, 47% international:

Model 3 VINs on Twitter

That's one of the biggest batches ever... if not the biggest.

To put that in perspective, in Q2 2018 they produced a total of 28578 Model 3s. This one batch represents 63% as many Model 3s as were produced in all of last quarter.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you mean by "steady objects". Radar's limitation is its low spatial resolution - a consequence of its orders-of-magnitude longer wavelength than light. To separate targets that are far enough away, you have to combine it with visual data.

The low resolution of radars is not related to the wavelength. The wavelength of the 77GHz signal is 4mm. But in order to create a high resolution receiver the array antenna has to be large.
So this is the weakness of the antenna. Second weakness is the side lobes. A parked car (steady object) on the right will give some reflections right in the middle that are picked up by the side lobes but only a very advanced filtering can get rid of it. A crack on the road gives some reflection as well.

All the phantom braking and hitting steady objects (parked trucks) show this difficulty.

Moving objects however are very well detectable by radar.