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

[LN1_Casey]

Ástandið - Wikipedia

Haha, I was speaking of my female chief who tool a male Icelander from Keflavík Air Base (listed from the wiki linked), which has since closed down in 2006. The joke being that people don't typically expect females in the military, let alone ones who marry local nationals of whichever host country we're in.

 

[KarenRei]

Haha, I was speaking of my female chief who tool a male Icelander from Keflavík Air Base (listed from the wiki linked), which has since closed down in 2006. The joke being that people don't typically expect females in the military, let alone ones who marry local nationals of whichever host country we're in.

Ah, sorry, missed the pronoun.

 

[zzziii]

Here is a pretty cool time lapse of teslas being organized after production and put onto car carriers:
Steve Jobs Ghost on Twitter

 

[elasalle]

thought - Shorting TSLA's intent is to avoid a tipping point - transitioning to EV's.
As more competition becomes available (so called Tesla Killers) .. the tipping point becomes more evident. No wonder EM is welcoming more competition to join the EV bandwagon.
Bonus is when it becomes further evident that competition is lagging Tesla by a couple of years.

~ cheers!!

 

[humbaba]

I found the Sandy Munroe interview to be interesting, but at the same time I had to wonder a bit. I was watching at 1.5x speed so maybe I missed something, though it didn't seem like it.

• FCA called out as the legacy manufacturer who is trying to actually develop in-house expertise
• somehow Tesla came in slightly behind iPace on power train. Given the high cost and poor efficiency that one is really hard to fathom
• BYD called out as making their own batteries for their own cars
• he thinks super capacitors are the future for EVs ("not just dry electrode, but super caps") because of using them as a buffer for regen and discharge. Talk about lack of repeatability, and you lose too much battery for a small buffer when a larger battery improves your regen & discharge rates w/ anecdote about a factory robot that did this (ignoring that the constraints are entirely different than with automotive). In other words, using super caps accentuates the problem. I guess maybe if your convinced that you must use them it becomes sort of self-fulfilling.
• the Model 3 is overdesigned to the point where it isn't any safer, it is just heavier (maybe he's right, but he's a cost engineer, not a safety engineer; then he goes on about "tanks are safe but poor efficiency" -- what, he thinks Tesla has sandbagged and could be far more efficient if only they stopped making it too heavy? He goes on to make other claims that might be true and might just be strawmen, there's no direct example or justification, just handwaving)
• worth its own point: I have often heard (doesn't make it true) that heavier vehicles fare better in accidents. And that really is the gist of his tank story. But then he goes on to say that having weight makes the vehicle less safe in an accident. I suppose if you added dark matter just for giggles, but if the weight was applied to structural integrity it might, you know, have a benefit? He then claims F1 cars are light for safety (as opposed to, say, for acceleration). When it comes to safety it really seems that Sandy Munroe just doesn't get it.
• Tesla should have used a "standard ordinary body" for the Model 3. Right... If it weighs more than a 328i then Tesla obviously did it wrong
• Model 3 margins should be much better and this is harming investors (he doesn't even try to connect the dots on this one)
• any design shop (he names two) could keep the exterior, keep the safety results, and be better cheaper. Tesla should be spending money on outsourcing!

well, that's it for the first half. I'm losing respect for Sandy.

 

[Bobfitz1]

I agree that the risk of cannibilisation of S/X by the 3 was well known, and the failure of the company to take that risk into account in their guidance was the biggest mistake they have made.

I'm not sure what the actual biggest mistake around poor Q1 guidance was. I may not be recalling correctly, but in Q3 and Q4 last year weren't SX sales only slightly effected by cannibalization by M3? Wasn't the big drop in Q1 SX sales more due to Tesla eliminating the less expensive SX versions, leaving only the highest priced remaining?

If true, they would have known for certain that SX sales would be substantially down in Q1 (they knew exactly how much of total sales came from those lower cost versions). My guess is they thought the drop in SX revenue would be offset by deliveries of all the dual motor M3s going to EU and China. They may have been badly cell constrained and cut lower cost SX versions to free up cells for the high cost M3s.

So perhaps the biggest mistake was believing the difficult M3 delivery expansion outside North America was going to come off without a hitch and not leave thousands of cars produced in Q1 undelivered by end of quarter. Of course unrealistically over optimistic expectations of how well difficult efforts will go according to plan has IMO been the root cause of most of the biggest mistakes made the past few years.

 

[kbM3]

I found the Sandy Munroe interview to be interesting, but at the same time I had to wonder a bit. I was watching at 1.5x speed so maybe I missed something, though it didn't seem like it.

• FCA called out as the legacy manufacturer who is trying to actually develop in-house expertise
• somehow Tesla came in slightly behind iPace on power train. Given the high cost and poor efficiency that one is really hard to fathom
• BYD called out as making their own batteries for their own cars
• he thinks super capacitors are the future for EVs ("not just dry electrode, but super caps") because of using them as a buffer for regen and discharge. Talk about lack of repeatability, and you lose too much battery for a small buffer when a larger battery improves your regen & discharge rates w/ anecdote about a factory robot that did this (ignoring that the constraints are entirely different than with automotive). In other words, using super caps accentuates the problem. I guess maybe if your convinced that you must use them it becomes sort of self-fulfilling.
• the Model 3 is overdesigned to the point where it isn't any safer, it is just heavier (maybe he's right, but he's a cost engineer, not a safety engineer; then he goes on about "tanks are safe but poor efficiency" -- what, he thinks Tesla has sandbagged and could be far more efficient if only they stopped making it too heavy? He goes on to make other claims that might be true and might just be strawmen, there's no direct example or justification, just handwaving)
• worth its own point: I have often heard (doesn't make it true) that heavier vehicles fare better in accidents. And that really is the gist of his tank story. But then he goes on to say that having weight makes the vehicle less safe in an accident. I suppose if you added dark matter just for giggles, but if the weight was applied to structural integrity it might, you know, have a benefit? He then claims F1 cars are light for safety (as opposed to, say, for acceleration). When it comes to safety it really seems that Sandy Munroe just doesn't get it.
• Tesla should have used a "standard ordinary body" for the Model 3. Right... If it weighs more than a 328i then Tesla obviously did it wrong
• Model 3 margins should be much better and this is harming investors (he doesn't even try to connect the dots on this one)
• any design shop (he names two) could keep the exterior, keep the safety results, and be better cheaper. Tesla should be spending money on outsourcing!

well, that's it for the first half. I'm losing respect for Sandy.

I also lost respect for Munro.

As @KarenRei has pointed out, supercaps make zero sense in a passenger vehicle. The only possible use I could see would be in a “track edition” Model 3 that would have repeated extreme acceleration and deceleration.

 

[JRP3]

• somehow Tesla came in slightly behind iPace on power train. Given the high cost and poor efficiency that one is really hard to fathom

• He said something to the effect the rating was impacted because it included S and X.

• he thinks super capacitors are the future for EVs ("not just dry electrode, but super caps") because of using them as a buffer for regen and discharge. Talk about lack of repeatability, and you lose too much battery for a small buffer when a larger battery improves your regen & discharge rates w/ anecdote about a factory robot that did this (ignoring that the constraints are entirely different than with automotive). In other words, using super caps accentuates the problem. I guess maybe if your convinced that you must use them it becomes sort of self-fulfilling.

Yup.

 

[Lessmog]

I'm not sure what the actual biggest mistake around poor Q1 guidance was. I may not be recalling correctly, but in Q3 and Q4 last year weren't SX sales only slightly effected by cannibalization by M3? Wasn't the big drop in Q1 SX sales more due to Tesla eliminating the less expensive SX versions, leaving only the highest priced remaining?

My memory is also a bit foggy, but I believe one factor was the persistant rumors of a "refresh" for S/X (visually hinted by @KarenRei as a Raven sometime in Jan?). Somehow that refresh didn't happen on time to pick up the slack. Result: another mad dash to kick out obsolete models at a discount, and greatly increased cost a/o lost income.

If true, they would have known for certain that SX sales would be substantially down in Q1 (they knew exactly how much of total sales came from those lower cost versions). My guess is they thought the drop in SX revenue would be offset by deliveries of all the dual motor M3s going to EU and China. They may have been badly cell constrained and cut lower cost SX versions to free up cells for the high cost M3s.

No. While they were most likely cell constrained, the cells are not interchangeable between car models.

So perhaps the biggest mistake was believing the difficult M3 delivery expansion outside North America was going to come off without a hitch and not leave thousands of cars produced in Q1 undelivered by end of quarter. Of course unrealistically over optimistic expectations of how well difficult efforts will go according to plan has IMO been the root cause of most of the biggest mistakes made the past few years.

That, IMHO, wins the medal here.

Perhaps another casualty to poor communications? I'd say yes.


EDITED: To be precise, Karen was not the first to ventilate rumors of an upgrade, and she only hinted at having some privileged info about some code name, as conversation came up. It took almost half a year for the nature of that secret to emerge, so she was not the leak. Let that be clear.

 

[StealthP3D]

A company selling something for more than they purchased it - where I come from that is usually called “capitalism” rather than “theft”.

What you fail to understand is that electrical providers are granted a government-approved monopoly. In return for this guaranteed business, they agree to be regulated and not take excessive profits or engage in other behavior that harms consumers. By paying far below market rates for energy produced by your solar panels (and selling it to your neighbor at a 400% mark-up) they are disincentivizing the production of clean energy and increasing the distance that fossil fuel-generated energy must travel to get to your neighbor's house which is bad for all rate-payers (and that's before considering that it increases carbon emissions and accelerates global warming).

Government-regulated monopolies are regulated for a good reason. Pure capitalism fails to work when a utility has been granted a monopoly.

 

[KarenRei]

My memory is also a bit foggy, but I believe one factor was the persistant rumors of a "refresh" for S/X (visually hinted by @KarenRei as a Raven sometime in Jan?). Somehow that refresh didn't happen on time to pick up the slack. Result: another mad dash to kick out obsolete models at a discount, and greatly increased cost a/o lost income.


No. While they were most likely cell constrained, the cells are not interchangeable between car models.


That, IMHO, wins the medal here.

Perhaps another casualty to poor communications? I'd say yes.

Poor communications at Tesla? Blasphemy, I say!

 

[humbaba]

I also lost respect for Munro.

As @KarenRei has pointed out, supercaps make zero sense in a passenger vehicle. The only possible use I could see would be in a “track edition” Model 3 that would have repeated extreme acceleration and deceleration.

Actually, that is the place where it makes the least sense. Unless your track is short and consists of ramp like a rabbit with its tail on fire then brake as if your life depended on it, all in rapid succession you lose out because ultimately you are limited by how fast your battery can take a charge and how fast it can discharge -- and because regen is closer to 50% reclamation than 90% you will quickly run out your super capacitor. And that charge/discharge rate limit is reduced by using super capacitors. Significantly reduced. @KarenRei has run the numbers and it just doesn't work. You are better off with one large battery vs a medium battery plus small capacitor. Plus you have the added benefit that you can actually race for longer.

 

[kbM3]

Actually, that is the place where it makes the least sense. Unless your track is short and consists of ramp like a rabbit with its tail on fire then brake as if your life depended on it, all in rapid succession you lose out because ultimately you are limited by how fast your battery can take a charge and how fast it can discharge -- and because regen is closer to 50% reclamation than 90% you will quickly run out your super capacitor. And that charge/discharge rate limit is reduced by using super capacitors. Significantly reduced. @KarenRei has run the numbers and it just doesn't work. You are better off with one large battery vs a medium battery plus small capacitor. Plus you have the added benefit that you can actually race for longer.

It’s been proven effective in Formula 1. It’s called Kers.

 

[jerry33]

I'm not sure what the actual biggest mistake around poor Q1 guidance was. I may not be recalling correctly, but in Q3 and Q4 last year weren't SX sales only slightly effected by cannibalization by M3? Wasn't the big drop in Q1 SX sales more due to Tesla eliminating the less expensive SX versions, leaving only the highest priced remaining?

That and the Raven upgrade leak (plus the downtime to put in Raven) which caused a lot of folks to wait on their purchase.

 

[humbaba]

It’s been proven effective in Formula 1. It’s called Kers.

Can you provide me with a link to Formula 1 EV's? Thanks

edit:
Ah... You are just talking about regen. Yep. Regen is good. No argument from me. That has nothing to do with the efficacy of super capacitors and EVs

 

[Lessmog]

That and the Raven upgrade leak (plus the downtime to put in Raven) which caused a lot of folks to wait on their purchase.

What he said

 

[Christine69420]

Bjørn Nyland said something the other day about the EQC surprising him with its efficiency. It'll be interesting to see what his results were. One of the main things that's totaled the I-Pace and E-Tron are their horrible inefficiencies. That said, I'm not sure how efficient it can be with a NEDC range that should translate to a little over 200 miles EPA (maybe up to 220 if they're lucky?), on an 80kWh pack. It doesn't have the sort of shape required for being particularly efficient, either. Also it starts tapering at under 120kW at 40% SoC (under 90 EPA miles).

I have not seen these very long videos. A summary is probably coming.

But I picked up something weird from the Norwegian EV forum:

Some problems occured during the range test. When the battery reached 40% the range dived faster and faster. When it got below 25% the range just dissapeared and the test had to be aborted.

Source: Tester og medieomtaler av EQC

It's not clear what the cause was - battery or software or what?

 

[KarenRei]

I have not seen these very long videos. A summary is probably coming.

But I picked up something weird from the Norwegian EV forum:

Some problems occured during the range test. When the battery reached 40% the range dived faster and faster. When it got below 25% the range just dissapeared and the test had to be aborted.

Source: Tester og medieomtaler av EQC

It's not clear what the cause was - battery or software or what?

Interesting. And weird.

Also, efficiency doesn't sound great, so I don't know why he hinted at that. 183Wh/km (295Wh/mi) at 90kph (56mph) on summer tires?

 

[Fact Checking]

I have not seen these very long videos. A summary is probably coming.

But I picked up something weird from the Norwegian EV forum:

Some problems occured during the range test. When the battery reached 40% the range dived faster and faster. When it got below 25% the range just dissapeared and the test had to be aborted.

Source: Tester og medieomtaler av EQC

It's not clear what the cause was - battery or software or what?

I think Mercedes has trouble adjusting their Diesel Emissions Test software suite for EQC range calculations.

Teething problems only, I'm sure!

 

[Bobfitz1]

Indeed, Tesla is going to need 80-90GWh/yr around the end of 2020. Vs. 50 GWh by the end of 2021 for Energy Absolute.

I suspect the only reason Energy Absolute was added to the graphic at all was to have at least one non Tesla factory seeming to exceed Tesla planned capacity. EA announced a phase 1 of 1 GWh by end of this year then a second phase that would culminate in 49 when complete. But a battery startup saying this is equivalent to a EV startup claiming they'll be producing several million vehicles a few years after they first produce 50K. Just a vapor factory to gin up a misleading graphic.