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

[kbM3]

Indeed, plus there's also drag which increases quadratically and is significant at those speeds. According to Tesla the Model S faces about 31.3 kW of drag resistance at 100 mph:

https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/the-slipperiest-car-on-the-road.pdf​

Drag will increase to about 45.1 kW at 120 mph, or about +11% in the 112->118 mph range, with an ~5.5% average effect that's 5.5% of 45.1 kW, or about 2.5 kW lost to drag on average - which is another ~0.5% more time.

Wouldn’t the Plaid mule require more than 31.3 kW @ 100 mph, because they added the spoiler for downforce and performance tires?

 

[KarenRei]

So out of curiosity I looked up Icelandic new vehicle sales stats:

Iceland car sales data - carsalesbase.com​

The 2009 fall to 2.1k sales from the 16k baseline was brutal. This shows how elastic car sales are in economic crises.

Would be nice to see Tesla reach a good market position - is 10%-20% of the market realistic?

Well, I'm sure you know what happened in Iceland between 2007 and 2009 Remember how bad the Lehmann Brothers bankruptcy was in the US? The three banks that went under here had combined liabilities about half that of Lehmann Brothers... but in a country with about a thousandth the population. It was devastating. The currency value was halved - this in a country where most home and car loans were denominated in foreign currency, so simultaneously doubling debts at the same time prices on imported goods (e.g. most goods) were spiking and people were losing their jobs. Significantly more new and mostly-new cars headed out of the country than in.

Tesla absolutely could take 10-20% of the market here - easily. I expect that the initial delivery spike will be lower and the scaleup will take longer than in most markets, however, as Tesla is almost brand-new to the market - but it should just keep growing over the course of a year or so as cars start hitting the streets and Superchargers start appearing.

In mainland markets, there's generally Superchargers present beforehand (for travelers from other countries), people who imported cars beforehand can have them serviced in neighboring countries, etc. And we don't even start getting any until Q1, so it limits the word-of-mouth potential until then. Here we only have a poor 50kW network and around 100 really hardcore owners who imported cars themselves across the Atlantic and have to ship them across the Atlantic for service. All that said, Tesla generally seems to have a lot of interest from the public, and we have Norway-style incentives and goals**. There's 24% VAT on new cars, plus large pollution-based fees, but no VAT on EVs for the first 6M ISK of the price (base Model 3 LR AWD = ~6M ISK; my car is 6,3M, so I'll be paying 72k ISK = $580 in VAT, vs. a buyer of an equivalent-base-price BMW who might pay ~$18k in VAT and fees). Plus other incentives, like 90-minute free parking in Reykjavík, likely exemption from the upcoming congestion charges that the current government wants to start levying, etc.

ICE sales are due to be phased out in 2030, and after that it's planned to start phasing out the renewal of registrations of existing ICEs each year, in order from most polluting to least. So new ICE sales should collapse long before 2030, since depreciation will be awful on cars purchased near the end.

While we have the #2 EV sales per capita slot, right now, due to our poor charging network, most EV sales are PHEV rather than BEVs. Driving distances are just too long, stops too sparse, and the charging network too poor and slow for most people. Also, in Reykjavík a lot of people rent but curbside charging is poor, so asking people to have to frequently stop at "50kW" (<40kW) stations in their slow charging, shorter-range EVs is a big ask. But there's very strong interest among most of the public in going electric. Most people are proud of our clean power and don't like to be importing oil.

** Our current tax incentives are scheduled to be phased out at the end of 2020 or when 10k BEVs / 10K PHEVs / 10k FCEVs are sold (each have their own 10k counter) have been registered. But they've extended it several times already, and can be fully expected to do so again, as the policy is popular. Also, it would only phase out the VAT discount, but not the pollution fees.

 

[Artful Dodger]

So just replacing Model S pack with a Model 3 pack scaled to 100 kWh should result in;
790 kg - 627 kg = 163 kg or 360 lbs.

So that would explain the weight loss. Now how do we explain the implied higher capacity and performance? (asking for a friend)

 

[kengchang]

That is what I mean: in a 3 motor setup (1x+2x) the different peaks will add up to slightly lower peak power, because the peaks of the front and the rear motors is not at the same RPM.

So the combined "true" peak power will be a bit less than the 177+2*360 = 897 kW calculation would suggest.

Furthermore, for the purposes of the top speed calculation I attempted, there will be a 'high RPM taper' of the rear motor output, even at higher gearing ratios.

The front motor will be even less effective. So it's unlikely that the Plaid drivetrain will be able to produce anywhere near to its top power in the top speed regime.

Do you think it will be
1. One Induction in front + Two PM in the back
or
2. One PM in the front +2 Induction in the back

I am leaning toward no.2 for the range sake

 

[wipster]

And he would likely be granted one. It’s not the patent office’s job to determine if an idea will work, only to ensure that it meets certain requirements such as uniqueness and non-obviousness.

Non-obviousness... I've had that quality for most of my life, so maybe I should apply for a patent on myself as I'm certainly unique (or so I've heard whispered behind my back)...

 

[mongo]

Street legal sports cars have been capablile of over 1 g on the skid pad for many years.

1. Porsche 911 GT3 RS (991 facelift) 1.24 g (12 m/s²)
2. Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (C7) 1.19 g (12 m/s²)
3. Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 1LE Package (Mk VI) 1.18 g (12 m/s²)
4. Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 1.18 g (12 m/s²)
5. Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport (C7) 1.18 g (12 m/s²)
6. Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Convertible (C7) 1.17 g (11 m/s²)
7. Porsche 911 GT2 RS (991) 1.17 g (11 m/s²)
8. Alfa Romeo Giulia QV 1.17 g (11 m/s²)
9. Ferrari LaFerrari 1.16 g (11 m/s²)
10. Dodge Viper ACR (Mk V) 1.15 g (11 m/s²)

Top 100 "Grip Kings" - fastest cars around skidpad 2019 - FastestLaps.com

Yes, even the current S pulls over 1G on acceleration in some tests.
What these tests show is that absolute best case is about 20% force multiplication. However, increase in traction for tires is always less than 1:1, so you will have diminishing returns.

Further, this is under ideal conditions, it does not take into account:

• Track surface: wet, ice, dirt, gravel
• Topology: dip, crown
  
• Vehicle dynamics: what if car just hit a bump, or got air over a rise? You need to counter the remaining upward moment before you can even start getting traction
• Allowable tire loads: are you limited to only increasing load on the inside tires?
• Suspension impacts: Stiffer system required along with dealing with rebound after air assist turns off (unless tapered)

Good older review article:
Tesla Roadster's 'SpaceX package' with rocket thrusters could actually work
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-roadster-rocket-thrusters-spacex-package/
If top speed and acceleration are motor/ pack limited, then down force doesn't help.
If you are maxing out your regen and your brakes are fading, downforce doesn't help.

Yes, adding downforce will improve things, but not as consistently or predictably as apply the force directly. Heck, it could help you stay in control during a blowout or 'float' you over the ditch if you blow the corner (separate use case).

 

[defc0n]

Couple weeks back, I was giving someone a ride to work in my P100D. I mentioned how the regen brakes recharge the battery. He was blown away, and asked why Tesla didn't just leave the regeneration on all the time, even when not braking, to charge the battery even more! I tried to explain the first law of thermodynamics to them, but frankly they weren't buying it. They were sure their idea would work, and Tesla could vastly increase the range of their vehicles if they tried it.

Perpetual motion solved!

 

[mongo]

Do you think it will be
1. One Induction in front + Two PM in the back
or
2. One PM in the front +2 Induction in the back

I am leaning toward no.2 for the range sake

Option 1, or possibly option 3: all PMSR and eat any efficency loss.
PMSR are direct encoder feedback and synchonized to the drive waveform so are much more controllable in terms of speed and torque. An induction motor has an entire Speed vs Torque curve from stall to top RPM for each individual drive waveform.

 

[azaz]

Elon Musk wants to fix Tesla's logistic issues by taking a page out of Amazon's book - Electrek


This sounds really good for production. My reading, which may be incorrect, is that a not insignificant issue is that the cars are being shipped out too slow to keep up with production.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Yes, even the current S pulls over 1G on acceleration in some tests.
What these tests show is that absolute best case is about 20% force multiplication. However, increase in traction for tires is always less than 1:1, so you will have diminishing returns.

Further, this is under ideal conditions, it does not take into account:

• Track surface: wet, ice, dirt, gravel
• Topology: dip, crown
  
• Vehicle dynamics: what if car just hit a bump, or got air over a rise? You need to counter the remaining upward moment before you can even start getting traction
• Allowable tire loads: are you limited to only increasing load on the inside tires?
• Suspension impacts: Stiffer system required along with dealing with rebound after air assist turns off (unless tapered)

Good older review article:
Tesla Roadster's 'SpaceX package' with rocket thrusters could actually work
If top speed and acceleration are motor/ pack limited, then down force doesn't help.
If you are maxing out your regen and your brakes are fading, downforce doesn't help.

Yes, adding downforce will improve things, but not as consistently or predictably as apply the force directly. Heck, it could help you stay in control during a blowout or 'float' you over the ditch if you blow the corner (separate use case).

IMHO, the cold gas thrusters on each corner should be linked to the ABS servo for traction control, and to some sort of wake turbulence sensing radar in the rear, to enable drag-inducing wake votices to be broken up with puffs of HP air.

I don't think there will be enough HP air supply to do direct thrust. I also think that's why we race boats and don't race hovercraft.

Cheers!

 

[mongo]

IMHO, the cold gas thrusters on each corner should be linked to the ABS servo for traction control, and to some sort of wake turbulence sensing radar in the rear, to enable drag-inducing wake votices to be broken up with puffs of HP air.

I don't think there will be enough HP air supply to do direct thrust. I also think that's why we race boats and don't race hovercraft.

Cheers!

It seems like Elon is thinking direct thrust. I thought he mentioned driving in ice, but can't find that quote.
Elon Musk talks next-gen Tesla Roadster details: SpaceX package, annual output, and why it matters

Musk noted that these arguably sci-fi modifications to the Roadster are very feasible since all the technology is already there.

“If you have, say 3 Gs of thrust, you can go in any direction. You can go up and still accelerate upwards of 2 Gs,” Musk said.

 

[BrianZ]

I believe the Taycan Turbo S has 2.6 seconds 0-100 kmh, which would make 100-200 km/h 7.2 seconds.

Sorry, just because of your user name, I have to point out that 2.6 seconds is 0-60mph (96km/h). 0-100km/h is 2.8 seconds. Source is from Porsche's world premiere (20:56)

 

[kengchang]

V10 secured?!

 

[mongo]

Elon Musk wants to fix Tesla's logistic issues by taking a page out of Amazon's book - Electrek


This sounds really good for production. My reading, which may be incorrect, is that a not insignificant issue is that the cars are being shipped out too slow to keep up with production.

Therefore, every day that the car is built and not in the hands of the customer, it’s a day that Tesla is several tens of thousands of dollars in the hole.

Gee, Fred, it's a good thing Tesla is starting $5 Billion out of the hole.

That statement isn't even accurate. Tesla doesn't have to pay their suppliers for the parts to make the car until 60-90 after receipt. Which puts it at... oh yeah AFTER they sold the car.

They are never in the hole on the deal. Their daily cash balance shifts, but again: $5 Billion.

 

[StealthP3D]

Elon Musk wants to fix Tesla's logistic issues by taking a page out of Amazon's book - Electrek


This sounds really good for production. My reading, which may be incorrect, is that a not insignificant issue is that the cars are being shipped out too slow to keep up with production.

Traditional auto dealerships take out loans to buy the new cars from the manufacturers. This helps buffer factory outputs and gets revenue from the newly manufactured cars more immediately into the manufacturer's accounts but this comes at a stiff price of interest, dealer profit after paying for all that land the cars sit on, etc.

Currently, Tesla showrooms and delivery centers are in dense urban areas on leased properties. With current growth rates, It might make sense to open 7 or 8 large regional delivery centers on cheap land outside of major metropolitan areas (while keeping the current showrooms/delivery centers). These large regional delivery centers could function as "local stock" which could feed cars to urban delivery centers as needed. Buyers could also be offered a discount when taking delivery at the regional centers.

This doesn't totally solve the problem of unsold inventory but it does add flexibility to batching during production and shortening wait times for specific configurations.

 

[kengchang]

Gee, Fred, it's a good thing Tesla is starting $5 Billion out of the hole.

That statement isn't even accurate. Tesla doesn't have to pay their suppliers for the parts to make the car until 60-90 after receipt. Which puts it at... oh yeah AFTER they sold the car.

They are never in the hole on the deal. Their daily cash balance shifts, but again: $5 Billion.

Money is still tied up because line of credit only guarantees up to 75-80% of the car.

 

[Fact Checking]

Gee, Fred, it's a good thing Tesla is starting $5 Billion out of the hole.

That statement isn't even accurate. Tesla doesn't have to pay their suppliers for the parts to make the car until 60-90 after receipt. Which puts it at... oh yeah AFTER they sold the car.

They are never in the hole on the deal. Their daily cash balance shifts, but again: $5 Billion.

Well, they still have to pay fixed costs plus labor costs - which is a lot due to vertical integration, and while auto parts might benefit from a payables delay, many other raw materials don't.

@EVNow might want to correct me, but the ~60 days payables delay only affects about $20k from a $50k unit - I.e. about half of the $40k cost of goods.

So Fred is correct in saying that until the $50k is paid by the customer there's a ~$20k expense that Tesla has to finance - plus about $10k of fixed opex at 100k deliveries rate, per quarter.

Also, with China and EU deliveries it takes 30 days to get the cars there - not much time for the customer to take delivery before the 60 days payables are due.

So speeding up deliveries is important.

 

[sparcs]

A few tweets from Elon about product allocation and the mismatch i mentioned earlier. very timely tweets.

Elon Musk on Twitter

At end of quarter, there is always some error in product mix allocation between the roughly 40 global regions, due to planning mistakes & logistics problems (Earth is a big place). Small changes in prices are needed to correct local supply/demand imbalances.

That’s not to say that Tesla people somewhere in the world are being overzealous & possibly overstepping our core principles, which is why I’m looking into it

Should note that these product mix & logistics errors also results in regional *undersupply*, eg UK & Ireland right now, but we don’t raise the prices even so. The intent, at any given moment in time, is: heads we lose, tails buyers win.

 

[mongo]

Well, they still have to pay fixed costs plus labor costs - which is a lot due to vertical integration, and while auto parts might benefit from a payables delay, many other raw materials don't.

@EVNow might want to correct me, but the ~60 days payables delay only affects about $20k from a $50k unit - I.e. about half of the $40k cost of goods.

So Fred is correct in saying that until the $50k is paid by the customer there's a ~$20k expense that Tesla has to finance - plus about $10k of fixed opex at 100k deliveries rate, per quarter.

Also, with China and EU deliveries it takes 30 days to get the cars there - not much time for the customer to take delivery before the 60 days payables are due.

So speeding up deliveries is important.

Yeah, but if being that accurate, they are in the hole once they purchase the materials. The "built" point is irrelevant.

 

[kengchang]

UK demand secured?