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

[kyzhk]

Not to mention you can likely safely charge to 100% to actually use the full range.

Yep.

With software limited battery pack,
1) likely to have perfect score in range degradation in the first ~8 years or so. i.e. no degradation measured in miles vs nominal range. <-- Untrue. Previous 60kwh model s maps to a given % of total, instead of charging up the battery to a fixed kwh capacity.
2) battery pack would still be in excellent condition for resale when owners trade it in. Can be resold as performance version no problem.

 

[MP3Mike]

Crazy. Who would pay for the extended range? Within 1-2 years, your range is going to be down the base one anyway...

But the base range will be down as well. Some people might actually need the extra 25 miles.

 

[MP3Mike]

With software limited battery pack,
1) likely to have perfect score in range degradation in the first ~8 years or so. i.e. no degradation measured in miles vs nominal range.

No they still degrade at a similar rate, you just can't cause extra degradation by charging them to 100% and leaving them there.

 

[kyzhk]

No they still degrade at a similar rate, you just can't cause extra degradation by charging them to 100% and leaving them there.

Yes, you are right. Notice I said "no degradation measured in miles vs nominal range."

 

[Cherry Wine]

OT:
In US, but tesla homepage links to Elektrofahrzeuge, Solaranlagen und Solarstromspeicher | Tesla (German gets translated back to English)
Anyone else seeing this weird issue?

tesla.com leads me to a German version of the website (from US). Lol.

 

[KarenRei]

This does explain how they managed to get away with something I was wondering about. Remember what happens every time Tesla does a price cut, particularly a big one? Some people (particularly Fred) throw a giant fit about how they had to pay more but now the car is cheaper. I was scratching my head wondering how they were going to make price cuts to bring the margin on the 100D back down to earth without causing a riot. I mean, they were making something like $12k more on the 100Ds than they were on the 75Ds.

This answers the question. Now recent buyers of 100Ds won't feel like they got ripped off. Well done, Tesla.

 

[Fact Checking]

Unless there is something the 100kWh pack can do that the 75kWh pack can’t. Like maybe dealing with the charging speed of Supercharger V3?

Exactly, also it's more clearly an upgrade to a Model 3 now: both range and acceleration increases in a clearly defined fashion as options are added:

                          | Range     | Speed   | 0-60     |  Price  |  upgrade cost
 -------------------------------------|------------------------------|--------------
 Model 3 Mid Range        | 265 miles | 125 mph | 5.6 secs |   $44k  |
 Model 3 Long Range AWD   | 310 miles | 145 mph | 4.5 secs |   $51k  | +16%
 Model 3 Performance      | 310 miles | 155 mph | 3.3 secs |   $62k  | +21%
 Model S                  | 310 miles | 155 mph | 4.1 secs |   $85k  | +37%
 Model S Extended Range   | 335 miles | 155 mph | 4.1 secs |   $93k  | +10%
 Model S Performance      | 315 miles | 155 mph | 3.0 secs |  $112k  | +20%
 Model S Ludicrous        | 315 miles | 155 mph | 2.4 secs |  $132k  | +18%

(I just updated this table from the U.S. configurator.)

What is interesting is that the new entry level Model S gains the 4.1 secs acceleration of the 100D. I.e. the software lock-down is only for the range, not for the drive train.

This suggests that the new Model S is basically the hardware of the 100D. This should position it pretty well against the Taycan.

Nice upgrade!

Also note that by making every battery pack 100 kWh they can now lower their annual production guidance to around 75,000-80,000 units.

 

[omarsultan]

I can’t imagine why having only the 100kWh pack would be cheaper (because only one pack variant needs to be made) than 2 differently sized packs.

Unless there is something the 100kWh pack can do that the 75kWh pack can’t. Like maybe dealing with the charging speed of Supercharger V3?

In theory you're gaining opex efficiency from simplified inventory and logistics and presumably more efficient assembly--must offset the Capex of the cells. It would also seem to indicate they sold more 100 kWh packs than 75 kWh packs.

Kinda OT, but anyone know how long Tesla's commitment is to buy 18650 cells from Panasonic?

 

[elasalle]

tesla.com leads me to a German version of the website (from US). Lol.

Is the team that maintains the website, understaffed

 

[MP3Mike]

Thats why I said "no degradation measured in miles vs nominal range."

I don't understand what you are trying to say. If the packs suffers say 10% degradation the base car would report 279 miles of range at 100% while the extended would report 302.

 

[omarsultan]

Crazy. Who would pay for the extended range? Within 1-2 years, your range is going to be down the base one anyway...

That's what I thought too--buy the base range and only upgrade if degradation becomes and issue down the road.

 

[MP3Mike]

tesla.com leads me to a German version of the website (from US). Lol.

You probably clicked on a link to Tesla that had the German country code embedded in it, and that switched your default country.

 

[avoigt]

I'm sure that's the goal, yes. They want people to pay for software unlocks later.

I'm just surprised they actually save money by only having the big battery pack and limiting it in software over assembling two different battery packs. The marginal cost of each cell must be less than the cost of labor or something.

Its a sign that the battery pack cost came further down and that production simplifications are helping too. We talk about productivity improvements again. The strategy to simplify mass production makes a lot of sense as you reduce costs and complexity in many areas.

For me this is a signal that they can produce the base model with an okay margin and everybody who at a later stage finds the money to go for the full package will pay a 100% margin on the SW upgrade. Also this enables Tesla to tease the owner of the lower range model with different offerings for years to come until they surrender and accept.

 

[kyzhk]

I don't understand what you are trying to say. If the packs suffers say 10% degradation the base car would report 279 miles of range at 100% while the extended would report 302.

Is this how the software limited 60kwh model s version worked previously? I was assuming that they could tap into the reserved capacity to compensate for natural degradation.

 

[StarFoxisDown!]

Hoping that this is more of a stop-gap for the hopefully upcoming refreshes in that they are able to rename the different versions and restructure the pricing strategy. Maybe they have to wait until the end of the quarter ( Q1 or Q2 ) to end the contract of the 18650 cells and make sure they properly manage inventory so that they're not left with some 18650 battery packs unsold.

Idk, as I mentioned before, I would be pretty confused as to why they continue to use 18650 cells when they get to a point where they're producing enough of the new cells to do the swap.

 

[MP3Mike]

Is this how the software limited 60kwh model s version worked previously? I was assuming that they could tap into the reserved capacity to compensate for natural degradation.

Yes, that is how it works, they don't just give you the extra capacity for free. It essentially just maps the SoC such that 100% on the software limited battery only charges the physical battery to ~93%. So you get the range that ~93% would give you if your car was the extended range version.

 

[Cherry Wine]

You probably clicked on a link to Tesla that had the German country code embedded in it, and that switched your default country.

I just switched countries via the option at the bottom, seems to have fixed the issue. Thank you!

 

[saniflash]

In theory you're gaining opex efficiency from simplified inventory and logistics and presumably more efficient assembly--must offset the Capex of the cells. It would also seem to indicate they sold more 100 kWh packs than 75 kWh packs.

I think we need to broaden our perspective a little bit and see the move not only from a marginal cost or MS/MX margin perspective, but also what this move means in terms of freed-up capacity to potentially make more M3's, or start sooner/ramp faster with MY, or allow for a retooling for a later refresh or or or.... I think we're currently only seeing half of the story here.

 

[saniflash]

2) battery pack would still be in excellent condition for resale when owners trade it in. Can be resold as performance version no problem.

THIS I think is a genius move... trade-in/lease return as normal model, resell as performance. dampens/changes the entire residual value game

 

[KarenRei]

Idk, as I mentioned before, I would be pretty confused as to why they continue to use 18650 cells when they get to a point where they're producing enough of the new cells to do the swap.

There are dozens of threads on this topic. And dozens of times the issue has come up here. Even a thread spun off specifically of this thread specifically to that topic. Over and over, people keep talking about the "imminent" switch to 2170s, and have been ever since Tesla introduced 2170s. And each time I try to calmly explain why such a thing isn't going to happen every time soon, and every time the reaction is (paraphrasing) "NO OMG 2170s ARE SO AWESOME THEY HAVE TO SWITCH!" The most recent time being just a week ago when the 75D was killed. Surely, THIS TIME it was a prelude to the imminent introduction of a 2170 pack! Over and over that was asserted.... surely, no other explanation!

Once people get the notion that something is "the future" stuck in their head, the concept of anything else continuing to be used seems incomprehensible to them and it drowns out all counterarguments.

This may happen at somepoint significantly further in the future. But it won't be happening any time soon.