Where did you see that about "Services revenue and margins"? For Apple or Tesla?
Last edited:
-
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
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
The different versions just got renamed today and it's not a stop-gap measure: the new naming scheme is very logical and offers a nice upgrade path from the $42k Model 3 Mid Range version to the $132k Model S Performance Ludicrous.
I like it a lot.
What's your estimate how long it would take for Tesla to switch to 2170? Or, when would be the optimal time for them to release such version? Announce right after a competitor finally release a competitive product for mass production?
We already know with the model 3 pack level energy density model s would get roughly 420mile range...
I don't think you can do this--I believe the Performance models have different HW. But, Tesla could take in a standard model and re-sell it as an extended range model.
jhm
Well-Known Member
I suspect that there is also an offset in the cost of the warranty. As software limited range helps avoid excess stress on physical battery and it increases the chance that physical range will exceed 80% of original software limited range. Both of these make the warranty cost lower than the extended range.
Absolutely. Having the line down at night means they can retool. Either for improved margins, or - perhaps most interestingly - work to merge the S body onto the (more modern) X line, so they can retool the (very space-consuming) S line for the Y. No guarantees of course.
In the mean time, hey, more stamping and paint shop time for the Model 3
My focus in on leveraging operations, not "NO OMG 2170s ARE SO AWESOME THEY HAVE TO SWITCH!"
I'm thinking more about impacts on operating efficiencies, leveraging supplies and materials, increasing production through the Grohman lines while reducing costs per pack over the 18650 packs/cells. All of this would increase the top and bottom line for Tesla on future earnings.
To add to that, the exterior dimensions (since wheelbase alone might not mean anything depending on how cab forward or not vehicles are)
Corolla : 173" x 67" x 58"
Model 3 : 185" x 76" x 57"
Model 3 is quite a bit longer AND wider.
No sooner than absolutely necessary. The 18650s are perfectly functional, and the cost/range benefits of the switch are not worth the huge capital investment in new cell and pack lines (to say nothing of any reengineering of the vehicles or their production lines to use them - and do recall that packs are structural elements that affect crash forces, as well as being potential fire hazards), when capital investments in other things (to pick one example among many, Model Y) have a much more dramatic return.
A far more rapid, low-capital turnaround for giving S/X better stats, for example, would be to switch one motor to a Model 3-based drive unit, which would up range (due to the greater efficiency), charge rates (in terms of mph/kph), lower costs (the Model 3 drive unit line is arguably Tesla's most efficient, automated, scalable line of anything that they do), sustained track performance, etc.
People don't want to hear this. They want to pretend that capital is infinite. It's not. Yes, there is "a" financial return for switching from 18650s to 2170s. But it's not the best return for their (very much finite) money. There's nothing wrong with the 18650s. They work great. They have a great chemistry. Yeah, you can get somewhat more energy into a 2170 pack and yeah they can make them somewhat cheaper. But just because something can be "better" in some regards (although note: worse in others, such as surface area / cooling potential, for the same internal cooling design) doesn't make it the best return for your capital investment.
Last edited:
But given the difference in battery form factors, there is a decent chance the change would mean re-designing the pack, the frame and perhaps having to re-crash test the whole thing. I'd have to wonder if all that is worth the effort given no clear upside and a probably full refresh on the horizon. I would also imagine there is some commitment to Panasonic that Tesla needs to fulfill, so it doesn't see worthwhile making any change until they are out form under that.
As it states, no hardware change between Performance and Ludicrous, these both share the large rear motor, where the standard and extended range use the smaller rear motor.
They do call them donorcycles.
We've seen continued covering from shorts this past several trading sessions. The chart from Dusaniwsky doesn't really drive home the same point as the daily numbers in his "short sight" daily emails. I calculated nearly 400,000 additional short shares covered yesterday. The trend continues.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
There's probably different warranty reserves for the Ludicrous though: i.e. instead of setting aside $5k for future warranty repairs of the drive train they'll be setting aside $8k.
This means that even if the hardware is 100% identical, they can push the Ludicrous harder, for a higher allowable failure rate and still have a good margin.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
