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.
It seems like an important point to address at the reveal and I lean toward GF5.
GF1 is full, so even building it there will require more construction. It is also far from the raw materials needed for chassis/ frame. Whereas the current vehicles are stamped, semi (and possibly pickup) will need large frame rails, semi also needs the rear axle castings. A more central factory/ closer to steel mill would be advantageous.

Long term, I see GF1 in general becoming the home of Tesla energy cells, with vehicle cells assembled in the same factory as the vehicles they go into. Integration of Maxwell dry electrode tech would greatly compact the require space. Same thing with motors. Its a lower running cost to install the new equipment on site rather than incur additional shipping costs.

Roadster could be a more manual line anywhere there is stamping capacity. I'd lean toward GF5 with pickup.

Also agree for @KarenRei that GF1's current layout is not conducive to vehicle assembly. Which isn't to say they could not change the shape of the additions.

This is true, however, I assumed much of the building foundations for expansion are already in place at GF1. The same with utilities, road infrastructure, electricity supply etc. I think they also already have permits for significant footprint expansion given the current building still is only a fraction of the initial plan.

I still think it will be much quicker and cheaper to expand GF1 than it will to build GF5 from scratch. This is more important for Semi given guidance is for production within one year.

whats the latest flyover/footprint of GF1
have the changes made to latest 3 battery lines impacted the space needs?

do we even know for sure if semi is at gf1 (i thought elon kinda said he figured itd be gf1, but that was not long after reveal, and he was pondering, not conclusive)

i still think truck will be together with semi - but ?
 
You'd have to prove they were lying rather than just mistaken.
Sophisticated clients don't much listen to investment managers (that's why they're sophisticated).

Sophisticated clients don't much listen to investment manager

lol, that is so true!

Ie mine said don’t invest in Tesla, buy a gas LP investment.

I ignored that advice and have generated significant gains.
 
@Artful Dodger
@Fact Checking
@generalenthu

This post is an attempt to evaluate the impacts of a potential FCA-PSA-Tesla CO2 EU emission pool for 2020-2023. It supplements a previous post examining the current FCA-Tesla pool:
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the 2019 Investors' Roundtable

Background:
Strict new CO2 emission limits have been imposed on new cars sold in the EU starting in 2020. Any manufacturers which sell in the EU are allowed to “pool” their fleets to reduce the pool average emissions and penalties. Fiat-Chrysler Automotive (FCA) and Tesla Inc. have formed such a pool with the implication that FCA will reimburse Tesla for participating.
In October 2019, a merger between FCA and PSA Groupe (Peugeot, Citroën, DS, Opel/Vauxhall) was announced. Further reports indicate all automakers in both groups will be retained.
PSA-FCA Merger Will Retain All 13 Automakers In The Lineup

The merger has apparently won union approval.
PSA unions approve FCA merger but remain 'vigilant' on plant implications

This assessment examines the implications of the FCA-Tesla emissions pool being expanded to include PSA. It uses similar assumption, methodology and references to the previous FCA-Tesla pool assessment, but these are repeated to make this a stand-alone document.

TL;DR:
Assuming the FCA-PSA pays Tesla 50% of the penalty-reduction value of the Tesla ZEVs sold in the EU (suggested by @Fact Checking), Table 1 shows the payment indicated by this assessment. Because of the large size of the combined FCA-PSA pool, it would take an extremely large number of Teslas (more than 500,000) to completely eliminate the FCA-PSA EU CO2 emission penalty.

FCA-PSA Table 1.png


The rest of the post documents the methodology used.

Major assumptions and findings:
The FCA-PSA-Tesla Pool emission target is 91.2 g/km. This is a weighted average of the 2018 FCA and PSA targets (weighted by the number of 2018 new vehicles sold by each group, Ref. 1).

The EU emission penalty is 95 €/(g/km)/vehicle (Ref.1)

FCA-PSA Table 2.png


Table 2 Column A shows the average CO2 emissions for the ICE portion of the pool. These are weighted averages of 2018 FCA and PSA values (weighted by the number of 2018 new vehicles sold by each group, Ref. 1) and are assumed to be constant through 2023, except for 2020 due to Phase-In rules (described below).

Table 2 Column B shows the number of ICE vehicles in the pool. These are the 2018 combined FCA and PSA numbers (Ref. 1 and 4) and are assumed to be constant through 2023, except for 2020 due to Phase-In rules. Note that the ICE component of the pools has increased by a factor of 4.5 relative to the FCA(only)-Tesla pool.

Table 2 Column C shows the Super-Credit factors. These allow a limited number of low-emission vehicles to have an exaggerated beneficial effect on emission penalty calculations (Ref. 1). The Super-Credit rules are described below.

Table 2 Column D shows the computed maximum number of ZEVs that can have Super-Credit status.

Table 2 Column E shows the computed penalty-reduction value per vehicle of the Super-Credit ZEVs.

Table 2 Column F shows the computed number of ZEVs (in addition to the Super-Credit ZEVs) needed to eliminate the entire emission penalty.

Table 2 Column G shows the computed penalty-reduction value per vehicle for the non-Super-Credit ZEVs.

FCA-PSA Figure 1.png

Figure 1 captures the penalty situation graphically. The initial steeper slopes to the curves are due to the Super-Credit effect and the break in the slope occurs when their scope limitations occur. The downward shift of the 2020 data is due to the Phase-In rules.

Several things are immediately obvious:
1) The Super-Credit ZEVs have a very high value in penalty reduction (12,100€ - 18,600€ per vehicle). They apply to the first 107,000-164,000 ZEVs.
2) The non-Super-Credit ZEV’s still have 9000€/ZEV of penalty-reduction value and the total penalty is such that there is room for lots of them (450,000 to 870,000) before the penalty is completely eliminated.

When compared to the previous FCA(only)-Tesla pool assessment, the effect of the much larger ICE pool component (and much larger potential penalty) is clear. Many more ZEVs are eligible for Super-Credit status, and many more in excess of those are required to completely retire the emissions penalty. Note the change in the ordinate scale on Figure 1.

FCA-PSA Table 3.png


Table 3 tabulates the penalty reduction values as a function of ZEVs added to the fleet.

Implications for Tesla:
There has been speculation on the structure of FCA’s (or FCA-PSA’s) payment to Tesla for the inclusion of their ZEVs into the pool, but specifics seem lacking. As an example, the value of each Tesla could be thought of as a negotiated fraction of its penalty-reduction value (a “bounty”), paid by FCA-PSA. @Fact Checking suggested 50% for this bounty, and the results of that assumption are shown in Table 1. Table 1 is simply Table 3 multiplied by the bounty; any bounty value can be applied.

This assessment assumed negligible FCA-PSA ZEV contribution (consistent with Ref. 1 2018 data). If in the 2020-2023 timeframe FCA-PSA introduces (and sells) significant ZEVs of their own, these would presumably be the first placed in the Super-Credit category. These can simply be subtracted from Table 2 Column D, with the remainder available for Tesla. That remainder multiplied by the appropriate value in Column E will give the remaining Tesla Super-Credit penalty reduction. If FCA ZEV sales exceed the maximum available Super-Credits, the remaining FCA non-Super-Credit ZEVs can be subtracted from Table 2 Column F and remainder then multiplied by the appropriate value in Column G to get the remaining Tesla non-Super-Credit penalty reduction.

Presumably, penalties would by assessed by the EU in the year following their computation (e.g., 2020 emission exceedances would be penalized in 2021). The timing of the payments from FCA-PSA to Tesla (and subsequently availability for Tesla financial reporting) is unknown. It is possible that for each ZEV sale, Tesla would receive an immediate bounty. It is also possible that the lump Tesla bounty payments would go out at the same time as the penalty payment to the EU (a year after the sales).

Details

Super-Credits (Ref. 1):
Super-credits allow manufacturers to count their initial “low-emission vehicles” (<50 g CO2/km) as “multiple vehicles”. FCA-PSA have essentially no low-emission vehicles in its fleet, so all Super-Credits go to the Teslas.
Super-credit multipliers: 2020: 2.0, 2021: 1.67, 2022: 1.33, 2023: 1.0. Super-Credits are eliminated after 2023.
Maximum scope of super-credits: 7.5 g/km CO2 of effective emission reduction

2020 Phase-In (Ref. 1):
The wording associated with the 2020 phase-in is a bit ambiguous. Ref. 1 Section 4: “…the provision allows manufacturers to base average CO2 emission values on the best-performing 95% of vehicles”. I’m interpreting this to mean the manufacturer can exclude 5% of their worst polluting vehicles from the calculation of their average CO2emissions for 2020 and also exclude them from the total fleet count.
Ref. 5 provides an extensive list of independent emissions tests. Some of the worst scores for 2018 Fiat are the petrol 500X and Panda, for 2018 Opel are the petrol Corsa and Crossland X and for Peugeot are the petrol 2008 and 3008 models, all in the range of 175-200 g/km CO2. According to Ref. 4, more than 950,000 of these combined models were sold in Europe in 2018. Although the breakdown between petrol and diesel are not provided, it is likely that at least 160,000 (5% of the fleet) of these are petrol. It is therefore assumed that 160,000 vehicles with CO2 emissions of (average) 187 g/km are excluded from the 2020 FCA-PSA fleet. The recomputed fleet size and average emission value are shown in the first row, Column A and B of Table 2.

“Eco-Innovations” (Ref. 1):
“Eco-Innovations” were meant to be incentives to reduce ICE vehicle emissions. They include things like efficient alternators, LED lights and solar roofs and computations are used to translate them into CO2 credits. These could be used to reduce average CO2
emission values up to 7 g/km. Neither FCA nor PSA have any significant Eco-Innovations (Ref 3.).

References:
1) CO2 emissions from new passenger cars in the European Union: Car manufacturers’ performance in 2018 | International Council on Clean Transportation
2) European vehicle market statistics, 2018/2019 | International Council on Clean Transportation
3) Overview and evaluation of eco-innovations in European passenger car CO2 standards | International Council on Clean Transportation
4) Fiat European sales figures
5) EQUA Carbon Dioxide Index | EQUA INDEX | Independent real world driving data
 
"Jobs was a poser. He didn't even write code."
I can't remember exactly where it was from, I think maybe the movie "The Fly" but somebody remarked that the person was a genius and his response was something like "No, not really. But I'm good at finding other geniuses and telling them what to do." (I assume Elon is an actual genius but the point stands)
 
and... only 50k production (Maybe) because of.... wait for it....

limited battery supply. (and that’s at least a year from now)

I'm going to make a prediction that some here will think is blind Tesla fan boy stupidity. But we will come back at the end of 2020 and see how I did:

Ford will not deliver more than 1000 Mach-E's in all of 2020. Radical prediction, eh?
 
Does anyone think there will be any comment on CyberTruck production location at the reveal?

It would seem to make most sense to produce CyberTruck at the same location as Semi, because they can likely share a new US paint shop even if they are on completely different platforms.
Given Semi is supposed to be in production next year and Fremont is already maxed out with 3,Y S&X, it would seem to me that a GF1 extension is the only place where Semi tooling and equipment can be installed so quickly. Plus there is significant battery shipping cost advantages from a shared battery & car production location given the weight of batteries in each Semi.
Therefore it seems logical that CyberTruck will also be manufactured at GF1. However its still very possible Tesla will announce an all new US factory for CyberTruck, perhaps aiming for production by mid to late 2021. I would be very happy with GF5 as the "one more thing" at the CyberTruck event.

I also wonder about Roadster 2 production location. Presumably it will share much of its Powertrain with Plaid S&X, and Roadster assembly could likely also be done on the S&X GA lines. However I doubt there will be space for a Roadster body line at Fremont, and Roadster production may also complicate the Fremont paint shop. Overall I'd say Roadster is most likely made at Fremont, but maybe it will be at GF1 and perhaps part of Plaid S&X will be produced at GF1 too.

GF1 seems like a likely location to produce Semi and Cybertruck but one highly speculative option -- combining 'Gentrify Mordor?" with Elon's suggestion a while back that a "tri-state area" bordering West Virginia could be a possibility for a future Gigafactory -- perhaps a brownfield site in that region ("Mordor") as a location for GF5 could be in the cards.

I think a location like this could be very good on many levels but it is obviously a complex decision.

Screenshot_2019-11-20 Elon Musk on Twitter WVaTristate.png
 
Listen.....I don't wanna get flamed here, but my friend Linette(who's in the know) told me they don't even test the brakes before delivery. I'm not saying it's a fact, I'm just saying it sounds very dangerous. Also, did you read Consumer Reports???
I bet they don't even crash them to test the airbags. Slaughterpilot OMG!

GF1 seems like a likely location to produce Semi and Cybertruck but one highly speculative (low probability) option -- combining 'Gentrify Mordor?" with Elon's suggestion a while back that a "tri-state area" bordering West Virginia could be a possibility for a future Gigafactory -- perhaps a brownfield site in that region ("Mordor") as a location for GF5 could be in the cards.

View attachment 479108
Despite the fact that your average coal miner is very different from myself politically/culturally, I'd love to see some economic revival in those areas. You can't blame them for being angry and feeling left behind. I can judge who they decide to be angry at, but people with good job prospects and a future are less likely to want to burn things down.
 
GF1 seems like a likely location to produce Semi and Cybertruck but one highly speculative option -- combining 'Gentrify Mordor?" with Elon's suggestion a while back that a "tri-state area" bordering West Virginia could be a possibility for a future Gigafactory -- perhaps a brownfield site in that region ("Mordor") as a location for GF5 could be in the cards.

I think a location like this could be very good on many levels but it is obviously a complex decision.

View attachment 479108

interesting.

Geographic diversification always make sense re: reducing risk and with coal country imploding there will be an available workforce to support a Tesla location.

Germans/Japanese have had great success in locating plants in the South so that’s another alternative.
 
Oups ! Elon go to court on 3 december due to pedo guy Unsworth
I only skimmed, but what I got out of it was that the judge was completely unconvinced by Musk's legal arguments and the case is on in full. At this point it can only end poorly for Musk and $TSLA, IMO. The circus, however unworthy it is, can reasonably be expected to be paraded in the press to the detriment of Tesla. With a friendly judge there is even less reason for Unswerth to agree to a settlement: making as big of a stink as he can about this case (with the help of lopez, kolodny, et al) will only help increase his financial gain from initiating a controversy and slandering Musk.

I didn't see anything about the remaining "expert" testimony, but given the judge's response to the motion for summary judgement I expect it to be allowed without limitation. Jury selection will be significant, and this is where all of the public slander of Musk by the press (Wired, BI, etc.) plays to the plaintiff's benefit.
 
Well remembered! Coal Country = Mordor! Coal = burning/flames and all that! "Gentrify Mordor" = give them better jobs, to replace the work in the coal mines that has been disrupted! Maybe after a generation, the grit and stains of coal filth will have washed away. :)

Yep, all else being equal, this does seem like a very appealing part of the country to build a GF for a pickup and Semi.

Given the need for good jobs I imagine the local/regional political support would be through the roof as well.
 
That would be Trane. “Solar Ready” (means the systems runs via an inverter) my 3 ton system runs perfectly on my 2 Powerwalls and 15KW PV system.

Fire Away!

Funny! There is not just one company! Modern Mini-Split Heat Pumps all run on soft start and inverter technology. That's what makes them so efficient. The Japanese manufacturers have some of the best technology here although I imagine in recent years the playing field has leveled somewhat. The problem in an auto is that to achieve efficiency at low temperatures requires increasingly larger air handlers and heat exchangers relative to the amount of heating/cooling required. This adds increasing cost, bulk and weight, three things you don't want to add to a car.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Tesla integrating a heat pump in future designs but there will probably still be a resistance heater to supplement the heat pump for heating and defrosting at very low temperatures in order to avoid the need to move impractically large volumes of air over the heat exchanger to extract adequate heat from very cold air.
 
Totally agree, if Tesla had batteries in the shops then they'd take a huge %age of that market. People would buy them for multiple reasons, not east because everyone knows them as *the* top battery maker on the planet, but also for the cool factor.
I got that cute little PowerBank in the Tesla Store for cell phone charging. According to the blurb it's "powered by the same cell found in many of the batteries of our vehicles". Cool idea if true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCash
I only skimmed, but what I got out of it was that the judge was completely unconvinced by Musk's legal arguments and the case is on in full. At this point it can only end poorly for Musk and $TSLA, IMO. The circus, however unworthy it is, can reasonably be expected to be paraded in the press to the detriment of Tesla. With a friendly judge there is even less reason for Unswerth to agree to a settlement: making as big of a stink as he can about this case (with the help of lopez, kolodny, et al) will only help increase his financial gain from initiating a controversy and slandering Musk.

I didn't see anything about the remaining "expert" testimony, but given the judge's response to the motion for summary judgement I expect it to be allowed without limitation. Jury selection will be significant, and this is where all of the public slander of Musk by the press (Wired, BI, etc.) plays to the plaintiff's benefit.

In my experience, this type of thing, while never good or a positive, has very little effect on the actual value of your investment over time.

I'm 99% sure Musk will not be going to trial, he will apologize and settle beforehand for less than $5 million of his personal funds. It's not worth his time, he is a busy man. True, it's not a great "look" but it really doesn't matter in the big picture. He will apologize, give the squeaky wheel some money and move on. The amount of the settlement won't even be disclosed.

And that's exactly what the little money-grubbers are counting on.