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

[Doggydogworld]

I don’t recall seeing this mentioned here:

JPR007 on Twitter

View attachment 482022

His math is off. 5.2 million cells/day is enough for:
5200k / 4416 = 1178 LR packs
5200k / 3264 = 1593 SR+ packs

Or a bit under 1300/day for a 50/50 mix. Call it 9000/week, or 8500/week after allocating a couple GWh/year for Powerwalls/Powerpacks. His late October 30 GWh/year rate corresponds to a bit over 7000 Model 3s/week. Assuming they ship packs to Shanghai as they ramp from 30 to 35 GWh then Fremont Q4 production comes in around 85k Model 3s.

The 8500/week is a good target for Fremont 3+Y production rate in Q2 2020, when GF3 will presumably have switched to Chinese cells. We may learn about their plans for the back half of 2020 when they give guidance in late January. Unless they stop giving numbers altogether, of course.

 

[KarenRei]

Dang...I would totally replace model 3 with that
Cybertruck! Tesla Truck Club ️ on Twitter

Especially, if you could get P Cydan for the price of non-P with paint.

Even cooler with aeros
Cybertruck! Tesla Truck Club ️ on Twitter

Range would take a blow with the current pack sizes. Charge rates (mph/kph) would also take a hit. And top speed. And if it's actual armour to the point of upping the weight, you're looking at more tire wear, worse handling, worse acceleration, even more efficiency losses (see above), etc. And all reduction of efficiency means more cycles put on the pack.

Cybertruck is a consequence of the parameters it was optimized for - "taking abuse, going anywhere, and being able to do huge feats of strength". Not "getting around quickly and efficiently".

I know everyone is really excited about the new cybertruck design language, and it is awesome, but I need to remind people, the laws of physics haven't changed. Tesla has done an admirable job trying to make the vehicle efficient despite its shape... but I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed that this is the first vehicle they've ever unveiled where they haven't bragged about the drag coefficient.

ED: All this said... while basic car shapes (including curvature in key places) are not up for negotiation as far as efficiency goes, the specific details in many locations can be, and there's many places Tesla could go for a more angular design language without meaningful adverse consequences. If this new angular design language really does take off, I wonder if we might get a sort of hybrid "smooth X angular" design language. Cybertruck's design language would AFAIK be classified as "brutalism" (stark, low-contrast shading; functional geometric shapes without flourishes, etc), so maybe we might transition to a sort of "post-brutalism" design language.

Airflow-aligned features tend to have relatively limited impact, particularly if the angle is low (such as style lines). Anything behind a transparent cover can take any design language (lights, for example). The rear end, after flow separation, has a lot of design language freedom, so you could transition from a smooth front end to a more polygonal rear end (so long as the cross section after flow separation is low), which I think might look really keen. Etc.

 

[Paracelsus]

That link is not exactly confidence-boosting as to the trustworthiness of the source.

Some Instagram posts screenshotted in the thread here: Tesla factory is down, power outage:(

But would any employees really tag their location as "Tesla Factory"? Seems like a good way to get in trouble.

Regardless of real or not, the bigger story is that there is actually a collective group of people that are SO desperate for Tesla to fail that even the lights flickering is noteworthy to this crowd as they face a more uphill battle everyday with Tesla 'charging' ahead. But even more disgusting than the ooze of desperation that is seeping from their very core through every pore is the fact that these 'people' are placing bets against those making sincere efforts towards a more sustainable future for everyone..............even these 'people'.

"Ohhhh look! The lights are out. Maybe a transformer failed!!!!! We can only hope that some of today's production of cleaner, more efficient transportation doesn't get put into service asap!!!!"

Better not let them get too close to any of the Tesla factories or their negative energy may simply be enough to make the lights flicker. Perhaps that is why Tesla has declined any further interviews with Dana Hull at this point. I often wonder if there are any children that she cares about, and what planet she thinks they will be living on in the future. Has the countdown started for how soon she will post this on Twitter?

 

[Remus]

My car, my car!!!!

That's what I was saying upstream about the Cyber 3 / 2. Take a Prius Gen2 and cyber the edges....Voila!.

They could loose the arch flares for a road car... superfluous!

When the cyber truck came out my daughter said she likes it. If I can get a model 2 like that in time it will be my daughter's first car.

 

[Drax7]

Regardless of real or not, the bigger story is that there is actually a collective group of people that are SO desperate for Tesla to fail that even the lights flickering is noteworthy to this crowd as they face a more uphill battle everyday with Tesla 'charging' ahead. But even more disgusting than the ooze of desperation that is seeping from their very core through every pore is the fact that these 'people' are placing bets against those making sincere efforts towards a more sustainable future for everyone..............even these 'people'.

"Ohhhh look! The lights are out. Maybe a transformer failed!!!!! We can only hope that some of today's production of cleaner, more efficient transportation doesn't get put into service asap!!!!"

Better not let them get too close to any of the Tesla factories or their negative energy may simply be enough to make the lights flicker. Perhaps that is why Tesla has declined any further interviews with Dana Hull at this point. I often wonder if there are any children that she cares about, and what planet she thinks they will be living on in the future. Has the countdown started for how soon she will post this on Twitter?

“he who knows nothing, loves nothing”
Paracelsus

 

[Rb48888]

ED: All this said... while basic car shapes (including curvature in key places) are not up for negotiation as far as efficiency goes, the specific details in many locations can be, and there's many places Tesla could go for a more angular design language without meaningful adverse consequences. If this new angular design language really does take off, I wonder if we might get a sort of hybrid "smooth X angular" design language.

If the future importance of x/s is truly low, they could still bring some family resemblance to the designs through a minor refresh of a few key parts. (and a little D.O.T. lobbying)

 

[PhaseWhite]

If the factory was down...CNBC Bloomberg ECT would be all over IMHO.

Careful what you wish for

 

[reardencode]

Range would take a blow with the current pack sizes. Charge rates (mph/kph) would also take a hit. And top speed. And if it's actual armour to the point of upping the weight, you're looking at more tire wear, worse handling, worse acceleration, even more efficiency losses (see above), etc. And all reduction of efficiency means more cycles put on the pack.

Cybertruck is a consequence of the parameters it was optimized for - "taking abuse, going anywhere, and being able to do huge feats of strength". Not "getting around quickly and efficiently".

I hesitate to doubt KarenRei, but it seems to me that any vehicle could be cyberized (ie. switched to an angular steel exoskeleton from a traditional uni-body/body on frame) without much (if any) weight penalty, and only a small aero penalty. The point of the Cybertruck's design is that it combines the vehicle skin with the vehicle's load bearing structures (whether frame or uni-body). You can adjust the steel thickness to meet the particular strength needs of whatever vehicle you're building. It's not about armor, it just so happens that to achieve traditional full sized truck strength, you need steel that's thick enough to act as armor (and then you might as well throw that same steel on the few non-structural panels for fun). If you were building a Cyber3 you'd use thinner steel naturally.

 

[Thumper]

Using CT fabrication techniques still might work for smaller vehicles by using lighter grade steel. It would not be bulletproof, but would not need the strength of a truck either. One would retain the low cost Fab and no paint bare metal durability. It might work out. We'll see.

Reardencode beat me to it.

 

[Nocturnal]

I'd be happy to take a Model 3P with cyber truck styling if I could have a 10.5 second track beast with 400 miles of range for under 70k

 

[FreqFlyer]

If the future importance of x/s is truly low, they could still bring some family resemblance to the designs through a minor refresh of a few key parts. (and a little D.O.T. lobbying)

View attachment 482085

Well the S/X is suppose to get an update next year...............But thankfully Franz has stated there is no Tesla design ethos, and that every model stands on it own.

 

[SpaceCash]

But thankfully Franz has stated there is no Tesla design ethos, and that every model stands on it own.

They say this, but I think there is a distinctly "Tesla" look about the front of the CYBTRK. The way it sort of smiles with the simple angles especially the headlight, evokes the model X.
Maybe this is a natural effect of "first principles" design, or maybe I'm seeing something that isn't there, but I see it.

 

[jerry33]

Range would take a blow with the current pack sizes. Charge rates (mph/kph) would also take a hit. And top speed. And if it's actual armour to the point of upping the weight, you're looking at more tire wear, worse handling, worse acceleration, even more efficiency losses (see above), etc. And all reduction of efficiency means more cycles put on the pack.

Cybertruck is a consequence of the parameters it was optimized for - "taking abuse, going anywhere, and being able to do huge feats of strength". Not "getting around quickly and efficiently".

I know everyone is really excited about the new cybertruck design language, and it is awesome, but I need to remind people, the laws of physics haven't changed. Tesla has done an admirable job trying to make the vehicle efficient despite its shape... but I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed that this is the first vehicle they've ever unveiled where they haven't bragged about the drag coefficient.

ED: All this said... while basic car shapes (including curvature in key places) are not up for negotiation as far as efficiency goes, the specific details in many locations can be, and there's many places Tesla could go for a more angular design language without meaningful adverse consequences. If this new angular design language really does take off, I wonder if we might get a sort of hybrid "smooth X angular" design language. Cybertruck's design language would AFAIK be classified as "brutalism" (stark, low-contrast shading; functional geometric shapes without flourishes, etc), so maybe we might transition to a sort of "post-brutalism" design language.

Airflow-aligned features tend to have relatively limited impact, particularly if the angle is low (such as style lines). Anything behind a transparent cover can take any design language (lights, for example). The rear end, after flow separation, has a lot of design language freedom, so you could transition from a smooth front end to a more polygonal rear end (so long as the cross section after flow separation is low), which I think might look really keen. Etc.

I don't believe anyone expected the drag coefficient to be as good as the other Teslas, it only has to be significantly better than other trucks (which it appears to be). No point in releasing the figures until the final iteration. There was quite a lot of information in the presentation, sometimes too much information is a detriment. Now I think I would have shown a few practical scenarios than they did.

By trading the skin and unibody for an exoskeleton, the weight should be the same or less than a similar sized vehicle (obviously more than a smaller vehicle). The exoskeleton's thickness was, presumably, determined by how much strength and stiffness was needed to make the vehicle do what it was supposed to do. The bullet resistance was just a byproduct. It might be that a smaller vehicle would need the same or almost the same thickness. You won't just be able to reduce the thickness because the vehicle is smaller due to the stiffness and strength requirements.

 

[capster]

If the factory was down...CNBC Bloomberg ECT would be all over IMHO.

Our house is in Cupertino, which is not that that far from Fremont, and we lost power late last evening for a couple hours after what sounded like a particularly large amount of rain and wind. Thought we were too far south to be affected by the bomb cyclone (hope it isn’t an indicator of our future weather). Now just sprinkling a bit.

 

[dgodfrey]

OT
Could the transformer issue in Fremont have anything to do with my Tesla app not working?

 

[jerry33]

OT
Could the transformer issue in Fremont have anything to do with my Tesla app not working?

Looks like it. Servers down or partially down.

 

[StarFoxisDown!]

Nice to know that since the Cybertruck unveil, wall st seems to think Nio is worth 25% more

 

[humbaba]

Looks like it. Servers down or partially down.

I can't see why that would be an issue. Surely they aren't running their data center out of Fremont?

 

[humbaba]

Nice to know that since the Cybertruck unveil, wall st seems to think Nio is worth 25% more

A rising tide floats all boats mentality? Even if you think the cybertruck is a miss its hard to see how that would improve Nio's outlook. Ford's outlook? Sure (if you believe it, which I don't) but not Nio.

Of course, the market isn't rational, right?

 

[jerry33]

I can't see why that would be an issue. Surely they aren't running their data center out of Fremont?

Well, I'm having a similar issue and don't live anywhere near Seattle. Can't log in. But I've always assumed the data centre was in Fremont.