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

[JRP3]

My use case is regenerative braking using both 3P motors at full power (211 kW + 147 kW = 358 kW [Wikipedia]) in increments of 1 second. Doing this with the battery alone would lead to a charge-rate of 358 kW/80 kWh = 4.475/h, which seems a rather unhealthy charge rate for the battery and one that could not be fixed simply by increasing the battery capacity by a realistic amount.

Here's why it won't happen, capturing every single possible electron from regen is never going to equate to significant range, especially in long range steady state highway driving, when range actually matters. There is no way all the cost and engineering which would be involved in using ultra caps to capture that relatively tiny amount of energy would ever make sense. Simply think about how often you hit your friction brakes hard when you drive. Plus as has already been pointed out there are lithium cell chemistries, such as lithium titanate and liFePO4 which are easily capable of super high C rates and are already much more energy dense than ultra caps.

 

[EVNow]

Alphabet tops Q4 expectations - so obviously the stock is down 3%.

 

[SebastianR]

Gosh CNBC is bad. I don’t usually watch them. Not going to start watching and they really seem to dislike Tesla. But Catherine from ARK invest is great.

 

[Carl Raymond]

Let's say we want to do that for 2 seconds at a time (on a race-track, I guess).

Or a stop sign, a traffic light, a bend or a decline, or because the car ahead applied its brakes. i.e. where energy recovery is useful.

 

[Carl Raymond]

Here's why it won't happen, capturing every single possible electron from regen is never going to equate to significant range, especially in long range steady state highway driving, when range actually matters. There is no way all the cost and engineering which would be involved in using ultra caps to capture that relatively tiny amount of energy would ever make sense. Simply think about how often you hit your friction brakes hard when you drive. Plus as has already been pointed out there are lithium cell chemistries, such as lithium titanate and liFePO4 which are easily capable of super high C rates and are already much more energy dense than ultra caps.

No, it’s whenever you brake, at all. Existing regen is not that efficient. It’s worth improving it, if it can be done cheaply enough - for the cost of a mass produced component.

Edit: remember that Tesla designed flat door handles to avoid the loss due to air friction. It must irk Musk terribly that joules are being lost unnecessarily with every braking action.

 

[Tenable]

Not even that - its the falling IV. Infact falling IV is accounting for 90% of my Call's fall in value. But, of course, little movement in stock price contributes to low IV.

IV crush is killing me.

 

[Joe F]

Gosh CNBC is bad. I don’t usually watch them. Not going to start watching and they really seem to dislike Tesla. But Catherine from ARK invest is great.

Yeah, and up next it sounds as if they're doing a hit piece highlighting the shorts new web site...

 

[Mark's Beagle]

Positive article on SA about Tesla's solid position wrt batteries.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4237881-heads-tesla-wins

 

[avoigt]

My intent was to compare VW to Toyota etc., not Tesla. Do you agree that VW are best placed to be number 2 behind Tesla at the moment? if not, who?

If I misread your post, apologize. VW and Toyota are more easy to compare. VW is more vulnerable than Toyota today just because where their consumers are and in which segments.

I do not think VW is anywhere near to be a #2 behind Tesla. I really hope they develop into that position one day but in the last years have been falling further behind. One of the issues VW has is the size. It take decades to transform a large corporation like VW into a BEV company and they just don't have the time because of Tesla. It may be easier for BMW but they have their own challenges.

With every day falling behind VW loose the ability to compete and execute a strategy. Many reasons for it. The larger you are as a ICE automaker the higher the utilization of assets needs to be to make a profit. If you make one you have leverage and make a hell lot of money. If you don't..... well then its the other way around.

 

[lascavarian]

The caps are worse at low temp also. 225 amp mas at 40 deg C, 140 A at 15 C.

Bummer, bummer. All my whining about cold weather performance for nothing. Thanks for your analysis.

 

[MartinAustin]

Yeah, and up next it sounds as if they're doing a hit piece highlighting the shorts new web site...

Exactly. They gave free publicity to that website? Spelling out the name, helping you to get to it etc.? Disgusting.

Short sellers are interested in destroying companies, then closing their short positions afterwards.

Trying to destroy Tesla isn't just un-American, it's un-Terran!

The CNBC talking heads did point out that the site was by its nature stocked with content from anonymous sources, and so there was no way to verify whether any of it was true, mistakes, lies, or what.

Not really the kind of thing you should take up airtime with, unless you are trying to artificially increase drama and controversy.

NOTE: Phil LeBeau tweeted about this website THREE DAYS AGO.
Phil LeBeau on Twitter
After letting three days go by, they then bring it on-air for the main hosts to discuss?

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

No, it’s whenever you brake, at all. Existing regen is not that efficient. It’s worth improving it, if it can be done cheaply enough - for the cost of a mass produced component.

Edit: remember that Tesla designed flat door handles to avoid the loss due to air friction. It must irk Musk terribly that joules are being lost unnecessarily with every braking action.

I'm going to repeat KarenRei and ask that people who don't understand refrain from speculating on the use of ultracaps.

Much like how you don't use all available power to accelerate a car during normal driving, you won't need max regen capability to slow it down (usually tens of KW's). The efficiency of the regen is in the motor efficiency itself and not the batteries. Capicators won't solve it. In a racetrack environment, then you might have a point, but that's not what you said.

Edit: removed cruft.

 

[avoigt]

And, interestingly, doing so still results in legal protection (trade secrets) -- though the extent and nature differs from patents. I'm not a lawyer, but keeping information as a trade secret seriously limits your legal recourse. But, for a company like Tesla that doesn't seem all that interested in suing competitors, it could make a lot of sense. OTOH, if it ever came out that this was their practice then it would make Tesla a target for serious espionage.

The thing is, prior art can be used to invalidate patents. If Tesla tried to submarine their inventions through not filing for patent protection and keeping them as trade secrets, if someone else tried to patent it they could present their own prior art. Tesla would not be able to secure a patent themselves (I believe the US was the last to move to first-to-file), but neither could anyone else.

Fully agree to your legal patent analysis. So it boils down you really have to know what the competition will not be able to replicate and file for a patent on their own. I believe Tesla has that knowledge and a good strategy.

They do patents with everything they want the competition to look at and replicate and keep silent of everything they know others won't be able to do and invent.

Cost of manufacturing is one of those not patented know-hows. Have you ever ask yourself why Tesla does not disclose any more cost on battery pack level? They stopped talking about it at ER calls. It does not help you to tear down the battery pack to learn how. They even show how the batteries are produced still people struggle with it.

 

[Krugerrand]

Agreed. This is the best way to lock down the IP. The only reason to purchase the company rather than just licencing the tech is to stop other from using it.

AND to acquire the human talent.

 

[EVNow]

IV crush is killing me.

3/15 Calls are down 3 pp.

So, for 400 strike, with 0.11 Vega - that equates to 33 cents down. Theta is -0.06, so 12 cents down over the weekend. Overall, some 30% down from Friday. (1.40 to 0.94). With a Delta of 5 cents, SP has to raise $2 to counter Theta, but $7 to counter IV.

BTW, I think SP is down $20 from where it would have been, but for
- Deepak retiring
- Maxwell acquisition

Tesla missed two 3% up days.

 

[SPadival]

I think I caught them red handed

S Padival on Twitter

 

[Krugerrand]

Lots of evidence now to suggest VW are serious on EVs.
1) Sharing MEB platform to increase scale
2) Buying Powerpacks - that takes guts/loss of pride
3) Taycan, Audi, cheaper VWs - got all bases covered
4) Moving away from hybrid for Golf GTi - back to gas only. They aren't going to kid themselves with hybrid stepping stone for too long.

Not a bad effort compared to the rest of the pack.

I don’t care if they give away a free kitten with every VW EV car purchase. It doesn’t make up for their shenanigans. I hope they implode sooner rather than later. I’ll never support them and I’ll discourage everyone I know.

Of course with that attitude....

*sigh* The internal struggle continues.

 

[KarenRei]

BTW, I think SP is down $20 from where it would have been, but for
- Deepak retiring
- Maxwell acquisition

Tesla missed two 3% up days.

At least. Deepak in particular totally ruined any potential for momentum from the ER. Sigh...

So your calls are 3/15? Not 2/15? Well, you've got good time on those - not too much to worry, unless they're very high strike. I still have some left on 22 Feb (but they're ITM - all my OTMs are out of February now).

 

[Sudre]

My quick math was:
35 GWh annual production = 8.75 GWh quarterly production
Musk stated the internal guidance for Tesla Energy installs this year was close to 3 GWh. On a quarterly basis, that would be 0.75 GWh.
If Tesla produced 70k Model 3's all with Long-Range (75 kWh) packs, that would total 5.25 GWh per quarter.

Which leaves 2.75 GWh of quarterly production excess.

Again, I could be making a big miscalculation somewhere. But that's the math I've been using.

I am guessing you do not believe Tesla will hit the 7000 run rate this year and not make 400K M3 this year. Actually it looks like you believe Tesla won't even hit 300K this year on the M3. 300K a year is already more on average than you are projecting. Rerun your numbers as if Tesla hits 400K M3s and see where you end up on extra cells. That will be a mix of battery sizes so there will be plenty to build power packs but I don't think they will have as many extras as you think.

 

[bhtooefr]

That kind of makes sense. I believe the main reason Tesla patents anything is not to keep it to themselves but to prevent other companies from patenting Tesla's innovations whos motive is to slow or stop the pace of innovation in electric car, battery, and energy products. Splitting hairs a little here, but wouldn't Tesla want to patent even things no one else can do to prevent some company from identifying the innovation, patenting it, and then forbidding Tesla from doing it?

So, even in a "first to file" jurisdiction (most of the world, now), if Tesla can document being first to invent something, they can invalidate the patent, AFAIK. ("First to invent", as the US used to be, meant that the first inventor could get a patent grant even after a later inventor filed.)