Can't imagine what the conversations in Daimler boardrooms must be like. This is a company that stopped all investments in ICE technology earlier this year, so they realise where the industry is headed. These kinds of sales numbers have got to really scare them about what's coming.
-
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
Can't imagine what the conversations in Daimler boardrooms must be like. This is a company that stopped all investments in ICE technology earlier this year, so they realise where the industry is headed. These kinds of sales numbers have got to really scare them about what's coming.
Supercredits for EQCs sold in 2019: 0
Supercredits for EQCs sold in 2020: 2.00 (in 2021: 1.66; in 2022 1.33)
So with a single EV sold in 2020 Daimler could reduce their average of 10 ICE cars emitting 130g CO2/km each to 108 g CO2/km. (10 * 130g CO2/km + 1 * 2.00 * 0g CO2/km) / (10 + 1 * 2.00).
However they are only allowed to use the EV supercredits to reduce the fleet average by up to 7.5 g CO2/km
I'm sure this is not 100% correct, but you'll get the idea.
Not saying that EQC will sell good, but it might not be that bad.
It’s possible they start building on those areas as they’re quite close to the motor & battery assembly plant (Phase 1.5 or whatever it’s being referred to as these days).
My guess is, it’s for any small repairs / fixes to be carried out before the cars are loaded up onto carriers. It might also be a cleaning or prep station. Equally, it could become some sort of office space to process transport documentation as the cars are being loaded up.
I also think even the deep pockets would give up if they found shorting is no longer hurting Tesla. They might have been right as some didn't buy Tesla fearing it's bankruptcy. Now this is just laughable.
I think some of them are still waiting for Q1 to see whether they can spin the seasonal drop to their advantage. If we get GAAP profit in Q1 there will be fireworks.
The smaller the pack the higher cost per kWh. They must use "power" cells instead of energy oriented, BMS cost will be about the same and so on. You can't multiple average price with small pack size.
Friday I missed out on the post-P&D-report party here because I was driving back from Italy.
But I was having my own little party, see photo.
On a more technical note, I think an improvement can be made to the predicted SoC-on-arrival, which is splayed at the end of the list of navigation points for the active route.
Usually, this prediction is _very_ accurate, allowing the driver to select a driving speed that leads to arrival with exactly the desired SoC. So for road-tripping I often try to end my supercharging session so that my desired driving speed causes me to arrive at the next supercharger (or at my destination) with an SoC of e.g. 10%. (For non-roadtripping I keep the SoC between 30%-80%).
The attached photo is from the Brenner Supercharger, located on the E-45 just North of the Brenner pass which lies at an altitude of 1370 m. My preceding supercharging session was at Affi, which lies at an altitude of ca. 191 m. I looked up the altitudes after getting home.
The car was heavily loaded, not only with gear for both a winter + seaside vacation (incl. e.g. snow chains + 30m extension cord for overnight charging in the mountains) but we also always stock up on pasta, rice, olive oil, wine, cheese, coffee, vegetables etc. (saffron...) when returning from Italy. This time we also had our Christmas presents.
Naturally, hauling this extra payload up a mountain meant that its weight would have to be converted to potential energy, which would thus pose an extra drain on the battery. As we set out from Affi, I verified on the Energy->Trip screen that the projected draw on the battery was indeed taking into account the climb up the mountain, the screen clearly displayed this as a steeper gradient on the SoC depletion, especially during the final ascent up to the pass.
Still, as we started the drive up to Brenner, I noticed how the predicted SoC-on-arrival kept dropping. It started out at 17% and quickly settled at 12%. That's normal for me (presumably because I drive a bit faster than what the computer assumes to be typical). Then as the uphill part started it dropped to 10% and I thought: "Fine, that's what I go for in Germany when there is no speed limit". When the hills turned into a mountain side it dropped further first to 8% and then to 6%. At this point the not particularly steep climb was still such that we were overtaking SUVs and other heavy vehicles, but otherwise keeping up with left-lane traffic. It remained at 6% for quite a while, but during the last ca. 30km, the predicted SoC-on-arrival dropped to 3%. On this stretch the highway has a lot of curves, so I opted to reduce the speed a bit. Just below the pass, when the actual SoC was at 3%, the predicted SoC briefly showed 2%, but then went back up to 3% as we reached the pass. Shortly after we arrived at the Supercharger with actual and predicted SoC both at 3%. During the whole drive, the car's climate control settings were unchanged (and set at a 1-speed chill 19C for the windshield only, with A/C off - when the supercharging power tapers off I increase the climate setting to warm up the car).
Also, during the drive I checked that the battery had its full capacity for regen (i.e. no dots on the left of the power-line indicator), so the battery stayed warm enough during the drive).
For less experienced drivers this would not be an optimal experience, so I wondered what could throw off the prediction of the SoC-on-arrival.
According to the Owner's Manual, my Model 3 LR AWD has an empty weight of 1847 kg and a maximum allowed weight of 2265 kg, for a maximum allowed payload of 418 kg. Compared to when I drive the car by myself, we probably set out with an additional payload of 300 kg. The added potential energy would be 9.81 m/s^2 * ( 1370 m - 191 m ) * 300 kg = 3470 kJ, i.e. slightly less than 1 kWh. To get its drain on the battery, one would need to divide by the efficiency of not only the battery + drive train but also friction losses at the tires. (Aerodynamic losses should not be a factor because the selected driving speed is assumed to be independent of the payload). I don't know what this efficiency is, but have to assume it is less than 80% and for a clear but slightly wet road surface we had probably not worse than 2/3). This would correspond to an additional SoC-depletion of 1% or maybe 2%. The difference caused by the full payload range (i.e. an unmanned robotaxi vs a fully loaded car) would be 40% more.
Additionally, the climb involved a drop of the ambient temperature of about 7C just because of the higher altitude (something that the car's computer would also know). Such a drop can cause the car's climate system to draw more power from the battery, since there is an increased heat loss from the cabin. We were driving at high-way speed so in our case, the substantial heat losses from the drive-train should help maintain an optimal battery temperature.
Anyway, what seems to be possible, is that the navigation system becomes better at estimating the additional SoC depletion during a climb up a mountain. It should for example be possible to get a good estimate of the car's actual weight, by measuring its acceleration when it is driving on a flat stretch of road with a given amount of power and comparing that actual acceleration to expected values for an empty car. For a car that when empty weighs 1847 kg and which accelerates at only 90% of what is expected when empty, the weight would simply be estimated as 1847 kg / 0.9 (i.e. a payload of 205 kg). Also, the additional power draw from the climate control could be estimated, given the typical temperature drop when driving up a mountain.
Anyway, these are the things that one is free to think about, when the car drives itself on AP...
PS. To convince myself that I was actually not going to fully deplete the battery while driving up to Brenner, I repeatedly had my son compute the allowed maximum driving force (consumption) [Wh/km], i.e. SoC (minus margin of 3%) times 75 kWh (assumed available capacity at SoC=100%) per remaining distance. These numbers came out around 350-375 Wh/km and I was driving with a force of up to around 330 Wh/km. If it had been a closer call, I would have reset the trip-counter more often, to get a reading of the consumption that way.
But I was having my own little party, see photo.
On a more technical note, I think an improvement can be made to the predicted SoC-on-arrival, which is splayed at the end of the list of navigation points for the active route.
Usually, this prediction is _very_ accurate, allowing the driver to select a driving speed that leads to arrival with exactly the desired SoC. So for road-tripping I often try to end my supercharging session so that my desired driving speed causes me to arrive at the next supercharger (or at my destination) with an SoC of e.g. 10%. (For non-roadtripping I keep the SoC between 30%-80%).
The attached photo is from the Brenner Supercharger, located on the E-45 just North of the Brenner pass which lies at an altitude of 1370 m. My preceding supercharging session was at Affi, which lies at an altitude of ca. 191 m. I looked up the altitudes after getting home.
The car was heavily loaded, not only with gear for both a winter + seaside vacation (incl. e.g. snow chains + 30m extension cord for overnight charging in the mountains) but we also always stock up on pasta, rice, olive oil, wine, cheese, coffee, vegetables etc. (saffron...) when returning from Italy. This time we also had our Christmas presents.
Naturally, hauling this extra payload up a mountain meant that its weight would have to be converted to potential energy, which would thus pose an extra drain on the battery. As we set out from Affi, I verified on the Energy->Trip screen that the projected draw on the battery was indeed taking into account the climb up the mountain, the screen clearly displayed this as a steeper gradient on the SoC depletion, especially during the final ascent up to the pass.
Still, as we started the drive up to Brenner, I noticed how the predicted SoC-on-arrival kept dropping. It started out at 17% and quickly settled at 12%. That's normal for me (presumably because I drive a bit faster than what the computer assumes to be typical). Then as the uphill part started it dropped to 10% and I thought: "Fine, that's what I go for in Germany when there is no speed limit". When the hills turned into a mountain side it dropped further first to 8% and then to 6%. At this point the not particularly steep climb was still such that we were overtaking SUVs and other heavy vehicles, but otherwise keeping up with left-lane traffic. It remained at 6% for quite a while, but during the last ca. 30km, the predicted SoC-on-arrival dropped to 3%. On this stretch the highway has a lot of curves, so I opted to reduce the speed a bit. Just below the pass, when the actual SoC was at 3%, the predicted SoC briefly showed 2%, but then went back up to 3% as we reached the pass. Shortly after we arrived at the Supercharger with actual and predicted SoC both at 3%. During the whole drive, the car's climate control settings were unchanged (and set at a 1-speed chill 19C for the windshield only, with A/C off - when the supercharging power tapers off I increase the climate setting to warm up the car).
Also, during the drive I checked that the battery had its full capacity for regen (i.e. no dots on the left of the power-line indicator), so the battery stayed warm enough during the drive).
For less experienced drivers this would not be an optimal experience, so I wondered what could throw off the prediction of the SoC-on-arrival.
According to the Owner's Manual, my Model 3 LR AWD has an empty weight of 1847 kg and a maximum allowed weight of 2265 kg, for a maximum allowed payload of 418 kg. Compared to when I drive the car by myself, we probably set out with an additional payload of 300 kg. The added potential energy would be 9.81 m/s^2 * ( 1370 m - 191 m ) * 300 kg = 3470 kJ, i.e. slightly less than 1 kWh. To get its drain on the battery, one would need to divide by the efficiency of not only the battery + drive train but also friction losses at the tires. (Aerodynamic losses should not be a factor because the selected driving speed is assumed to be independent of the payload). I don't know what this efficiency is, but have to assume it is less than 80% and for a clear but slightly wet road surface we had probably not worse than 2/3). This would correspond to an additional SoC-depletion of 1% or maybe 2%. The difference caused by the full payload range (i.e. an unmanned robotaxi vs a fully loaded car) would be 40% more.
Additionally, the climb involved a drop of the ambient temperature of about 7C just because of the higher altitude (something that the car's computer would also know). Such a drop can cause the car's climate system to draw more power from the battery, since there is an increased heat loss from the cabin. We were driving at high-way speed so in our case, the substantial heat losses from the drive-train should help maintain an optimal battery temperature.
Anyway, what seems to be possible, is that the navigation system becomes better at estimating the additional SoC depletion during a climb up a mountain. It should for example be possible to get a good estimate of the car's actual weight, by measuring its acceleration when it is driving on a flat stretch of road with a given amount of power and comparing that actual acceleration to expected values for an empty car. For a car that when empty weighs 1847 kg and which accelerates at only 90% of what is expected when empty, the weight would simply be estimated as 1847 kg / 0.9 (i.e. a payload of 205 kg). Also, the additional power draw from the climate control could be estimated, given the typical temperature drop when driving up a mountain.
Anyway, these are the things that one is free to think about, when the car drives itself on AP...
PS. To convince myself that I was actually not going to fully deplete the battery while driving up to Brenner, I repeatedly had my son compute the allowed maximum driving force (consumption) [Wh/km], i.e. SoC (minus margin of 3%) times 75 kWh (assumed available capacity at SoC=100%) per remaining distance. These numbers came out around 350-375 Wh/km and I was driving with a force of up to around 330 Wh/km. If it had been a closer call, I would have reset the trip-counter more often, to get a reading of the consumption that way.
Attachments
Last edited:
We know that EU regulations incentivise the traditional OEMs to sell their low-emission vehicles in 2020, so while this may indeed be a sign of very weak demand, it could also be that Daimler is holding up sales until this year. End of Q1 should give us a better idea.
I wonder if regen production could also imply weight?
@Fact Checking posted this image on Dec 10th. You’ll notice there’s much more detail in the rendering on the building to the right of the new parking area. I’ve been thinking this building will be the Model Y building. It’s labeled Phase 3 in the picture but I don’t think that’s correct now with what’s happening on the grounds. The building will be the same as the present assembly building minus the stamping area. It will be flipped 180 degrees with the paint shop at the far right end as in the above image. There’s been speculation the stamp area will supply both Model 3 and Y. Body in white would flow to the right, on the side nearest the battery assembly building. Paint shop at the far end. General assembly would flow back to the left with completed cars exiting near the new parking area.
That’s my guess at this point. I wouldn’t be surprised to see pile drivers show up anytime now.
I’m thinking this is likely the waste/recycling area. You’ll notice they moved the machine used to handle cardboard from the small slab right of the old truck trailer parking area to this new area. It’s the machine that’s installed partially below grade in the rectangular hole.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Okay, my Oct 3rd prediction for 2019Q4 Model 3 Production was off by 14 cars:Here is my estimate for 2019Q4 Model 3 Production: 988/day (86,944 tot. for Q4)
View attachment 462137
This is a purely naive statistical estimate based on an ordinary-least-squares fit of production data to a linear model for the 3 preceding quarters in 2019.
Notice the insane R^2 (R-squared) value of 0.9999996Curves don't fit any tighter.
Ed. Note: Emphasis added on 05 Jan 2020 to highlight statistical validity -- Lodger
To me, these are the kind of numbers you get from production planning done months (or years) in advance, with a complicated and lengthy supply chain that reacts slowly, as you would expect for any large auto manufacturer.
I think these numbers are planned way in advance, and all the drama and intrigue is partly Kabuki theatre on the part of Wall St. analysts, and partly Tesla not wanting to reveal their hand too soon. Well howdy...
Per the table above, this model predicts 302,287 Model 3s produced in 2019. Adding in the YTD Model S/X production of 44,985 then that leaves just 12,718 Model S/X production required for Tesla to produce 360K total vehicles at Fremont in 2019. Easy-peasy.
A more reasonable estimate is that Tesla can at least maintain the Q3 Model S/X production rate, which then puts Fremont at 363,600 total vehicles produced in 2019.
Remember, GF3 production is a bonus. I've seen 2019 estimates here as low as 3K units by year end, and some at 5 or 10K. Let's be clear though: any number in those ranges puts Tesla total production for 2019 between 366K and 374K.
More projections for the GF3 + Model Y 2020 rampup to follow (maybe next week).
Cheers!
Compare that to Artful Dodger, Oct 3, 2019 also quoted above (feel free to subscribe).
86,958 (produced) - 86,944 (predicted) = 14 more produced than I predicted.*
And yes, that prediction was published here on October freakin' 3rd, 2019.
Paging @mongo (We
bruh)If anyone doesn't understand why this level of precision in production planning is required a full quarter in advance, you should Google "logistics".
Cheers!
*beyotches
Last edited:
Wow.Okay, my Oct 3rd prediction for 2019Q4 Model 3 Production was off by 14 cars:
View attachment 496617
Compare that to Artful Dodger, Oct 3, 2019 also quoted above (feel free to subscribe).
86,958 (produced) - 86,944 (predicted) = 14 more produced than I predicted.*
And yes, that prediction was published here on October freakin' 3rd, 2019.
Paging @mongo (We
If anyone doesn't understand why this level of precision in production planning is required a full quarter in advance, you should Google "logistics".
Cheers!
*beyotches
Well done dude
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
STARR X
Member
I know this is getting old. But, I just like posting it.
Tesla short-sellers have lost almost $8 billion during the stock's rally to a record high | Markets Insider
I hope Tesla posts solid 4th quarter financials, reveals amazing technology at the “Battery & Powertrain Investor Day,” and follows this with incredible Full Self Driving progress.
The shorts deserve all they have earned.
Tesla short-sellers have lost almost $8 billion during the stock's rally to a record high | Markets Insider
I hope Tesla posts solid 4th quarter financials, reveals amazing technology at the “Battery & Powertrain Investor Day,” and follows this with incredible Full Self Driving progress.
The shorts deserve all they have earned.
Last edited:
As knowledgeable and informative as Jack is, he seems to be lacking in investing acumen. What he is doing now, with his options "investments", is emblematic of an investor who has not gained control over the fear-and-greed cycle. IMO, most successful investors, through disciplined long term investing, have.
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
The page dates back to 16 Nov 2017 and that is just a teaser. The next day, 17 Nov 2017, has the stats that people are excited about. When it was posted here I thought it was just the same old and wondered what had changed. Not the stats.
Retail analyst shorting amazon would be the equivalent.
They can’t get their heads around it.
"The new Mercedes-Benz EQC, which will enter the market next year doesn't have a frunk"
"Daimler intends to produce the EQC together with the C-Class, GLC and GLC Coupe, on the same production line..."
WTF?
"The front drive module and the rear axle assembly arrive at the factory already bolted to their subframes before being installed to the chassis..."
WTF?
I thought there was no frunk because of that cool 300 lb engine block/transmission structural simulator.
And now it turns out you can’t even show it off to your friends. It’s covered up by plastic panels. Bummer.
Daimler evidently mis-read the rules for avoiding 2020 emission penalties. You actually have to sell the EVs.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
