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

[Unpilot]

No, I don't. Bjørn will do that already whenever it becomes possible.

I bet your not around when that "becomes possible"

 

[KarenRei]

I note you failed to answer the question ...

Your question starts with the phrase "Hence, we're back to the conclusion Audi's cells are less energy dense than Tesla's", which, as I presented, is a nonsensical conclusion based on gross illogic. It's like writing, "Hence, we're back to the conclusion that blue whales are made of cheese... or are you actually persisting in claiming otherwise, as when you previously misapplied Occam's Razor?" The proper response is "Um... blue whales are NOT made of cheese." What other sort of response were you expecting / looking for?

 

[OPRCE]

Your question starts with the phrase "Hence, we're back to the conclusion Audi's cells are less energy dense than Tesla's", which, as I presented, is a nonsensical conclusion based on gross illogic. It's like writing, "Hence, we're back to the conclusion that blue whales are made of cheese... or are you actually persisting in claiming otherwise, as when you previously misapplied Occam's Razor?" The proper response is "Um... blue whales are NOT made of cheese." What other sort of response were you expecting / looking for?

Can we abbreviate this convoluted tripe to understand you still persist in wrongly claiming on the basis on no evidence that e-Tron cells are *more* energy-dense than Tesla NCA cells?

 

[Zaxxon]

Can we abbreviate this convoluted tripe to understand you still persist in wrongly claiming on the basis on no evidence that e-Tron cells are *more* energy-dense than Tesla NCA cells?

We can conclude that the only aspect of this 'discussion' that matters is miles or km range restored per minute. And in that metric, Tesla leads by a country mile.

Secondarily, until there are 150 kW chargers available to these 'competitors' in a density comparable to the Supercharger network, it's all moot, anyway.

Obvious diversionary junk is obvious.

 

[KarenRei]

New Jack Rickard episode out. Most of the ep you can safely switch (Cambus and battery backup stuff), but I definitely recommend his section on the Maxwell acquisition (about 1:12 into the video):

 

[OPRCE]

We can conclude that the only aspect of this 'discussion' that matters is miles or km range restored per minute. And in that metric, Tesla leads by a country mile.

Secondarily, until there are 150 kW chargers available to these 'competitors' in a density comparable to the Supercharger network, it's all moot, anyway.

Obvious diversionary junk is obvious.

You may conclude whatever you please ... I'll just point out that your interjections are orthogonal to the discussion of Audi's battery technology and seem devised more to divert from the fact that Karen has somewhat of a complex about admitting to any mistake.

 

[Zaxxon]

You may conclude whatever you please ... I'll just point out that your interjections are orthogonal to the discussion of Audi's battery technology and seem devised more to divert from the fact that Karen has somewhat of a complex about admitting to any mistake.

That'd be incorrect on the first count. No need to comment on the second.

 

[KarenRei]

Can we abbreviate this convoluted tripe to understand you still persist in wrongly claiming on the basis on no evidence that e-Tron cells are *more* energy-dense than Tesla NCA cells?

Can we abbreviate this convoluted tripe to understand that you still persist in wrongly claiming that E-Tron uses power-dense cells, even though they physically couldn't give the pack that much power density because they're less energy dense than the entire pack, and that your assumption that all packs should have roughly the same dead weight (even if they're of radically different designs and one is outright designed for crash prevention) is patently ridiculous?

Can we also continue to note that we actually have an even faster-charging Volkswagen group pack whose cells are of a known density?

 

[Beltsbear]

Wow, well spotted, good sir!



You are right to doubt: the e-Tron averages 140kW 0..80% in 29 minutes, whereas an S100D hardly manages to average 70kW 0..80% in 50 minutes, therefore the Audi advantage in recharge speed is more like 100%.

The differing efficiency of the vehicles lies mainly in their respective aerodynamics, which is a design/marketing choice rather than a reflection of Audi's engineering competence.

However, I am fairly sure the Audi e-Tron Quattro will soon prove itself capable of completing a 2,000 km road-trip faster than a Tesla X100D.

Throwing out false information means your arguments are pretty weak. The S100D charges faster than 70kW and does it in the real world. The Etron has very few charging stations to choose from that will provide 140kW 0-80 as you say. I can't think of any 2000km road trip the Etron that could do faster. In many US routes the S100D would arrive DAYS before the Etron. At 70MPH in the USA the S100D would kill the Etron for the vast majority of trips. A 2015 S100D would do it comfortably, while the 2020 Etron would not.

 

[Unpilot]

We can conclude that the only aspect of this 'discussion' that matters is miles or km range restored per minute. And in that metric, Tesla leads by a country mile.

Secondarily, until there are 150 kW chargers available to these 'competitors' in a density comparable to the Supercharger network, it's all moot, anyway.

Obvious diversionary junk is obvious.

Dead horse alert

Man it gets tiresome to see the new post's about this stuff. It is no different to the "coming wave of Tesla killers" tripe.
Or the "no Demand" nonsense.

 

[Electroman]

Relax. Karen understood my confusion and addressed it.

This article from Fred claims it’s a discount: Tesla makes Autopilot standard on Model 3 in China, again reducing the price in the country

All Tesla Model 3 Variants In China Include Free Enhanced Autopilot

This article and all of the comments here claim although the price is higher than US, AP is essentially free in China. And this is Insideevs and not Forbes or LA Times.

 

[KarenRei]

Macro talk:

The SDF in Syria, with heavy US air support, has started on the assault of the last Daesh (ISIS)-held villages in Syria. You can follow progress here:

Kurdish-led SDF are making preparations to start the last military operation against ISIS. Deir ez-Zur - Map of Syrian Civil War - Syria news and incidents today - syria.liveuamap.com

When they finally fall, you can probably expect headlines along the lines of "ISIS defeated!", which could have a minor optimism-related knock-on effect. Although the reality isn't that simple; it just completes their transformation from microstate to guerrillas in Syria, they hold extensive sway in a number of other countries, and more importantly, it'll lead to a "stay or leave" debate for the US, increased conflict between the US and Turkey over the YPG in Northern Syria (and, if the US leaves, a potential Turkish invasion), new potential conflict around al-Tanf, a potential US refocus on Iranian forces in Syria, and of course as always, who knows WTH is going to happen in Idlib...

But as for headlines, there might be some good ones coming up soon. A (minor) bright spot amid the general gloom.

 

[bhtooefr]

Okay so if they didn't cut prices, there will not be 2 SR waiters next month so who will be buying the MRs without a price cut in this example? If your answer is 2 MR waiters..then a price cut essentially doesn't do anything for now right? So my statement still stand, it's another way of saying there's not enough demand at current price level.

There are reasons to reduce price even if you're supply-constrained, not demand-constrained. One could be to keep people waiting in your line, instead of going to someone else's line, especially in a market that, once a sale is lost, it's lost for several years. (Basically, turning the other automakers' Osborneing of Tesla with vaporware compliancey loss-leader cars back around on them, with upcoming non-compliancey-at-all profitable product.) Not saying that that's what Tesla's doing - and it's not what they've said they're doing - only that it's a reason to do it if you're thinking in a Machiavellian business sense.

My cynical guess is that Audi and Porsche are going to use their proven technologies they share with their corporate owner Volkswagen AG: misleading, lying, cheating, stonewalling about the negative effects of high speed charging on cell longevity, and once all these measures fail, buying their way out of trouble via warranty costs and by wearing customers down.

It will take years for cell damage to show up, and they are playing for time.

And, based on my and many others' experience with VWoA, their warranty process is "blame the customer first, ask questions only when taken to court over it". I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of warranty denial for "abuse" of the battery... abuse that VW/Audi's own charge algorithms encouraged and allowed.

I think I agree with @KarenRei that this would hurt reputations of all EVs.

I suspect that VW’s scam/scandal, getting caught cheating on emissions levels of their diesels, led many folks to believe that “yeah, diesels are all terrible polluters, it can’t be fixed”. Similarly, frying batteries from Porsche will make them think that “yeah, EV batteries are all unreliable, it can’t be fixed”.

There's a caveat here.

Volkswagen's cheating wasn't just Volkswagen. Their cheating was exposed by a group trying to prove that everyone in Europe was de facto cheating, even if they were doing it in legal ways, by showing how the American-market diesels were actually compliant and affordable. They found that a BMW X5 was actually compliant (with some hideously expensive emissions hardware)... but the Volkswagens were massively cheating. There's signs that Mercedes and FCA were also cheating in the US, and I've heard some things indicating that Jaguar Land Rover was cheating and fixed their cars before the EPA went looking.

And, of course, everyone was cheating in Europe.

For EVs, though, not everyone is screwing up this badly. True, Nissan has had massive degradation issues with their uncooled packs, and even aircooled packs aren't great. But, there's a lot of conservatively-run liquid cooled packs from various manufacturers (Hyundai outside of the US, Kia, GM), and then there's Tesla's aggressively-run packs that still have good longevity.

Tarring the reputation of a technology only happens if the majority of that technology's market is what was bad - for diesel, that was true through everyone cheating in Europe, and the largest diesel seller in the US cheating in the US.

It's truly staggering how inefficient Audi managed to make the E-Tron. No vehicle whose class isn't of the format "Class (blank) Truck" should have an energy consumption that high.

Technically, anything that's legally a truck has a class in the US, it's just that we usually don't hear talk of the class number until class 3 (which includes 1-ton pickups like the F-350), starting at 10,000 lbs GVWR.

...and the e-tron isn't even class 1 (0-6000 lbs GVWR), it's class 2a with the half-ton pickups like the F-150. (The Model X is up there as well, but it's both lower weight and lower GVWR.)

 

[dgatwood]

Throwing out false information means your arguments are pretty weak. The S100D charges faster than 70kW and does it in the real world.

No, I don't think that was false information, or at least not off by much. You missed the word "average". A Tesla Model S or X charges initially at up to 120 kW, but by 90%, it is charging at only 30 kW. The line slopes roughly linearly. So if we assume that you go from 10% to 90%, the average charge speed is only 75 kW.

And if the paired charging bay is occupied, the average charging rate is probably even slightly lower, so I would not be at all surprised if the real-world average is, in fact, 70 kW.

The Audi design is much more aggressive in terms of keeping the charge rate higher for longer. I could only find a chart from 30% to 100%, but it looks like it slopes from about 140 kW up to 155 kW at 70%, then stays near there until 80%, and then tapers, still staying above the Tesla average speed until about 92% charge. This is to say that it charges a lot faster.

Of course, Tesla chargers are ubiquitous and 150 kW DC Fast chargers are not, but (assuming the Audi hardware doesn't end up with pack failures at 50k miles), you do have to give Audi credit for an impressively fast charge speed.

 

[Papafox]

Yesterday I saw an Audi e tron hybrid (sportback) parked next to a Model 3. I recognize the 2019 BEV e tron will be bigger than the 2018 e tron hybrid, but maybe not by that much. The hybrid e tron looked fairly comparable in size to a Model 3. Looking at photos of the 2019 e tron BEV, I can see where the heads of the rear-seat passengers reside, which is close to that small window in the rear, and there's not a whole lot of vehicles behind their heads. Instead of three rows of seat in a Model X the e tron will offer two snug rows and little baggage area behind. I suspect the Model Y will be much closer to the e tron in interior volume, but its price point will be so much less than the e tron's that I understand why Audi doesn't want to make that comparison.

Bottom line, comparing these small CUVs to a three row Tesla Model X is ridiculous.

 

[bhtooefr]

The Audi A3 Sportback e-tron is basically a Golf GTE for the US market.

The Audi e-tron will be 591 mm (23.3") longer, 150 mm (5.91") wider, and 195 mm (7.68") taller - it's a much larger vehicle.

Compared to a Model X, it's 135 mm (5.31") shorter, 64 mm (2.52") narrower, and 68 mm (2.68") lower - definitely smaller, but far closer to a Model X in exterior dimensions than an A3 Sportback e-tron.

 

[PhaseWhite]

I'm old enough to rmeemrem when peolep were freaking out if there car had HW 1.0 or 2.0. In the end 2.0 was much Ado about nothing.

3.0 hype may end up bursting in similar fashion.

In the end Tesla released V9 and it made a big difference. I was browsing CPOs and saw a 2016 P100D with 6k miles for 95k. Wow that's a good deal I thought, then I saw it's got AP1. Seems to have devalued it significantly in relation to it's AP 2.0 peers. The next higher priced 2016 P100D is $102,800. That's a $7800 difference and the AP2 P100D has significantly more miles: 19,546

Model S P100D 5YJSA1E42GF160867 | Tesla
Model S P100D 5YJSA1E43GF170064 | Tesla

 

[Todd Burch]

For the battery discussion:

If you know about batteries, you know that charge speed means nothing in the absence of long-term degredation data.

ANYONE can charge a battery faster at the expense of battery life. The big unknown is the degredation of an Audi/Porsche, whereas Tesla has a lot of data/experience in that arena.

 

[Unpilot]

For the battery discussion:

If you know about batteries, you know that charge speed means nothing in the absence of long-term degredation data.

ANYONE can charge a battery faster at the expense of battery life. The big unknown is the degredation of an Audi/Porsche, whereas Tesla has a lot of data/experience in that arena.

And a ton more places to charge.
This whole topic is funny as we are talking theoretical for Audi and proven with Tesla.

 

[EVNow]

I got an important e-mail from Electric Auto Association and evdc. Consider writing to your members of the Congress urging them to reform the EV tax credit. If possible, also make a call. Calls carry a lot more weight than emails.

Get Involved — EV Drive Coalition

This post is a call to people to once again write their elected officials. Bills for the US Federal Budget are being drafted right now. Legislation is being introduced this weekend on both sides of the aisle regarding the $7500 Federal Tax Credit; one side wants to kill it completely while the other is focused on saving it.