Again, just more evidence we are only just getting started down the path of EV transport tech. Imagine where we’ll be in 10 years... these are the boons of a culture of innovation.Let's return to the meat of the subject (ahem!) of Tesla's dry electrode technology acquisition, what it might do for Tesla products/production, and when it might do it.
First, let's examine potential performance improvements with this cell as a product:
Next, let's examine potential manufacturing improvements with the new cell:
- gravimetric energy density improves 50%
- spec increases from 265 wh/kg to 400 wh/kg (400/265=1.50)
- 2nd gen. path to > 500wh/kg implies => 100% improvement
- 1st generation of packs in this family could be up to:
- 50% lighter/cheaper with the same range (Model 3SR?)
- 50% higher range/performance at the same weight/price (MS VLR?)
- gains fully realized after re-engineering the pack to match the cell
- reduced portion of strategic minerals (ie: cobalt) further reduces costs
- 2x cycle life increase implies half the heat (c.f. Coulombic eff.) allowing:
- simpler/cheaper cooling systems in vehicles
- faster supercharging allowable w/o shortening lifespan
- doublling cycle life further widens the potential product mix for these packs:
- enables the $25K Car (smaller pack in high-duty service, ie: half-size bty but full speed charging+full life-time)
- for high-end products, the million-mile Model 3 LR and Semi becomes a reality, potentially including refreshed Model S/X (AC mtrs replaced with SRPM mtrs)
Finally let's speculate about possible timelines** for these benefits to come online: (then add a quarter or two to see the effects on FCF/GM/Profits/TSLA SP)
- gains are implemented primarily as a production process enhancement:
- minimal interuption of production during upgrades:
- modular - only 1 of 7 steps is affected
- incremental - one production line at a time can be upgraded
- reclaims significant production space/increase production density
- significantly decrease energy costs (drying ovens eliminated)
- significantly reduce costs of environmental protection (solvent recycling)
- faster production due to shortening time-consuming step
- lower use of raw materials increases supply chain efficiency at all levels
- lower unit weight reduces unit shipping costs/allows increased volume to Fremont
Personally, I consider this timeline conservative. It may be possible to combine steps, or perform steps concurrently. The technical + production benefits seem obvious, though the above list may not be exhaustive. Your thoughts?
- 2019Q2 - Telsa completes aquisition of Maxwell Technologies
- 2019Q3 - pilot bty cell production line goes online at GF1/Sparks
- 2019Q4 - pilot production begins for Tesla Semi at GF1/Sparks
- 2020H1 - beta/field testing of Tesla Semi/Megacharger
- 2020Q3 - conversion of existing cell production lines begins at GF1
- 2020Q4 - Semi production begins at GF1 with new cells
- 2021H1 - Existing products using 2170 format convert to new cells
Cheers to the Longs!
** possible timeline above is my pure speculation. I have zero insider knowledge of Telsa products and/or production plans, just an interested shareholder.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Tesla is building a new "Grohmann machine" battery pack assembly line at the Nevada Gigafactory the size of a football field. This new, large assembly line is assumed to be making the lighter, cheaper, faster to assemble Standard Range battery pack.
So Standard Range is not going be replaced by Medium Range, unless you think Tesla is throwing away all that capex.
I believe there are more benign explanations as well for the website changes:
But it's not out of question that Standard Range will be announced soon, when Elon originally announced the Medium Range battery pack he mentioned February 2019 as the introduction date:
Elon Musk on Twitter
"It’s a long range battery with fewer cells. Non-cell portion of the pack is disproportionately high, but we can get it done now instead of ~February"
"It’s a long range battery with fewer cells. Non-cell portion of the pack is disproportionately high, but we can get it done now instead of ~February"
And it's "~February" now.
OTOH as recently as January 30 Elon updated their "~February" timeline to "middle of 2019":
Emmanuel Rosner:
"First, I wanted to ask you about the short-range Model 3. What are your latest thoughts in terms of timing of introduction? I think at some point, you had in mind to do it in the - maybe the first half of this year. And just to clarify, when you're sort of talking about the outlook for 2019, the number of deliveries up 50% and then the margin target for Model 3 to get to 25%, does that assume that you're introducing a lower range, the short-range Model 3 at some point during the year?"
Elon Musk:
"Well, you could call it the standard range, but it's maybe short by Tesla's standards, but it's long range by other manufacturers' standards. So - but yes, we expect to introduce the standard range Model 3 sometime - probably the middle of this year is a rough, rough guess. And we're working hard to improve our costs of production, our overhead costs, our fixed costs, just costs in general. I think this past year, while extremely difficult, has driven us to a high level of financial discipline. I think we're way smarter about how we spend money, and we're getting better with each passing week. Yes."
Maybe those plans have changed again."First, I wanted to ask you about the short-range Model 3. What are your latest thoughts in terms of timing of introduction? I think at some point, you had in mind to do it in the - maybe the first half of this year. And just to clarify, when you're sort of talking about the outlook for 2019, the number of deliveries up 50% and then the margin target for Model 3 to get to 25%, does that assume that you're introducing a lower range, the short-range Model 3 at some point during the year?"
Elon Musk:
"Well, you could call it the standard range, but it's maybe short by Tesla's standards, but it's long range by other manufacturers' standards. So - but yes, we expect to introduce the standard range Model 3 sometime - probably the middle of this year is a rough, rough guess. And we're working hard to improve our costs of production, our overhead costs, our fixed costs, just costs in general. I think this past year, while extremely difficult, has driven us to a high level of financial discipline. I think we're way smarter about how we spend money, and we're getting better with each passing week. Yes."
Some other possibilities:
- They might be introducing the new battery pack at a lower price point due to the lower assembly and cell costs, but with the same "Medium Range" rating.
- They could improve SR margins via bundling: for example unbundle Premium Interior but add AWD initially. This would allow a rough introductory price of $39,000, with the $35,000 version introduced later in the summer.
Carl Raymond
Active Member
Let's return to the meat of the subject (ahem!) of Tesla's dry electrode technology acquisition, what it might do for Tesla products/production, and when it might do it.
First, let's examine potential performance improvements with this cell as a product:
Next, let's examine potential manufacturing improvements with the new cell:
- gravimetric energy density improves 50%
- spec increases from 265 wh/kg to 400 wh/kg (400/265=1.50)
- 2nd gen. path to > 500wh/kg implies => 100% improvement
- 1st generation of packs in this family could be up to:
- 50% lighter/cheaper with the same range (Model 3SR?)
- 50% higher range/performance at the same weight/price (MS VLR?)
- gains fully realized after re-engineering the pack to match the cell
- reduced portion of strategic minerals (ie: cobalt) further reduces costs
- 2x cycle life increase implies half the heat (c.f. Coulombic eff.) allowing:
- simpler/cheaper cooling systems in vehicles
- faster supercharging allowable w/o shortening lifespan
- doublling cycle life further widens the potential product mix for these packs:
- enables the $25K Car (smaller pack in high-duty service, ie: half-size bty but full speed charging+full life-time)
- for high-end products, the million-mile Model 3 LR and Semi becomes a reality, potentially including refreshed Model S/X (AC mtrs replaced with SRPM mtrs)
Finally let's speculate about possible timelines** for these benefits to come online: (then add a quarter or two to see the effects on FCF/GM/Profits/TSLA SP)
- gains are implemented primarily as a production process enhancement:
- minimal interuption of production during upgrades:
- modular - only 1 of 7 steps is affected
- incremental - one production line at a time can be upgraded
- reclaims significant production space/increase production density
- significantly decrease energy costs (drying ovens eliminated)
- significantly reduce costs of environmental protection (solvent recycling)
- faster production due to shortening time-consuming step
- lower use of raw materials increases supply chain efficiency at all levels
- lower unit weight reduces unit shipping costs/allows increased volume to Fremont
Personally, I consider this timeline conservative. It may be possible to combine steps, or perform steps concurrently. The technical + production benefits seem obvious, though the above list may not be exhaustive. Your thoughts?
- 2019Q2 - Telsa completes aquisition of Maxwell Technologies
- 2019Q3 - pilot bty cell production line goes online at GF1/Sparks
- 2019Q4 - pilot production begins for Tesla Semi at GF1/Sparks
- 2020H1 - beta/field testing of Tesla Semi/Megacharger
- 2020Q3 - conversion of existing cell production lines begins at GF1
- 2020Q4 - Semi production begins at GF1 with new cells
- 2021H1 - Existing products using 2170 format convert to new cells
Cheers to the Longs!
** possible timeline above is my pure speculation. I have zero insider knowledge of Telsa products and/or production plans, just an interested shareholder.
Incremental?
I can see how cell production could be incrementally switched over, line at a time. But what about products? You can’t have half the model 3 output on one cell and half on another. I’m assuming the car is tuned for a given mass of pack.
Or could mass be added some other way? Or could one model cope with both light and heavy packs? I mean, cars do cope with one to five occupants. Just thinking out loud here...
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
BTW., median car prices are growing in the U.S. beyond the rate of inflation - but indeed, $35,000 dollars in 2016 are worth almost $37,000 in 2019:
But Tesla should continue to drop prices, because that increases the addressable market. As long as they can maintain their 20%-25% gross margin target they should continue their march to lower prices - $30k base price might not be impossible, with EAP bundled into a $35k package.
CaliBear1
Member
Simply cannot have enough Monty Python!
So the market is closed; I think I'll just stop by and give a quick look-see to what's going on in the TMC threa....
Carl Raymond
Active Member
Hmm. Will there be *any* people on that football field? My guess is, no.
$35K Tesla secured.
Apparently the shorts have found a lot of M3 inventory in excess of 11,000:
Jake F on Twitter
Anyone able to dispel what they are saying? I don't know web-based coding that the guy is using
Jake F on Twitter
Anyone able to dispel what they are saying? I don't know web-based coding that the guy is using
mblakele
beep! beep!
Yeah, sounds like the difference would be roughly 100-kg, equivalent to an adult passenger. However they might have to crash-test with the new pack.
anthonyj
Stonks
If Elon said February, that means 80% chance of not happening in February, and that’s being incredibly generous. Not hating on Elon
Basically bankrupt
Basically bankrupt
Artful Dodger
"Ducimus, lit"
There are 13 Panasonic bty cell lines currently at GF1/Sparks. 1 has recently been reassigned for Telsa Energy products (NMC chemistry). That's one increment.
Let's say that Tesla Semi pilot production starts in 2019Q4, and they convert one more line for the purpose. How many Semi's does that cell output support? Well, current lines (not the newer upgraded ones) produce about 200K cells/day. So 18wh * 1.5 *200K is about 5,400 kwh per day production of Gen 1 "Maxcells"
.That's enough battery cells for about 9 Semi's (300 mile range) per day, or 750 Semi's in the first quarter (P.S. check my math). So they're going to need more lines as they ramp Semi production, but that's just more increments. while doing QC and product testing in the mean time.
Then bring the Model Y online in 2020H2 since it'll be lower volume in rampup mode at the beginning. And since the 2170 form factor is retained, it'll be largely plug'n'play. Finally the Model 3, but it'll be a non-event by then. Just more incremental cell line conversions, old hat by then.
I also suspect GF3/Shanghai gets its own "Maxcell" lines by 2022 and Telsa stops needing cells from outside suppliers. Gross margins go up, $25K car enabled in 3 years.
Cheers!
Last edited:
There's also a thread here where someone posted some data trying to be helpful. By my count there's 7250
Unsold Model 3 sitting in lot awaiting buyers?
Rather than some sort of conspiracy I think Tesla has just realized that having inventory on hand increases sales opportunities. There are people who will do a test drive and want to buy the car now vs a custom order.
In the software world we call this a buffer.
anthonyj
Stonks
A completely logical explanation would be that there simply isn’t demand for 25,000 model 3s per month in the US. If they were to average 10k/month, that would be extremely impressive. A lot of the demand was pulled forward due to tax credit and people waiting for two years. That’s fine and totally normal.
Carl Raymond
Active Member
There are 13 Panasonic bty cell lines currently at GF1/Sparks. 1 has recently been reassigned for Telsa Energy products (NMC chemistry). That's one increment.
Let's say that Tesla Semi pilot production starts in 2019Q4, and they convert one more line for the purpose. How many Semi's does that cell output support? Well, current lines (not the newer upgraded ones) produce about 200K cells/day. So 18wh * 1.5 *200K is about 5,400 kwh per day production of Gen 1 "Maxcells"
That's enough battery cells for about 9 Semi's (300 mile range) per day, or 750 Semi's in the first quarter (P.S. check my math). So they're going to need more lines as they ramp Semi production, but that's just more increments. while doing QC and product testing in the mean time.
Then bring the Model Y online in 2020H2 since it'll be lower volume in rampup mode at the beginning. And since the 2170 form factor is retained, it'll be largely plug'n'play. Finally the Model 3, but it'll be a non-event by then. Just more incremental cell line conversions, old hat by then.
I also suspect GF3/Shanghai gets its own "Maxcell" lines by 2022 and Telsa stops needing cells from outside suppliers. Gross margins go up, $25K car enabled in 3 years.
Cheers!
Gave that top rating because it avoids the Osborne problem. The Y needs to be priced high enough to keep the 3 lines maxed.
Artful Dodger
"Ducimus, lit"
MR springs in a "Maxcell" LR might be a quick fix. New spring rates are a fairly simple update. Telsa already did it once on the LR (softened in Spring 2018), once on the M3P (shorted springs), and I think also for the MR for the reduced weight.
Since the 2170 form factor of the bty cells is retained, they likely won't have to retest the pack. Until/unless there is a redesign to reduce the pack's non-cell weight.
Cheers!
RobStark
Well-Known Member
There are many companies manufacturing cars.
Many new companies in China manufacturing cars.
Not Rocket Science.
I doubt Rivian will attempt Alien Dreadnought. Not attempting Falcon Wing Doors or the Faberge Egg of cars.
Toyota good is good enough.
I don't give participation trophies.
Rivian is using 2170 cylindrical cells. Likely made by LG Chem and likely already have deals signed. Rivian is not a public company and not required to make these public disclosures to investors.
FF is on the ropes. FF CEO ignored advice given to him by savy experienced people he hired. He was told that he needed $10B-$20B to fund his fantastical plans and he budgeted $3B. There is no corollary here to Rivian.
Lucid was on the ropes then got a $1B infusion from Saudi PiF. They are not currently on the ropes. They inquired if Ford was willing to buy them before Saudi money materialized now they are no longer available for acquisition.
Their Lucid Air is going to go toe-to-toe with Model S and Porsche Taycan. I give them far less chance of success.
Unlike Lucid et al. Rivian has an actual full sized auto factory. And the money to fill it out. That is real concrete progress.
Last edited:
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
To further answer @Sweft's question, there's a very strong seasonality to Q1 car sales:
The usual Q1 seasonal pattern is that only 15% and 20% are sold in January and February, the remaining 65% is delivered in March (!).
This is why the TSLAQ types are making a fuss about it around the end of February: they wanted to publish this at the "worst" point of Q1 when inventory is the highest, and Tesla is likely going to close the inventory querying leak from their website.
But even 7.5k isn't a big number: it's about a week of Tesla's Model 3 production. So the $TSLAQ post is then creatively and basically arbitrarily adding another +4k units of inventory to get over 10k, and calls this still less than two weeks of production inventory "huge".
So they are true lowlifes that are wasting their time on trying to be destructive. Ignore them.
Singer3000
Member
Recent guidance out of Tesla is just so confusing. They say they are targeting 360k - 400k total vehicles in 2019. Let's generously assume a sharp fall in S&X from 100k to 80k due to the discontinuation of the 75kWh pack.
Even then that means they are targeting only 280k - 320k of Model 3, or 5,300 to 6,100 per week average for the year. Let us not forget that on 01 August 2018, 6,000 a week was defined as the target for the end of that very month.
We've had statements from Musk months ago along the lines that 5k is now easy and just today carsonight at Disqus claimed that:
Meanwhile there were reports as far back as Sept 2018 that the "football field sized" Grohman machine would arrive in Sept or Oct and get battery pack capacity up to 8,000/week when installed:
Tesla Bringing 3 New "Grohmann Machines" Online To Reach 8,000 Battery Packs/Week | CleanTechnica
"DEMAND! DEMAND!" shouts the mob. But that doesn't tally with this from the Q4 call: "We're thinking about demand almost zero right now".
So why is guidance so low? As a shareholder, it's so frustrating having to act like a master sleuth just to get a reasonable idea of what the company's production plans really are in the immediate future.
Meanwhile we all sit here and argue whether removing references of the SR vehicle from the website is a marketing masterstroke, an admin error or whatever. All that I know is that every month that passes without the SR being released is another month of missed sales opportunity and of wasted head-start on the competition.
Even then that means they are targeting only 280k - 320k of Model 3, or 5,300 to 6,100 per week average for the year. Let us not forget that on 01 August 2018, 6,000 a week was defined as the target for the end of that very month.
We've had statements from Musk months ago along the lines that 5k is now easy and just today carsonight at Disqus claimed that:
"My sources tell me that GF1 is producing more then 6k Model 3 packs per week and have been since mid November 2018, when Panasonic installed it's new and improved cell making machines"
And:
"Actual output is 6000 per week and they are flirting with 7000 per week."
And:
"Actual output is 6000 per week and they are flirting with 7000 per week."
Meanwhile there were reports as far back as Sept 2018 that the "football field sized" Grohman machine would arrive in Sept or Oct and get battery pack capacity up to 8,000/week when installed:
Tesla Bringing 3 New "Grohmann Machines" Online To Reach 8,000 Battery Packs/Week | CleanTechnica
"DEMAND! DEMAND!" shouts the mob. But that doesn't tally with this from the Q4 call: "We're thinking about demand almost zero right now".
So why is guidance so low? As a shareholder, it's so frustrating having to act like a master sleuth just to get a reasonable idea of what the company's production plans really are in the immediate future.
Meanwhile we all sit here and argue whether removing references of the SR vehicle from the website is a marketing masterstroke, an admin error or whatever. All that I know is that every month that passes without the SR being released is another month of missed sales opportunity and of wasted head-start on the competition.
anthonyj
Stonks
Guidance is low because Big Daddy Ellison said so. Beating guidance is the only way to make the SP rocket higher.
Wow, I would say more than strong seasonality, more like strong end of quarter!
EVNow
Well-Known Member
I think this is dangerous reading. Q1 will be low because of seasonality + shipping issues.
Because EM is actually worried about meeting the current demand in EU/China efficiently.
BTW, EM thinks of demand as in "is there demand for 3 not taking price into consideration". The answer is yes - but as he says "people just don't have enough money". Not sure whether this was w.r.t. worldwide or just China.
To sell 500k Model 3s worldwide on a steady basis, Tesla has to make the $35k model.
BTW, I should say in the ER call, there were many questions about demand. I wish EM (and Deepak) had spoken more about demand vs price clearly, than just say they don't worry about demand.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
