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

[lascavarian]

All of which is to say, there are risks in each. Just like there were when we gave up horses and went to cars.

Of course there are risks. Completely agree. Horses killed people and still kill people. But more people get killed if they are given poor advice or improper encouragement and poor/no supervision. So it could be a balance of sorts and the question is, "What is an acceptable cost to be paid for satisfying curiosity? For the cat, curiosity was expensive. I don't want it to be fatal (unnecessarily fatal) for anybody. We know better and should/could use this new EV tech to establish vastly improved safety practices. It won't happen IMO but I would support Tesla in some effort to lock up their tech or restrict it. Not all agree and I have a certain understanding of that. And I have seen some videos by Ingineerix that are great but he knows what he is doing in my estimation.

So for those technically capable they tread into risks with open eyes, volt meters and more. YouTube tinkers do not qualify their viewers that I know of. Don't encourage people that should not be encouraged as I see it. I come to this opinion painfully.

I refused to provide/sell technical information to customers of the company for which I worked. Very unpopular and needed a solution. Sales did not like unhappy customers. Nobody likes unhappy customers. Customers need quality service that comes with a process that has been thought out and in many/most cases qualified.

You said the magic word - education. No technical information without education. People still squawked when I packaged technical information along with factory technical training (2 days). Customers actually said they did not have time for training, just give us the manuals. I would send an invoice for training and manuals and require a PO that specifically declined the training. I did not make it easy to avoid education. I could usually get the training going with a phone call to the customer.

Next generation of devices, product development designed in an encrypted physical key required to do a simulation of functions. I developed service literature and procedures that required a simulation of functions that could only be done with the physical key. The key was only available on completion (including passing a test that was kept on file) of factory training. And I packaged unlimited telephone technical support and parts discounts with the training. Competence secured! Customer techs were trained, supported and effective. Customer Satisfaction surveys pointed to increased customer satisfaction even at a higher cost. Joy!

Why did I go through all this unpopular grief? Previous to this in the same business, unbelievably, people died from poor/faulty customer repairs. Otherwise pretty good customer techs ended up with a career ending tragedy on their hands. Words cannot express how unpleasant it is to spend time with lawyers in those circumstances. I left the business for almost 10 years and then came back and was able to institute this program. The new procedures and training were improvements on top of an overall safer design (God bless engineering). It was costly, unpopular at first and demanding but procedures were getting better and safer and it worked. Happy customers and me sleeping at night. So yes I may be overly sensitive to how things can go truly tragically wrong in a flash but this experience came at a great price for some and I try to give continued meaning to those senseless events through extra caution.

Nobody loves a clever fix with tape and foil and moxie more than me but I also know that whatever is not impossible is inevitable.

TLDR: Use Tesla service and love your car because it is designed to be the safest in the world.

 

[RobStark]

I think this doesn't make sense, because range will keep growing. So, in 5 years an old LR will have the same range as new SR and then how do you differentiate these?

 

[kyzhk]

Not just that, but I also just watched a Youtube video where they said that Nissan has backpedaled on having a TMS in the new Leaf. LG is supplying the pack, but without any liquid coolant loop. Such a waste.

Agreed. This is just gonna give EV a bad rep about how the battery doesn't last with horrible degradation.

Collegue owned an older generation leaf and she complained how horrible the range is and how much degradation it had suffered even after just 1 year. She got the car because it was so cheap to lease - if I remember correctly it was only mid $100.

This is gonna give a really bad impression to the general public of which most don't bother researching.

• Battery die like your smartphone batteries

• Expensive to replace

Two main reason why leaf has such horrible battery history

• Last time I looked into leaf there's no option to choose charge termination %. At high state of charge lithium battery degrade way faster. Chronic exposure / high cumulative time spent on high SoC contributes to rapid capacity degradation.

• No TMS as mentioned. I assume they would at least have some battery heater since charging at below freezing temperature will just either kill the battery or the circuit would refuse to charge.

I'm conflicted about this. On one hand, those who research a little more about lithium chemistry battery and Tesla's battery management system (+ excellent track record of minimal battery degradation) would see Tesla as the technologically superior EV manufacturer. On the other hand, the majority of the general public will just avoid EV altogether.

 

[MartinAustin]

Having only one battery size (100kWh) is so un-Tesla-like. There have always been at least two sizes.

40, 60, 85
70, 90
75, 100
...and then...
80, 105?
85, 110?

The 100kWh battery was unveiled in August 2016 IIRC. Tesla have charitably given the competition almost 2.5 years to catch up. Time to unleash the 110kWh with 370 miles of range IMO. (and 80kWh base model with 276 miles of range)

Interior refresh could come along with, or at any time in 2019. I don't think they're going to do what people call a full redesign of everything.

 

[scaesare]

Of course there are risks. Completely agree. Horses killed people and still kill people. But more people get killed if they are given poor advice or improper encouragement and poor/no supervision. So it could be a balance of sorts and the question is, "What is an acceptable cost to be paid for satisfying curiosity? For the cat, curiosity was expensive. I don't want it to be fatal (unnecessarily fatal) for anybody. We know better and should/could use this new EV tech to establish vastly improved safety practices. It won't happen IMO but I would support Tesla in some effort to lock up their tech or restrict it. Not all agree and I have a certain understanding of that. And I have seen some videos by Ingineerix that are great but he knows what he is doing in my estimation.

So for those technically capable they tread into risks with open eyes, volt meters and more. YouTube tinkers do not qualify their viewers that I know of. Don't encourage people that should not be encouraged as I see it. I come to this opinion painfully.

I refused to provide/sell technical information to customers of the company for which I worked. Very unpopular and needed a solution. Sales did not like unhappy customers. Nobody likes unhappy customers. Customers need quality service that comes with a process that has been thought out and in many/most cases qualified.

You said the magic word - education. No technical information without education. People still squawked when I packaged technical information along with factory technical training (2 days). Customers actually said they did not have time for training, just give us the manuals. I would send an invoice for training and manuals and require a PO that specifically declined the training. I did not make it easy to avoid education. I could usually get the training going with a phone call to the customer.

Next generation of devices, product development designed in an encrypted physical key required to do a simulation of functions. I developed service literature and procedures that required a simulation of functions that could only be done with the physical key. The key was only available on completion (including passing a test that was kept on file) of factory training. And I packaged unlimited telephone technical support and parts discounts with the training. Competence secured! Customer techs were trained, supported and effective. Customer Satisfaction surveys pointed to increased customer satisfaction even at a higher cost. Joy!

Why did I go through all this unpopular grief? Previous to this in the same business, unbelievably, people died from poor/faulty customer repairs. Otherwise pretty good customer techs ended up with a career ending tragedy on their hands. Words cannot express how unpleasant it is to spend time with lawyers in those circumstances. I left the business for almost 10 years and then came back and was able to institute this program. The new procedures and training were improvements on top of an overall safer design (God bless engineering). It was costly, unpopular at first and demanding but procedures were getting better and safer and it worked. Happy customers and me sleeping at night. So yes I may be overly sensitive to how things can go truly tragically wrong in a flash but this experience came at a great price for some and I try to give continued meaning to those senseless events through extra caution.

Nobody loves a clever fix with tape and foil and moxie more than me but I also know that whatever is not impossible is inevitable.

I think you are conflating two different things: official service advice/training/resources, and some random dude on the interwebz documenting his project.

I don't think you'll see Rich advising you to do this. Or that it's the right way to do this. Or that you won't even see something blow up. As a matter of fact, he tends to generally advise against it.

There's some personal responsibility required here. As, with 100's of thousands of other shade-tree mechanics over the years, you have to assess your technical skill level and abilities, the quality of the "instruction" you have available, and the relative feasibility of accomplishing what you want to do safely (both from a "during the repair" and "safety on the road") perspective.

Most of the concern here seems to be aimed at the former: you can electro-zap yourself if you ain't careful. Therefore you have to decide if the risk to your personal safety is worth it.

So in the same way that a home mechanic learning from a friend, a forum article, or a youtube video has to decide if he wants to tackle a transmission swap using jack-stands and a floor jack with some 2x4's instead of a lift and a transmission jack, so too an EV owner needs to decide if he wants to tackle replacing a drive unit with that same floor jack and a DVM. Either guy may, or may not, have access to a service manual... official or third party

Neither replaces the need for official training and facilities for those who want or need them. But it doesn't mean that it's not possible to effect all kinds of repairs safely as an individual owner. In order to do this, you need to exercise some personal responsibility in determining what advice you are going to follow... or if you are in over yoiur head.

TLDR: Use Tesla service and love your car because it is designed to be the safest in the world.

If this stance held fast, nobody would have ever started working on their Model T's, just as you don't want people working on their Model S's.

Tesla's being "designed to be the safest in the world" isn't necessarily antithetical to working on them yourself.

 

[Zaxxon]

Having only one battery size (100kWh) is so un-Tesla-like.

Where did Musk say there will be only one battery size?

 

[TradingInvest]

I am curious on what Elon is feeling right now after encountering the contrast between the Chinese gov response to him vs USA gov response. One is giving him almost free reign and the other is actively hindering him.

Maybe TSLA-China should IPO in CHina.

It seems China is planning to allow foreign companies to cross-list in Shanghai stock market. HSBC is planned to be the first company to do that. Tesla should remove 15~20% of shares from the US and list them in Shanghai.

 

[M3Rider]

This is always true in the early days. It's when consumer spending drops, or housing sales drop, or farms start filing for bankruptcy, that the market starts to care.

For some reason, government shutdowns are a thing where the market is almost always *late* and *backward-looking*. Not entirely sure why; maybe the excessive numbers of delusional libertarian-extremist types in the Wall Street trading offices.

I checked: farm subsidies are already stopped. The farmers in ND, SD, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas are going to start to hurt bad if this isn't resolved by the end of the month, and the Senators from those states are going to be getting an earful. They'll cave.

Housing sales already dropped a whole bunch in CO due to interest rates rise - expensive housing + higher interest rates is not a good mix.
Farm bankrupties - seems in winter there shouldn't be much farming activity going on in those states you mentioned? Or you're talking animal farming? Trump sounded so confident that government shutdown would only affect Democrats, was almost gloating.
But you're right, those possible credit rating downgrades for U.S. in March along with everything else you mentioned does not sound good, may indeed trigger a premature recession.

I guess the only real questions are when Trump is going to be indicted and by which prosecutors, and when the Republican Senators are going to decide that Trump is a liability and start overriding his vetoes.

I'm somewhat worried, can you imagine what overriding vetoes will do to his ego? Mueller sending him to jail would be pretty straight-forward; his own party telling him that he's a failure might trigger some unforeseen reactions. Hopefully, institutions are strong enough to prevent him from doing really crazy stuff.

 

[neroden]

It seems China is planning to allow foreign companies to cross-list in Shanghai stock market. HSBC is planned to be the first company to do that. Tesla should remove 15~20% of shares from the US and list them in Shanghai.

That's not exactly how it works. Same shares, traded in multiple places

 

[printf42]

That's not exactly how it works. Same shares, traded in multiple places

That will expose TSLA to a large pool of money which previously does not have any official way to invest in foreign stocks.

Elite class have ways to move money abroad, big private companies use their off shore entities. But general public were never offered any way to invest overseas, so if this is true, we can expect huge in flow of money to TSLA.

 

[neroden]

That will expose TSLA to a large pool of money which previously does not have any official way to invest in foreign stocks.

Elite class have ways to move money abroad, big private companies use their off shore entities. But general public were never offered any way to invest overseas, so if this is true, we can expect huge in flow of money to TSLA.

Right, would cause stock price to go up.

 

[neroden]

I'm somewhat worried, can you imagine what overriding vetoes will do to his ego?

Will respond in politics thread

 

[Todd Burch]

My guess on the removal of X/S 75s:

80% likely: the change is to better differentiate 3 vs S/X. New S/X packs will have the option of 100 or 120 kWh.

20% likely (optimistic fantasy of mine):

-Q1 19 is supposed to be around when the newly-designed Model 3 pack is supposed to go into production. (Better, cheaper packaging).

-S/X will have a new pack design that has the same innovations as the latest Model 3 pack design and uses the 2170 cells. Better cooling loop, better packaging, better cell chemistry and form factor, etc. Basically the same as a 3 pack, only higher capacity. This will allow them to take better advantage of economies of scale and simplify vehicle service.

-All 18650 supply will instead be redirected toward Supercharger V3 storage, Tesla energy, as well as Megacharger/solar storage applications. Makes sense IMHO for the lower energy density cells to be used in stationary applications, I’d think. 18650 packs will be located onsite at Superchargers and charged off the grid to support higher, sustained charging for multiple Supercharger stalls at once. V3 power rate (for a Supercharger station as a whole) will exceed the capabilities of the local grid, and will enable (for example) a virtually infinite number of stalls to charge at the 150kW-180kW rate, and sustained up to what the car’s pack can handle. So you and your Supercharger neighbor can both plug in at the same time and charge at 180kW until the pack is at 70% SOC for example.

 

[heltok]

Only having 100kWh will make inventory(especially in Europe/China) and production much easier. I assume by now 3LR has higher margins than 75 S/X so they will shift some of those sales to the higher margins. Also they are likely rapidly increasign cell output at GF1 and at some point they will have enough for storage and to introduce a 2170 pack for S/X.

Whenever I see Tesla making a change, I assume that they did it for a good reason and that it’s good for the stock.

 

[Carl Raymond]

I am curious on what Elon is feeling right now after encountering the contrast between the Chinese gov response to him vs USA gov response. One is giving him almost free reign and the other is actively hindering him.

Maybe TSLA-China should IPO in CHina.

As an Australian I have no problem buying TSLA via ig.com
Could not a Chinese resident do the same? Would that be popular (lifting the share price) or unpopular (diluting US ownership)?

 

[jhm]

And throw away their investment in 18650 production? And burn a bunch of money in redesign? And take 2170s from other things that are earning them profit? No.

But we've had this debate before and spammed this thread, so do we really want to do so again?

"And throw away their investment in 18650 production? Whatever was invested in 18650 production is a sunk cost, and not sound basis for making forward looking investments elsewhere. If there is some remaining contractual obligation to keep buying 18650, there may be other uses for that supply or it may otherwise be worth the cost of terminating such a contract early. For example, custom Megapacks could consume quite a lot of cell, on the GWh scale.

"And burn a bunch of money in redesign?" The investment to redesign packs and indeed the undercarriage of the Model S and Model X may also pave the way for the pickup truck. There may also be opportunities to cut substantial copper (cost and weight) out of the wiring. The redesign might also lead more automation or less complexity in manufacturing. Roughly any cost savings is potentially an increase in gross margin or an opportunity to cut the price relative to value. The point here is that there are multiple ways that a redesign can be well worth the investment.

"And take 2170s from other things that are earning them profit?" You are appealing to the zero sum fallacy here. The reality is that Tesla is rapidly increasing the supply of 2170 cells, and it will gladly do so if the marginal return on increasing supply for a Model S/X redesign is met with a comparable return as with the Model 3 or TE products. So if all these products are worth doing, then production of 2170 will expand to seize the full opportunity.

"But we've had this debate before and spammed this thread, so do we really want to do so again?" I don't see any spammers now, just folks raising sincere questions. I believe it is a debate worth having. Many of us do not believe that Tesla will allow Model S/X to slip into obsolescence. The only way forward for Tesla is to keep innovating. These premium models need to stay at the forefront of battery technology, even if that means redesigning the battery pack and undercarriage. To many of us, it makes more sense to obsolete the old battery architecture and replace it with something better than to allow two whole models to become obsolescent. The difficulty in arguing this is that we generally do not see all of the upside potential to such an upgrade that Tesla would be privy to. So I can't quantify a cost/benefit analysis for you to show when it is optimal to upgrade the battery tech. But if you trust management, they are watching this and will pull the trigger when it makes good sense to do so.

 

[dc_h]

In the real world, it will never achieve that sort of perfect-mirror look that you get from CG renderings. Look at how cheap the test vehicle looks. It'll look better once it's pressurized, but never like the renderings. And there's a good chance that it will crash or explode.

Here's what it actually looks like:

The top doesn't even match the bottom - the top has a "wrinkled mirror" finish while the bottom is matte and grimy. Initially people thought SpaceX was building a water tower because they couldn't believe that that thing was actually supposed to be a rocket.

Don't expect any sort of "quality dividends" to rub off on Tesla from that thing.

It’s getting pretty shinny. Tin-tin is going to be pretty cool. Not a flying Roadster, perhaps, but pretty cool, even if it’s only going a mile high.

 

[Carl Raymond]

"And throw away their investment in 18650 production? Whatever was invested in 18650 production is a sunk cost, and not sound basis for making forward looking investments elsewhere. If there is some remaining contractual obligation to keep buying 18650, there may be other uses for that supply or it may otherwise be worth the cost of terminating such a contract early. For example, custom Megapacks could consume quite a lot of cell, on the GWh scale.

"And burn a bunch of money in redesign?" The investment to redesign packs and indeed the undercarriage of the Model S and Model X may also pave the way for the pickup truck. There may also be opportunities to cut substantial copper (cost and weight) out of the wiring. The redesign might also lead more automation or less complexity in manufacturing. Roughly any cost savings is potentially an increase in gross margin or an opportunity to cut the price relative to value. The point here is that there are multiple ways that a redesign can be well worth the investment.

"And take 2170s from other things that are earning them profit?" You are appealing to the zero sum fallacy here. The reality is that Tesla is rapidly increasing the supply of 2170 cells, and it will gladly do so if the marginal return on increasing supply for a Model S/X redesign is met with a comparable return as with the Model 3 or TE products. So if all these products are worth doing, then production of 2170 will expand to seize the full opportunity.

"But we've had this debate before and spammed this thread, so do we really want to do so again?" I don't see any spammers now, just folks raising sincere questions. I believe it is a debate worth having. Many of us do not believe that Tesla will allow Model S/X to slip into obsolescence. The only way forward for Tesla is to keep innovating. These premium models need to stay at the forefront of battery technology, even if that means redesigning the battery pack and undercarriage. To many of us, it makes more sense to obsolete the old battery architecture and replace it with something better than to allow two whole models to become obsolescent. The difficulty in arguing this is that we generally do not see all of the upside potential to such an upgrade that Tesla would be privy to. So I can't quantify a cost/benefit analysis for you to show when it is optimal to upgrade the battery tech. But if you trust management, they are watching this and will pull the trigger when it makes good sense to do so.

A 5mm taller cell may affect the car design all the way up, to the top of the roof. Possibly harder to implement than we imagine. It’s not like they knew 2170s were coming and allowed for a 5mm taller pack to fit.

 

[EngRyan]

A 5mm taller cell may affect the car design all the way up, to the top of the roof. Possibly harder to implement than we imagine. It’s not like they knew 2170s were coming and allowed for a 5mm taller pack to fit.

Can't remember where I read it but it talked about there being a bit of room in the 100 packs that they could fit in the 2170s extra 5mm. But that aside I agree it would be hard to go up so I would just go down. You can literally drop the pack out of the bottom so adding 5mm where the batteries cells are would seemingly be fairly easy. Loosing 5mm of ground clearance isn't really a big deal. And maybe they didn't anticipate the 2170s when they made the 85 pack, but the 100 pack was recent enough they probably had a good idea of the new cell packaging and could have made adjustments then. This would agree with the thing I swear I read somewhere but couldn't tell you to save my life...

Edit: The names would suggest 3mm but I just rolled with 5mm as doesn't affect the explanation.
Edit^2: That's what I get for doubting myself so easily, second numbers are height as pointed out below by MP3Mike. 5mm.

 

[Causalien]

As an Australian I have no problem buying TSLA via ig.com
Could not a Chinese resident do the same? Would that be popular (lifting the share price) or unpopular (diluting US ownership)?

They could 10 years ago. That's before Facta and 9/11 rules got fully implemented. Nowadays the Chinese tell me it is impossible unless they abandon Vhinese citizenship and live out of the country.