-
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
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I doubt Tesla would sell a car without a charger.
MartinAustin
Active Member
So... $299 up to $304.
Obviously due to the bombshell discovery of a completely new business division inside Tesla, uncovered by CNBC today-
Obviously due to the bombshell discovery of a completely new business division inside Tesla, uncovered by CNBC today-
OK now a new obsession for the thread. What is the batter for? Donuts? Cup cakes? Do they really knead more dough?
So we have our answer, it's for pickups at Dunkin Donuts!
Not a bombshell but a bombe.
ValueAnalyst @ValueAnalyst1“Tesla Model 3 reaches new record charge rate of 126 kW – faster on CCS than Superchargers by @FredericLambert @Tesla needs SC V3, pronto.
10:08 AM - 8 Feb 2019
Whaaat? But I thought all these Tesla killers were just piling up? Is the financial media wrong about Tesla????
Until we get SCv3 maybe. Either way, it's still great news for Tesla and EVs.
I think you are absolutely spot-on there: only on trips is the ICE-driver given a good chance of becoming aware of real fuel economy. I suppose I've been made reasonably sensitive to that over the past quarter-century: for us, a trip to the grocery store is either (1) a 400-mile round trip (Fairbanks), or (2) a 600-mile round trip (Anchorage). And then there are the 'vacations' - minimum 3,600 miles one-way to the lesser-48. That also means, of course, that Range Anxiety is part of our lives long since ("Audie? Have you filled up the truck for tomorrow?").
Tesla Driver 
@m_xalherAir quality in Oslo dramatically IMPROVED. People regularly exposed to dangerous air pollution in 2014: 200,000. Number in 2018? 10,000. So down 95 % in 4 years! Much of it due to EVs and restrictions on inner city driving.
That's true, but note that the Model 3 does not have a static demand curve:
Put differently: every single $1,000 price reduction of Tesla's entry price is going to shift the demand curve to the right, significantly. (Even though the demand curve is a flawed representation for Tesla products.)
- The Model 3 is not fungible, not a commodity, it's a unique product with no substitute.
- Market knowledge about the Model 3 is not even close to 100%. This delays price discovery and introduces significant latencies and distortions. Everyone knows commodities like coffee and knows how much they'd buy at a given price. Once new coffee prices are published price discovery is near instantaneous. EV knowledge is not widespread yet, at all, price discovery will take months, years.
- Market participants are particularly irrational and emotional when buying high value items, and cars tend to be the second biggest purchase of consumers in their whole life. I.e. potential buyers don't really know whether they'll buy a car for a given price or not, and the "getting them into the dealership is 50% of the sale" effect and irrationality is very real.
- Social marketing channels are significant demand generation forces, more affordable entry prices are unlocking thousands of new Tesla evangelists, accessing tens of thousands of new, previously inaccessible consumers and increasing Tesla's addressable market - I.e. generating demand for higher priced units as well.
- Because the Model 3 is a unique product controlled by Tesla, they can also control the supply of lower priced models. It's up to Tesla how many Medium Range or Standard Range units they are going to make - and they can shift demand via this channel as well.
Economics professors who strike through this with red will have to re-learn economics.
I guess all economics professors need to relearn economics. /s
A supplier (Tesla) reducing their price moves the supply curve, not the demand curve. After the supply curve is moved to right, the equilibrium is at a higher quantity and more cars are sold. Marketing, product awareness and all the things you mentioned are about trying to move the demand curve (more demand for the same price). Which is not what Tesla did.
In general, whole lot mental gymnastics to some how explain away the simple fact that Tesla reduced their prices because they felt they needed to to sell more cars. If they could sell 100% of their supply at the old price then the price reduction does not make any sense since it does not result in more sold cars. If awareness is what they wanted then they can do marketing or if environmental impact is what they want they can donate $1100 per car to an environmental charity.
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
Ha. Headed right back up to max pain. The stock market is such a crock.
Toolsmack
Member
I’m feeling a back door 310 close for a Market Maker win
Why do you think it's a shift in supply curve? The simplified/classical graph would show a shift along the supply curve and shift to the left of the demand curve. We don't have the info to really show one way or the other I think.
I'm not sure that most people realize how awesome this is. Let me begin.
Tesla has long confirmed that all of its current vehicles, including the Model 3 can take higher than Supercharger charge currents. Additionally, we've known from teardown experts who've gotten the vehicle into Factory Mode that the computer's internal limit for charge currents is 525A. This corresponds to about 180kW or so. Now, given the charge curve, it's probably only capable of that level near the bottom (if at all), followed by a continuous rampdown (no plateau) - but more on that in a second. Model 3 getting 126kW on a 175kW charger is about what you'd expect, since the charger will support voltages higher than Model 3 can use (aka, it's charger-current limited).
A flood of Model 3s is now starting in Europe. Total European EV numbers are going to surge. The Model 3s can charge as fast or faster on the (smaller number of) 175kW CCS chargers, let alone the few true 350kW CCS chargers, than it can on Supercharger V2. In short, Model 3s are going to clog up CCS charging stations. Particularly the fastest ones. They're going to make lines for everyone else, and it's going to be a long time before the CCS buildout rate can outpace the rate of the Model 3 flood. But the fun part is, the inverse isn't going to happen. Not simply because there's not some imminent CCS vehicle flood, but because - even if Tesla has already added the ability for non-Tesla vehicles to charge at Superchargers (they surely will eventually) - most CCS vehicles do not have the ability to autonegotiate payment. A charger is never required to let a non-paying customer charge, and nor is any particular payment method required.
Charging is about to become annoying for non-Teslas, without the inverse happening; Model 3s will have their selection of Superchargers or whatever CCS chargers they haven't yet clogged up.
Now here's where it gets more fun. That whole taper thing.
First off, a reminder of why tapers occur. Internal resistance rises as cells near fully charged. This increases cell heating. One can ignore pack temperature - many EV manufacturers have been known to do this (Audi for example, on top of minimizing taper only cools the pack from the bottom, leading inevitably to gross differences between cell temperatures on the top and the bottom). But temperature when charging directly correlates to damage and cell lifespan.
So tapering is good for lifespan, but what about charge rates? Well, it just so happens that Model 3 is an efficiency king:
Compare it, for example, to an I-Pace (which has similar interior space, despite being a CUV-format vehicle and larger exterior dimensions):
Compare Side-by-Side
Check out that energy consumption difference on highway driving: 123MPGe vs. 72MPGe. An I-Pace would have to charge at a *70% higher power* just to put on as many miles/kilometers per minute charging as the Model 3! So when you see Model 3 tapered to, say, 60kW? That's faster than the maximum speed (miles/kilometers per minute) that the I-Pace can charge at! And while a car like the Audi E-Tron can do 150kW max, it's even thirstier than the I-Pace. Even a little car like the Kona (well smaller interior space than a Model 3) is thirstier than the Model 3:
Compare Side-by-Side
14% thirstier on the highway, to be precise!
Now, that may be all well and good, but oh yes, it gets better. Note the range on these vehicles. Let's forget for a second that the actual measured combined-cycle range of the Model 3 LR RWD was actually measured at 334mi, but was downrated to 310 miles to match the P3D and AWD. Let's stick with 310mi EPA combined.
Note the comparison EPA combined ranges: 258 miles for the Kona. 234 miles for the I-Pace. The E-Tron appears to be coming in at around 200 miles EPA, maybe a touch more. Caught onto what's happening yet? 258 miles is 83% of a 310-mi Model 3's range. 234mi is 75% of a Model 3's range. 200 miles is 64% of a Model 3's range. If the Model 3 were charged as often as those other vehicles, you can ignore the taper over 83% / 75% / 64% of its charge range. So if you charge it as often as you'd have to charge an E-Tron, for example, it maintains its over-120kW (equivalent to well over 200kW for an E-Tron in terms of miles/kilometers per minute) up to 78% of that range. And below that, you can charge even faster. Again, theoretically up to 180kW (although that's yet to be proven in practice - hopefully we'll find out soon!).Model 3 is a charging beast. And it's a beast that's also going to wreak havoc for CCS charger availability at non-Tesla locations
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
