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

[Artful Dodger]

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.

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]

Tough is an understatement. I do hope they succeed as well, but some seem to be handing them a trophy for being the next successful US EV manufacturer and that feels a bit premature.

Once they have a legitimate battery contract for those massive packs and more realistic prices for their trucks I'll get excited. Faraday Future and Lucid had impressive prototypes and both are on the brink, therefore I'm skeptical until concrete progress is made.

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.

 

[Fact Checking]

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.

To further answer @Sweft's question, there's a very strong seasonality to Q1 car sales:

http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/tesla/tesla-model-s/​

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]

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:

"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."​

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]

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:

"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."​

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.

Guidance is low because Big Daddy Ellison said so. Beating guidance is the only way to make the SP rocket higher.

 

[Sweft]

To further answer @Sweft's question, there's a very strong seasonality to Q1 car sales:

Tesla Model S US car sales figures​

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.

Wow, I would say more than strong seasonality, more like strong end of quarter!

 

[EVNow]

Guidance is low because Big Daddy Ellison said so. Beating guidance is the only way to make the SP rocket higher.

I think this is dangerous reading. Q1 will be low because of seasonality + shipping issues.

"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".

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.

 

[capster]

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:

• 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)

Next, let's examine potential manufacturing improvements with the new cell:

• 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

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)

• 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

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?

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.

Nice! Thanks Lodger!

Question: Can the dry process be used pouch cells? I saw somewhere here or there that these were rolled then squished. Maybe not possible or effective to use the dry process? Perhaps another advantage to Tesla’s approach and perhaps why legacy automakers didn’t find Maxwell’s tech interesting.

 

[RobStark]

Nearly 2/3 of the U.S.new vehicle market is trucks and large SUVs. These vehicles, when imported to the U.S. are subject to 25% tariff and have been for decades. Only about 1/3 of our new vehicle market is subject to the low 2.5% tariff. Europe charges 10% regardless, but their car market is a much larger fraction of their total vehicle market. If Europe were to levy a 25% tariff on cars, and charge 2.5% on trucks and large SUVs that would be something like parity with the U.S.

Be careful what you ask for.

Europe doesn't make full sized pickups and SUVs.

When Mercedes decided where to make the GLS they decided on Alabama for global distribution and BMW decided to make the X7 in South Carolina for global distribution. They did that because they knew the US would be the primary market for these full sized SUVs. Even same with midsize X5 and GLC.

Europe's itty bitty pickups would not sell here with 0% tariff.

The "chicken tax" on trucks was a symbolic retaliatory tariff when Europe placed tariffs/safety regulations which made importing poultry from the US economically impossible.

The 25% tariff on European pickups and SUVs has zero effect on European exports to the USA. And it has a negligible effect on commercial vehicles.

 

[mongo]

Nice! Thanks Lodger!

Question: Can the dry process be used pouch cells? I saw somewhere here or there that these were rolled then squished. Maybe not possible or effective to use the dry process? Perhaps another advantage to Tesla’s approach and perhaps why legacy automakers didn’t find Maxwell’s tech interesting.

Seems like it would apply to all three cell types: cylindrical, pouch, and prismatic.

 

[Steve m]

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

First they have 2 pages of vin numbers one for 2018 the other for 2019

The 2018 one is VIN TrimName MetroName Price(firstFound) Discount(firstFound) PurchasePrice(firs - Pastebin.com

If you take a vin from that page and replace it for the vin in the link

https://3.tesla.com/model3/order/5YJ3E1EB4JF188653#payment

And hit go it will ether give you an error message or give you a chance to buy the car.

You might try 30 or so and see how many fails you get.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Nice! Thanks Lodger!

Question: Can the dry process be used pouch cells? I saw somewhere here or there that these were rolled then squished. Maybe not possible or effective to use the dry process? Perhaps another advantage to Tesla’s approach and perhaps why legacy automakers didn’t find Maxwell’s tech interesting.

Sure, why not? The jelly-roll is created after the slurry is applied to the electrode and dried. A pouch cell just skips the rolling operation.

Cheers!

 

[anthonyj]

I think this is dangerous reading. Q1 will be low because of seasonality + shipping issues.

I’m referring to guidance for 2019

 

[Tslynk67]

Can we knock it off with the purely political opinion posts?

Sure, I agree, not the place, however the post is quite factual, not opinion

 

[Gavyne]

Sooooo, standard range removed from the website. Announcement coming?

https://electrek.co/2019/02/18/tesla-standard-model-3-battery-website-fans-panic/

There's also this: Rumor: Tesla Model 3 Standard Interior Options Leaked | CleanTechnica

Who knows, something might be up.

 

[EVMeister]

There's also this: Rumor: Tesla Model 3 Standard Interior Options Leaked | CleanTechnica

Who knows, something might be up.

That's just a rehash of various old rumours, it's not based on any new leak as far as I can see.

 

[Gavyne]

That's just a rehash of various old rumours, it's not based on any new leak as far as I can see.

Sorry I have no idea, just saw that today thought there might be something new.

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

Europe doesn't make full sized pickups and SUVs.

When Mercedes decided where to make the GLS they decided on Alabama for global distribution and BMW decided to make the X7 in South Carolina for global distribution. They did that because they knew the US would be the primary market for these full sized SUVs. Even same with midsize X5 and GLC.

Europe's itty bitty pickups would not sell here with 0% tariff.

The "chicken tax" on trucks was a symbolic retaliatory tariff when Europe placed tariffs/safety regulations which made importing poultry from the US economically impossible.

The 25% tariff on European pickups and SUVs has zero effect on European exports to the USA. And it has a negligible effect on commercial vehicles.

The 25% tariff on trucks (pickups and SUV’s) is probably one of the reasons why European car companies never bothered designing and making more full sized trucks for the US market. So the tariff served its purpose: killing competition from abroad.

 

[KarenRei]

I wonder if the s/x reworking(now that we know the chemistry is the same between cells), will mostly contain reworkingnof the cooling system, and HVAC. Making the pack able to handle the track would be awesome.

This is a common myth. It's not battery heating that limits S and X, but heating of the induction motors.

 

[Carl Raymond]

There's also this: Rumor: Tesla Model 3 Standard Interior Options Leaked | CleanTechnica

Who knows, something might be up.

I suspect the standard range is about to go on sale for $35K. That should wake a few sleepwalkers.