Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
You don't want to miss the CNCDA Q1 report for California:


The Model Y and Model 3 are the two best selling vehicles in the state. With 21,812 and 21,506 sales respectively. Trailing in third place is the RAV4 at 15,990. Tesla now has 11.3% market share in California, only behind Toyota at 17.4%. The only question now is when Tesla will achieve the #1 market share in California. The following chart says it all. EV adoption hit 14.6% too, so 1 in every 7 cars sold is an EV.

CNCDA Q1 2022.png


CNCDA Q1 2022 EV.jpg
 
Last edited:
The range was already known from EPA docs wasn't it? 0-60 is interesting though mainly because of how much slower that got on the LFP 3 versus this 4680 Y.

It's 0.2s slower than the LR Model Y. That's not really surprising given the diminished power that can be delivered to the motors due to the moderately smaller battery pack. If memory serves, someone already posted weight on this variant and it wasn't much lighter than the LR.
 
It's 0.2s slower than the LR Model Y. That's not really surprising given the diminished power that can be delivered to the motors due to the moderately smaller battery pack. If memory serves, someone already posted weight on this variant and it wasn't much lighter than the LR.



You might wanna re-read the actual post you quoted. It's not comparing 2 different Ys.

It's making the point that SR 4680 appears to lose a lot less performance than LFP SR vehicles do (with the 3 being the only example we have of that so far)
 
You might wanna re-read the actual post you quoted. It's not comparing 2 different Ys.

It's making the point that SR 4680 appears to lose a lot less performance than LFP SR vehicles do (with the 3 being the only example we have of that so far)

I was comparing the 0-60 speeds on LR (2170) Y at 4.8s and the SR (4680) Y at 5.0s.

I don't care about the 3 and if it has LFP or not in this comparison.

EDIT - not even sure why you mentioned LFP in the 3, since the 4680 SR Y is not an LFP variant.
 
Then why is the max autopilot speed only 90 (with radar) and 80 with vision only?

Why does Autopilot require human supervision? Because it's not finished yet. Human drivers still need to correct the computer's mistakes, and few humans have the reaction time of a race car driver.

I don't know exactly how fast computers will be able to drive eventually. I do know that optimized software running on silicon hardware is hella faster than human wetware. Probably the max speed of robocars will be limited by things like tire friction (to stay on the road) rather than robodriver reaction time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kbM3 and aGreenGuy
Well, we did lose a lot of important days of production. And because there are sort of upstream supplier challenges where a lot of suppliers also have lost many days of production. But Tesla Shanghai -- Giga Shanghai is coming back with a vengeance. So, I think notwithstanding new issues that arise, I think we will see record output per week from Giga Shanghai this quarter, albeit we are missing a couple of weeks. So, that means the most likely vehicle production in Q2 will be similar to Q1, maybe slightly lower, but it’s also possible we may pull a rabbit out of the hat and be slightly higher.

I still believe Q2 will come out with production quite a bit lower than Q1, like around 270K - 280K. Shanghai just lost too many days, and it's almost the end of May now and they're still ramping up. I just don't believe there's enough time in June to make up the difference, especially with Berlin and Austin ramping slowly as well.

I'd be happy if Q2 > Q1, but I'm not expecting it.
 
One accident = instant death, plus chemical fire and explosion in an enclosed area. It'll probably take years for Tesla to recover or could end up being a meme like the hindenburg incident.

Fun to have superlatives but not so much if something goes wrong.
No, a crash (even at 100) is not instant death in a Tesla. Especially in a smaller diameter tunnel where there is nothing to crash head on into.
Why would a Tesla explode? They don't do that.
Yes, in the event of fire (which can theoretically occur without a crash) they need to vent the *open at both ends* tunnel while the following cars reverse back to the station.

Two words: Phantom Braking.
What does that even mean in the context of tunnels and safety? Assuming the cars err to the side of not hitting things, that makes it more safe, not less so.

Futher, a tunnel environment is way easier to train against. Heck, if you can insure no unauthorized personal, it can be done with only an inductive wire and the wheel speed sensors. Without that, could use wheel speed sensors and a cheap industrial single line lidar. However, cameras will be fine.
 
No, a crash (even at 100) is not instant death in a Tesla. Especially in a smaller diameter tunnel where there is nothing to crash head on into.
Why would a Tesla explode? They don't do that.
Yes, in the event of fire (which can theoretically occur without a crash) they need to vent the *open at both ends* tunnel while the following cars reverse back to the station.


What does that even mean in the context of tunnels and safety? Assuming the cars err to the side of not hitting things, that makes it more safe, not less so.

Futher, a tunnel environment is way easier to train against. Heck, if you can insure no unauthorized personal, it can be done with only an inductive wire and the wheel speed sensors. Without that, could use wheel speed sensors and a cheap industrial single line lidar. However, cameras will be fine.
You crash into another Tesla that's in front that has a tire blow out and probably smashed into the side walls at high speed. Once a Tesla catches on fire, it can cause an explosion as other batteries burn. I remember seeing a model 3 burning in China with a small explosion on the side of the hwy.
 
You crash into another Tesla that's in front that has a tire blow out and probably smashed into the side walls at high speed. Once a Tesla catches on fire, it can cause an explosion as other batteries burn. I remember seeing a model 3 burning in China with a small explosion on the side of the hwy.
Wow, and the mood here was just starting to shift...
 
I still believe Q2 will come out with production quite a bit lower than Q1, like around 270K - 280K. Shanghai just lost too many days, and it's almost the end of May now and they're still ramping up. I just don't believe there's enough time in June to make up the difference, especially with Berlin and Austin ramping slowly as well.

I'd be happy if Q2 > Q1, but I'm not expecting it.
I have NO insight into this, but I think Elon will try to will the mother of all quarter end production/delivery events into existence.
 
Why does Autopilot require human supervision? Because it's not finished yet. Human drivers still need to correct the computer's mistakes, and few humans have the reaction time of a race car driver.

I don't know exactly how fast computers will be able to drive eventually. I do know that optimized software running on silicon hardware is hella faster than human wetware. Probably the max speed of robocars will be limited by things like tire friction (to stay on the road) rather than robodriver reaction time.


Currently the limit is mainly the range of the sensors, not computer speed or if anything is "finished" yet.

If you can't see far enough ahead to stop or otherwise take action safely, even if your reaction time is zero then you can't drive that speed.

Fast computers don't magically let the cameras see further.

The conti radar had a range of 160/525 meters/feet. The main forward camera (there's a reason they call it main) is only 150 meters (492 feet).

So a drop in max speed the system could safely operate at wasn't surprising.

Nor is the fact the "increase" rumored is only to 85 mph, not the 90 radar gave you. Math is:

At 90 mph the car travels 160 meters in ~4 (3.97678) seconds. At 80 mph (the vision max when released) a car travels 150 meters in...~4 seconds... (4.19426 specifically). At 85 mph a car travels 150 meters in ~4 seconds (3.94753).


Meaning 80 was still a bit conservative with vision compared to radar, giving you over 2 10ths more reaction time.

But at 85 you're basically "on par" in terms of how much time you have to reach the end of sensor range, or at least within a couple hundreds of a second difference.


Significantly north of 90, the car can't see far enough ahead to be able to stop in time- so no, the car can't drive at any speed it can keep on the road at- no matter how fast the computer gets- unless the range of the cameras is significantly improved.