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

[M|S|M MYP]

Rejoice y'all!!

 

[MartinAustin]

Carl Quintanilla just said TSLA has gone over $200 for the first time since September. Is that deliberately-misleading positive coverage or deliberately-misleading negative coverage? I can't decide

 

[M|S|M MYP]

Carl Quintanilla just said TSLA has gone over $200 for the first time since September. Is that deliberately-misleading positive coverage or deliberately-misleading negative coverage? I can't decide

He had to wake up the MM's that were not paying attention..back to below $200 we go!!

 

[GhostSkater]

The message is confusing, we should wait a bit until more information is available. 3C at a pack capacity of approx. 60 kWh would mean a max. charge rate of 180 kWh for the Standard Range battery pack (as mentioned in a response to this tweet).

Yeah

Keep in mind most Tesla packs charge close or above 3C already, but they don't sustain it much, the BYD Blade on Berlin Standard Model Y sustains 2.8 C up to 50% SoC

 

[Nocturnal]

Ok, so who ordered the Schadenfreude?

 

[EnzoXYZ]

It might *charge* fast, but with a huge battery, how long is it going to take to fill it?
I think a good compromise would be for Tesla to open up most superchargers, but maybe have 1 or 2 stalls per site to be Tesla-only, which ensures that even if some hopelessly inefficient-charging gargantuan ford is filling to 100%, then there are still stalls with regular throughput?

TBH the best solution is just massive, massive buildout of a lot more superchargers. They DO seem to be accelerating, which is good news, albeit a tad overdue. Now all we need are those solar canopies and wi-fi and lounges!

In the long term with many times more Superchargers I don't think it will be a big deal. I wonder if Tesla would increase the cost to charge from 90% to 100% as it takes the longest even with our Teslas. Owners that need the extra 10% to make to the next station should pay more for occupying the stall that much longer? Our recent road trip to Toronto, Canada I had to use a different Supercharger as the one the car navigated to was full. The next closest one was only 2-3 miles away. This made it no big deal so I can see 5 years from now even smaller cities and rural areas may have ample Superchargers. In the long term I agree with you if Tesla is accelerating the Supercharger build out then it may not be such a big deal as it is right now.

 

[30seconds]

The brake or gas pedal might be a good example of the problem. Does everyone use the same pedal? How many variables and controllers/sensors go into that one function. Are there ten different producers or does everyone use the same supplier. With different sensors/controllers won't custom software have to be written? If the controller (if that is even the right term) isn't compatible with OTA updates then how will it be supported. It seems like the list of potential problems goes on and on.

Presumably Tesla could have a common API gateway for control and the AI could be trained on the different driving characteristics for individual vehicles. Pretty sure the Semi has very different characteristics than the 3.

But a third part auto would need cameras and Tesla hardware

 

[scaesare]

Top Artificial Intelligence (AI) Chip Companies Leading The Way (2023)

Future economic growth could be significantly impacted by AI chips, which will unavoidably be used in robotics, smart homes where electronic items are becoming more intelligent, cars that are becoming more autonomous, and many other technologies. As the name suggests, AI chips are a new...

www.marktechpost.com

Top Artificial Intelligence (AI) Chip Companies Leading The Way, article by Prathamesh Ingle, Marktechpost, March 22nd, 2023.

26 AI companies mentioned in this article. One company is missing. Tesla is not on mainstream media's radar when it comes to AI. AI for Tesla is not currently priced in TSLA.

I think the crux of that article was to rank companies that make general AI products available for people to use... either a chip to buy, or services, (such as a cloud offering or AI engine in an iPhone, etc... ) they can use to implement an AI function of their own.

While Tesla's FSD chip is surely competitive, it's a part built for internal specific purpose... it's not accessible for people to "use" in the sense of building something on top of it.

 

[hobbes]

Quite the fight to keep it below 200...

 

[Todd Burch]

How great would it be if Tesla started selling their HW4 FSD chips for general AI use just as NVIDIA sells chips for AI use? That would immediately add ANOTHER revenue stream to Tesla and immediately make them ALSO an AI chip provider in addition to a carmaker, car dealer, car servicing company, lithium refinery, energy storage provider, solar manufacturer, fueling station operator, insurance provider, etc...

It would also help spread the cost of the FSD chip for the cars. We'd see TSLA jump $50-$100 within a day of this announcement.

 

[scaesare]

So you still didn't understand what I meant

When FSD is enabled, the FSD computer doesn't command a torque amount/pedal application, it tells the distance it wants to cover to the inverter and how to execute that, the inverter then checks the instructions, cross check with other systems, and if it's good, it translates the instruction to a sequence of torque/speed commands that completes the goal instructed by the FSD computer and executes it

I don't believe that's how the inverter is implemented. The inverter indeed does take a set of commands for torque and then translates those in to the correct 3-phase AC amplitude and frequency waveform that it rectifies from the DC pack voltage. It then applies those to the motor windings. There are appropriate feedback mechanisms for the inverter to measure that the motor output is as intended. Those inverter commands can come from the application of the pedals or the FSD computer.

It is the FSD stack has a layer that takes the information from the upper path-planning layer, and then translates it to discrete commands needed by the inverter, electronic brake system, steering actuator, etc... to execute the given planned path.

My point is, selling FSD for third parties isn't bolting a few cameras and the FSD computer, it's way more involved than that. There isn't a port of even a instruction coming out of the FSD computer that is called "Thottle position"

I'm not sure what you mean here... I assume you are using port as in "translating instructions" but generally "instructions" are at the CPU level, in this case two embedded systems talking to each other would likely use an API of some sort. But in context of my point above, I believe there it is very likely the inverter accepts commands for desired torque, etc... People have actually built motor controllers that will work with Tesla drive units, and that's what they do.

You can't simply connected the FSD computer to any EV architecture, it's way more involved than that for safety reasons, it requires a ton of software integration to make it work, which we know OEMs suck at.

It can be done, probably will be done, the question is how? Tesla goes inside the OEMs to adapt the software? It isn't even inside the OEM since most use controllers/inverters from suppliers. Will Tesla supply the motor inverter part of the drivetrain? Just the know how and software?

Agree... there's a lot to it. To support an "expanded ecosystem" to allow the Tesla FSD stack with a variety of hardware and configurations (rather then the tightly controlled hardware landscape Tesla manages), will take a lot of work to "generalize" it, and likely have a constrained set of implementation requirements.

 

[scaesare]

They are all connected but other than the Computer none of them have to be made by Tesla or provided by Tesla or designed by Tesla.

They can use whatever camera supplier they want, brakes, drive train, batteries can all vary.

Just with Tesla, FSD is already working with dozens of different battery pack and dozens of different motor configurations (hundreds of combinations of those). Doesn't really matter to FSD.

While it's true that Tesla has multiple iterations of (different) hardware they support, I'm positive each requires specific tuning and configuration of the system.

For instance, just in cameras/imaging sensors, you have different characteristics such as:

-Sensitivity
-Resolution
-Bayer-pattern implementation
-Chroma filter wavelengths
-Noise envelope
-Fixed patter noise
-Saturation behavior
-Gamma response
-Aspect ratio
-Field angle
-Temperature sensitivity
-Tolerances
-etc....

And then there's placement around the vehicle (no 2 models are same size/shape), height, angle, windshield rake, etc...

Repeat for each discrete FSD component, and you have a multitude of parameters to account for. It's certainly possible to "generalize" the system such that other components can be used in a different vehicle implementation, but there's a large amount of work to do so, especially for a safety-critical system.

 

[Mengy]

Quite the fight to keep it below 200...

$200 does seem to be the line in the sand today by the option people.

 

[StarFoxisDown!]

$200 does seem to be the line in the sand today by the option people.

If you take a gander over at max pain website, the options volume indicates TSLA probably heading to 210. Already a good number of put volume at 200 which signals it's actually the base for this week. MM's just want to make sure it doesn't run too hard today which would then make it harder to keep it below 210 by Friday.

 

[KBF]

I prefer Teslas too, but you claim about the EQS being inefficient is misleading. This is from Bjoern Nylands 1000km test, EQS has the same Wh/mi as Model S LR palladium:

View attachment 942387

You can argue the test with the EQS was at a higher temperature, but in the whole testing field of EVs that Bjoern assembled (the list is much longer than shown here) it is one of the more efficient cars.

Source:

I think it's awesome to see some real life data points, and the bits I watched was entertaining (I like his personality). Thanks for the share!

In addition to temperature difference (5 Celsius is meaningful, especially since its below the battery's preferred operating temperature), there's also the average speed. 2 km/h may not seem like much, but in my road trips I've noticed every unit matters for efficiency. If I want to squeeze out a few more miles, setting my highway speed down from 112 to 110 is meaningful. It is impressive how close the EQS is, though - I think it shows how its not as inefficient as some suggest.

There's a massive significant factor not accounted for in the chart, though (does he mention it in the video at all?) - user acceleration. The Model S has double (or more?) the HP equivalent; and he punched it (reaching 600 wH briefly) on the highway after his charging stop (not sure how aggressive he was otherwise). I think the EQS 450+ has a 0-60 time of 6 seconds (one online source said the most expensive trim was 4.1) vs under 2...

The other factor is wind - he mentioned that there was a headwind when he started the S run, but I don't know if that changed over the course of his run. Just another variable to keep in mind (it matters a lot where I drive, in the Canadian prairies we get crazy wind...)

So with that in mind, even though the numbers are the same on the chart, I wonder how close they actually are in equivalent real world driving. (not that it matters a huge deal - even the EQS is WAY better than any gas guzzler, and I love it that there are EV's from many manufacturers - we all win when there are options!)

I love this guy's app with all the data - so cool to see the charging detail! What's that all about.

Oh, Investor's thread... Um, great to see competition at least exists, no matter how far apart they may be. The future is bright, no matter the SP, and just remember without Tesla pushing, none of this would have happened in North America. One big reason I'm a shareholder.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Carl Quintanilla just said TSLA has gone over $200 for the first time since September. Is that deliberately-misleading positive coverage or deliberately-misleading negative coverage? I can't decide

Yeah, that's deliberately misleading. TLSA was $202.69 intraday on Apr 03, 2023 (and over $200 many other times since September)

As you can see in the 200-day chart above (↑), the TSLA low in the entire month of Sept 2022 was $260 (shortzes pounced on TSLA before AI Day 2 on Sep 30, 2022 to sour the milk).

Quintanilla's on drugs. Or you have wax in yer ears. Or both.

Cheers to the Longs!

 

[bkp_duke]

The competition is coming:

TL;DW - GM's motor assembly shows very VERY little integration compared to even Ford, much less Tesla.

Mary led . . . the march to a second bankruptcy.

 

[TrendTrader007]

excellent opportunity to buy TSLA right on 200 day SMA $199.79
accordingly, added significantly to my $390 Dec 2025 call position
we are just getting started in my technical based personal highly biased opinion
see you at $400+ by september/October 2023
$2000+ by 2027
not interested in chasing NVDA
not interested in chasing AI
TSLA+TSLL+$390 Dec 2025 calls+June 2025 $270 call
nothing more, nothing less
let the games begin

disclaimer: 100% personal opinion
not financial advice

 

[Artful Dodger]

How's Options volume today? (since, as advertized, we're hard-capped at 200)

 

[Ogre]

Well if Musk/ Tesla did have something in the hopper to "Burn the Shorts". This seems like the ideal time to play that card.

Not saying there is some big reveal in the near future. But it feels like the time is perfect if he did. Momentum is working agains the shorts and macros seem to have turned in our favor a bit. That spring is wound quite tight still