Same here. About an hour ago I just picked up my newly-wrapped FSD-transferred flawless Freemont Model Y.
-
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
Just above the copyright notice at the bottom of the page is a Style chooser. TMC 2022 is default I believe. I've been happy with TMC Dark Pro 2022.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Any word on the 4:00 PM Pacific Time live stream? Links? TIA. 
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I'm not seeing it on his feed. Either it's late or it's not happening today.Any word on the 4:00 PM Pacific Time live stream? Links? TIA.
there is a livestream on X with many folks waiting and talking FSDb etc.... supposedly Elon meeting running late 30-60 minutesAny word on the 4:00 PM Pacific Time live stream? Links? TIA.
over 1700 on this stream
Last edited:
GhostSkater
Member
95 Wh, from the 10% improvement Drew said over the 86.5 Wh from 4680 V1
Once Tesla adds Silicon, it starts getting interesting, 114 Wh with a reasonable Silicon content on the anode (20-30%) is possible, assuming weight stays constant that is 320 Wh/kg
But this is no easy step, Silicon has a huge change in volume between charged and discharged, this requires the polymeric binder presented at battery day do work, else cycle life goes down the drain
Recommend watching or re-watching this video from The Limiting Factor, also, if there is people here that didn't watch his battery day series, do it, great weekend entertainment
No, 500 miles on 180 kWh (likely a bit more gross), would need to get down to 360 Wh/mi, while it's hard, it's possible, Model X is 275 Wh/mi
There is many ways to go about trying to calculate it, but the one I went with for that calculation is to go on each segment Tesla has vehicles, take the most efficient vehicle, and see how much more efficient Tesla is (ignoring Lucid and so on since they are hyper focused on efficiency and doesn't help us figure out how much more efficient CT is compared to Rivian or F150)
That number is 8% more efficient on average, so I applied that to the average of F150 and Rivian, I think we might be surprised since none of those is known for it's efficiency and the pack might end up being smaller or Tesla takes the 500+ miles to the heart and we end up with considerably more, if it was just 8% more efficient it would mean a 216 kWh pack but I see this as a worst case scenario
Big problem in longer cells is thermal management, makes way harder to the heat to go through the electrode foil, into the tabs, to the cell lid and up to the side to make contact with the cooling ribbons
Listening to the X livestream hosted by Whole Mars, Elon DMed one of the people in the group and said he was in meetings, and running 30 minutes to an hour late, so an hour and 20 minutes from 4PM PT...?Any word on the 4:00 PM Pacific Time live stream? Links? TIA.
There's a guy on there now who speaks like Elon, and laughs like him too...
Edit to add..
Elon Musk (@elonmusk) joins X Space and talks for 8 minutes to guy who sounds exactly like Elon Musk (@AdrianDittmann)
Last edited:
Startkng with the MX as 275 Wh/mi hurts any real estimate arguments for real world range. I haven't seen 1 owner under 300 on these forums with a refresh MX(just did a search, so there could be). Edmunds puts the MX at 365 on the interstate and 297 combined. The CT will have worse aero and have a bigger hit on the interstate than the MX.
Ford, and most others outside of Audi, don't use the same EPA process and typically delivers closer to their EPA than Tesla, except in the cold.
I understand that EPA is what Tesla will present, but their highway towing stats will be way down using their typical methods.
These 70mph test carry more weight than others for most outside from what I've seen. It's why the Lucid was so publicized, hitting 500 miles at 70mph on a real road.
All of this is to say I'm hoping Tesla shoots for 500+ with their exaggerated estimates for the sake of towing.
that german guy who sounds like ELon is wild
Big price cuts to Megapacks (~20% cuts) prices. And apparently wait times have decreased.
Not good for the uberbullish proclamations of > 50% gross margins. This likely cuts gross margins in half.
Still profitable, but likely in the 25% range.
Not great for future earnings growth.
Not good for the uberbullish proclamations of > 50% gross margins. This likely cuts gross margins in half.
Still profitable, but likely in the 25% range.
Not great for future earnings growth.
Since it is the weekend (here).
What is you assumption on miles per kWh?
You seem to be implying 250 mi from a 170 kWh pack? (Around 1.5 miles per kWh)
2023 Tesla Model X: Same EPA Range, But Tremendously Cheaper
Continuing our overview of electric cars available in the United States, let's take a look at the 2023 Tesla Model X.insideevs.com
I think the Roaders had a double-stacked 200 kWh pack and from memory got a range of 600 miles - 3 miles per kWh.
IMO the Roadster would have been a heavy car.
We can say that an (unloaded) CT would be heavier than a Model X Plaid and a Roadster, but how much heavier?
I'm thinking of 500 miles of combined cycle range, unloaded, not towing, 2 passengers.
IMO rather than double stacked making a longer cell is a better option, I think 46x120.
If a Roadster could fit 120 kWh in a 4680 format, that becomes 180 kWh is a 46x120 format.
Tesla might one day repurpose Kato Rd to make 46x120 cells, but they are not currently doing that.
If a CT can get say 2.3 miles per kWh - a 170 kWh pack gives 391 Miles of rage.
At low speeds (ie: city driving), rolling resistance of the vehicle is the main consumer of energy, making weight the more important factor for determining efficiency and therefore range at low speeds.
As speed rises, aerodynamic drag becomes increasingly important. Based on the weight, shape, tires, etc. of any given car, there is some cross-over speed where the aerodynamic drag becomes an equal force to the rolling resistance...and then as speed increases further, the aero drag becomes more and more important, and at very high speeds, the weight barely matters anymore (as a portion of energy consumption) because the aero drag is enormous.
The roadster, being low and sleek, would probably have a pretty low drag force at highway speeds compared to the cybertruck -- a lower cross sectional area and probably a lower drag coefficient as well.
The Model X, too, seems to be a bit smaller, and more shapely, than the cybertruck -- so the X would likely also have a smaller cross sectional area and smaller drag coefficient than the cybertruck. So, the X should have a lower drag force and therefore more efficient highway cruising than the cybertruck.
The Cybertruck, being a bit heavier and probably having less efficient tires (and therefore more rolling resistance) might have that cross-over point a bit higher than the others...but still, I'd expect that on the highway, the weight won't matter as much as the aero drag, which is dictated by size and shape.
Also important to note that EPA ratings assume 55% city driving and 45% highway...which, as I noted above, is sortof silly for determining range, since nobody should be too worried about range when driving 25mph.
Certainly some hit to margins...
But there's potentially also some factor of price reduction due to manufacturing efficiency and/or rate increases. Certainly, the decrease in wait time (which was approaching 2 years) should have something to do with an increased manufacturing rate...
And maybe some input materials costs also dropped. Is there any reason that the battery cells (LFP from China?) that the use for the Megapack would have dropped in price over the last few months?
People should listen to the last few moments with Elon talking once it's out in recording from wholemar's livestream.
The little that I heard was
1. V12 does not support HW4 yet as the higher resolution results in re-training
2. Capex into AI compute will be 2B for 2023 and 2B for 2024
3. About to turn on 10k H100 cluster that cost 250M.
4. V12 is not yet perfect as it make mistakes, reason why it's not released to the public for now. However it's incredibly smooth.
5. HW4 uses more power than HW3. HW3 uses roughly 100W.
The little that I heard was
1. V12 does not support HW4 yet as the higher resolution results in re-training
2. Capex into AI compute will be 2B for 2023 and 2B for 2024
3. About to turn on 10k H100 cluster that cost 250M.
4. V12 is not yet perfect as it make mistakes, reason why it's not released to the public for now. However it's incredibly smooth.
5. HW4 uses more power than HW3. HW3 uses roughly 100W.
Here is the tweet with the livestream of FSD with Elon.
So, let me get this straight: In order to see anything on X, one has to have an X account?
Gotta love your carebear takes on everything.
How about the bull side? Lathrop ramp is going better than expected, thus Tesla is improving margin quicker and able to fulfill orders faster, hence the slightly quicker ship time
Ideally, you'd be right and Tesla can support these price cuts while still keeping healthy margins on Megapacks.
However, these are sudden and drastic cuts, and it's really hard to imagine margins on Megapacks won't be taking a hit from this over the short term. COGS go down over time, not usually off a cliff. I'd say the cuts are more likely due to pricing competition from other energy storage suppliers.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
