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

[LuckyManX]

Question here:
And the end of navigation, how to “end FSD “ properly without create a Disengagement Count?
And the end of a navigation it shows FSD completed, step on accerlerator to resume.
Of course I don’t want to do that, but it leaves me no other option except step on brake to disengage.
Looks like you don’t know how either, because you also disengage it.

This shouldn’t be a matter but now that increases the statistics number. And that effect the SP in the end, and this my money.

Our MX has stalks. We just push the lower left stalk forward to turn off FSD.

 

[cliff harris]

Sometimes they miss things in their planning.

Sometimes conditions change between planning and execution.

Sometimes even if you do plan for a thing the execution has issues.

Yes agreed 100%. I just don't think 'we don't have batteries for anything new' is on that list. I also think Tesla's planning AND execution is LIGHT YEARS ahead of every other US car company. For example:

• Legacy auto trying to use pouch cells and hoping they dont blow up
• Legacy auto thinking superchargers were pointless and thus not investing in them
• Legacy auto thinking that vertical integration was a bad idea, and outsourcing software.

Tesla get the BIG calls right. I think they are wrong on removing USS, FSD transfer limits, and limited color choices. I think they get the big things right. They built giga nevada when the idea of a car company making batteries was mad. They researched 4680s when everyone thought 18650s were fine. They started building a lithium refinery when everyone else thought they would just buy theirs in walmart.

If anything, Tesla seem to be a battery/ai company that is finding its feet in the world of cars. There is no way there would be an 8/8 robotaxi announcement and mexico would have been announced if Tesla was worried about battery supply. Nor would the semi production line be under construction, or the china megapack factory.
Also batteries seems to be drew's dept, and he seems like he knows what he is doing. The same cannot be said for anyone in legacy auto.

 

[Dutchie]

These gems were great hopium when the company wasn’t reliant on them. It’s no longer funny with the model 2 delayed again for multiple years.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1117096350301085697

Who was even on here in 2019? And if you’re still a sucker for this you have full on Stockholm syndrome for abuse.

Yes, you can see the negativity in this and trust me, I often do as well.

Back then, Elon did not realize how hard it would be. I don’t think you can blame him for that. You must applaud his tenacity and perseverance. How easy would it have been to just throw in the towel, give everyone a refund and focus on building cars the traditional way especially when when you are the richest person in the world. I think no one would have blamed him if he did. Yet, here he is going all the way and is now on the verge of solving it despite all the relentless negativity he faced and still faces from everybody (including me).

On the other hand we should not have been surprised seeing how he build the rocket company from scratch, sleeping on the factory floor to guid Tesla from the brim of bankruptcy. Any other sane person would have given up. Not Elon.

 

[EVCollies]

Our MX has stalks. We just push the lower left stalk forward to turn off FSD.

When I disengage FSD Super at end of drive by pushing down on right wheel it asks me to leave a message as why I disengaged.

 

[Papafox]

When I disengage FSD Super at end of drive by pushing down on right wheel it asks me to leave a message as why I disengaged.

Same happens to me with my M3 with stalks on FSD. It's about the software, not the stalks.

 

[TSLA Pilot]

Yes. that is how I see things...

A Robotaxi might have a single crystal high nickel battery pack because that provides a great combination of long range, high cycle-life and adaptability to V2G.

A 25K car might have an LFP or eventually Sodium based battery pack.

A Robotaxi might have inductive charging and the 25K might not.

A Robotaxi will not have a glovebox, door pockets or centre console. A Robotaxi will have inductive phone charging but will warn the customer to take their phone. As far as possible the chances of accidentally leaving something in the Robotaxi need to be minimised and the internal camera might be used to help.

Automatically opening doors and trunk are a good fit with the Robotaxi... The 25K car might have the same doors / trunk but the software opening of them might be different.

I am unsure whether or not the basic shape and size of the car will vary substantially...

The unboxed method allows similar/identical boxes to be incorporated in slightly different body shapes, But there is no need to duplicate stamping/casting moulds etc, unless there are very good reasons...

Seats and the interior trim can be different, the layout of seats might be different, the roof might be different.

The Robotaxi reveal on 8/8 is to fly the 25K car under the radar for as long as possible due to the risk of Osborning.

Sooner or later some covered vehicles are going to be captured by drones/cameras, it is good to steer that speculation in the direction of the Robotaxi.
If the reveal is 8/8 we might see some covered/camouflaged vehicles 1-2 months before that.. or maybe they will keep them hidden inside the factory.. But before volume production they will need to be driven on public roads..

it is also fairly likely that initial production at Austin will start with Robotaxis, Austin might not even build 25K cars.

That doesn't mean Mexico, Berlin, Shanghai or other factory locations will not build the 25K car. They are also almost certain to build Robotaxis.

I doubt that Elon's plan is to build a high number of Robotaxis and sit them around in parking lots.

You forgot a big one: BRAKES.

The Robotaxi won't have a need for 40 to 50 lbs, PER CORNER, of unsprung mass: heavy brake rotors, calipers, pads, and more. They'll instead need a very small parking brake, likely mounted inboard at the motor.

Software will simply upscale braking as needed to ensure excellent stopping performance, while also ensuring that there will be NO use case of a fully charged battery when the RT begins a trip at the top of a mountain.

Savings in the hundreds of dollars per RT, perhaps even up to the low-four figures when factory labor and maintenance savings are included

 

[hobbes]

View attachment 1036010
View attachment 1036011

Franz will be here at this event at the Petersen Museum. Whomever is local, we should go and ask him if 8/8 is true or not

https://twitter.com/x/status/1777029442935964066

I think even Franz is having fun with the confusion. I guess "Don´t always believe what you read" is aimed at Reuters, not Elon ...

He seems relaxed, and given he was one of the people who convinced Elon to keep the regular car and not do robotaxi I am pretty sure now that they´ll anounce both the manual drive car and the robotaxi on 8/8.

 

[FlyNavy01]

Interesting. Folks who invested early enough, already got their 10 bagger, but had to risk bankruptcy. Folks who are coming to the party late, getting in now, don't have to worry about Tesla going bankrupt, but they have to deal with "a single man with bizarre mood swings" as they HODL for their 10 bagger (maybe less). I wonder which was/is higher risk? Clearly you think the bankruptcy risk was acceptable, but not the single man's personality. Interesting.

Lol. You should learn to not make so many assumptions about strangers. Here I was thinking diversifying when I've made a lot of money in one area was a rational investment decision, but apparently I was "risking bankruptcy"... whatever you gotta tell yourself man. If you were truly confident you wouldn't be so triggered. It's pretty easy to tell who the insecure investors are on here.

Anyways, it's clear this place has become an echo chamber so I'll see myself out. Best of luck to the remaining level-headed ones who provide meaningful discussions! I'm sure you'll find continued success.

 

[Usain]

I am pretty sure now that they´ll anounce both the manual drive car and the robotaxi on 8/8.

I'm not as sure as you are. I think it's more likely than not for 8/8 to be only about robotaxis with the consumer vehicle on the back burner. It will probably be like, "Yeah, eventually we will sell this to consumers who want it, but the first ones will be robotaxis."

As an investor, I want Tesla to go all in on autonomy, megapacks, and bots. Consumer vehicles is a tough, low margin business.

I would be fine if Tesla just continued to make the 5 models they have today and license FSD to everybody else. Let them make the cars and Tesla makes the profit.

Also, it's totally in Elon's character to bet the company again. He wants to bet the company on real-world AI and I am fine with that.

 

[Quesder]

Same happens to me with my M3 with stalks on FSD. It's about the software, not the stalks.

so, put it all together,
these moves get you "a message as why you disengaged." even when FSD is complete:

1. step on brake
2. press the parking button
3. pull up/down the gear stalk on the right

What else can we do?

 

[Tony73]

I guess it depends on what you mean by sharing a platform with a consumer version. There will definitely be a lot of commonality in the architecture annd technology, and a modified Gen3 consumer car could certainly make a decent robotaxi. The modular unboxed manufacturing process and structural battery pack help make it easier to add variety to the parts of the vehicle above the skateboard. Still, a robotaxi fleet comprising minimally modified consumer cars would be far from optimal when compared to a family of dedicated robotaxis designs.

Specialized solutions, in their niche, will always outperform generic solutions. The more you can narrow the design requirements and objectives for a system, the more you can optimize its design with customization. A robotaxi has many fundamentally different marketing considerations than a consumer vehicle has. Some key differences include:

• 3-10x more usage per day
• They will either be "bought" internally by Tesla or bought by third-party businesses, but not by retail customers
• Exterior styling and sporty performance less important; cabin experience more important
• Most will never leave their local service area
• Instead of an individual serving all the various needs of an individual person or household, a fleet of vehicles will serve the collective needs of a whole local market
• Most of the time, occupant ingress & egress will occur from the curb side (right-hand side in most markets). Also, disability accommodations are necessary.
• Many of the safety regulations for human-driven vehicles do not apply
• Service will be performed by fleet management teams, not individuals and third parties
• Speculative opportunities:
  • Cargo variant
  • Higher speed limit
  • Optimizing for operation in Boring Company Loops

These high-level requirement differences will translate into major differences in design.

The vastly greater usage rate profoundly affects the economic value calculus. It is easier to justify greater upfront capital expenses for a robotaxi than for consumer cars, because the payoff comes much quicker. For example, suppose the engineers are choosing between two designs. One design is less expensive to produce, but it only has 250k miles of useful life. The alternative design would cost $10k more, but it will reduce lifetime per-mile maintenance costs and will have a useful life of 500k miles. Most retail car buyers would prefer the first design if the savings were passed on via a $10k discount, but the second design is better for a robotaxi that will be used for 100k miles per year.

Consumer psychology factors into this as well. Traditional car design is largely based upon appealing to (irrational) consumer preferences. For example, this is the only reason why so many cars today have enormous front grills, which exist only for appearance, not functionality. Retail buyers focus on factors like style, perceived safety, performance, driving feel, and perhaps most importantly for many customers, what the vehicle will communicate about their identity and social status. People also tend to strongly discount the future and focus more on short-term costs and benefits. Businesses operate more on long-term planning and spreadsheet models. They will look at depreciation, amortization and maintenance much more rationally than a typical retail customer. Durability is just one example of this utilization-rate effect on the design tradeoffs. I expect people will have different psychological relationship with a robotaxi they're riding in, such that cabin experience, price, and service convenience become the more dominant considerations.

When conforming to conventional external aesthetic norms no longer matters much, what else changes? Let's start with a throwback to a first-principles design from GM, the old EV1. This is likely closer to what a two-seater robotaxi should look like. That weird-looking fairing over the rear wheel well improves aerodynamics, and so does the bubbly body shape and the taper on the aft end of the car. This design is excellent for aerodynamics, which translates to better energy efficiency and less cabin noise, but most retail customers would say this looks ugly and dorky.

View attachment 1036451 View attachment 1036454

If Tesla expects that robotaxis, due to their safety and millisecond-scale reaction time, will eventually be approved for top speeds much higher than we legally allow humans to drive on public roads, then aerodynamic efficiency becomes even more important. Additionally, if Tesla expects the Boring Co concept to be successful, it could be worthwhile to tailor the design to serve that use case better.

While styling and exterior aesthetics will matter less, the cabin experience becomes much more important, and the design objectives for the cabin differ too.

• It needs to have better night lighting
• The suspension and tires should be tuned more for comfort, NVH damping, and stability, and less for sporty handling performance and driving feel
• Extra insulation material could be added to further attenuate NVH
• It also could make more sense to give the robotaxi a fancy, Model S-like audio system
• The back seats will be more important because they'll be used far more often than in a consumer car
• Productivity features like tables and electrical outlets might be worth including
• The cabin needs to be designed for flexibility to accommodate a variety of seating configurations (and maybe cargo configurations too) without compromising overall cost and complexity too much

For a $25k consumer car, this stuff simply does not fit in the budget nor in the design priorities, but, to reiterate, for a durable, high-usage robotaxi there is more budget for cabin upgrades without increasing average cost per mile by much. Teslas, and most EVs, have thus far been marketed with performance and driving excitement as one of the main selling points, whereas robotaxis will be marketed more based on the quality of the cabin experience.

Because most robotaxis will stay local, most of them will not need a large battery. Most EVs today have far more battery capacity than is used on a daily basis. The capacity is sized mainly to allow for occasional long trips and for convenience of customers who aren't able to charge at home or at work. For robotaxi fleets, this is a major optimization opportunity. The design of the robotaxi platform will likely include variants with batteries much too small to be competitive as consumer EVs. Transportation demand fluctuates throughout the day, week and year, but especially daily. Fleet capacity will need to accommodate the highest-demand periods. The rest of the time, a substantial portion of vehicles will be unnecessary and will sit idle, serving only the morning and evening rush hours. Therefore, cars with 50-100 miles of range may be useful for this niche. Especially now that Tesla makes structural battery packs, this could affect chassis undercarriage design.

The battery size variation can only work because the fleet of vehicles will serve the collective needs of a whole local market. This new design optionality will also affect vehicle sizing, seating arrangements, luggage space, and even whether to design for a cargo variant to serve last-mile and low-demand delivery routes. Balancing all the needs of a single customer with a single vehicle severely constrains the design options and requires major compromises. The biggest compromise is seating capacity. Almost all trips are with one or two occupants, for an average utilization factor that's probably around 20-25%. Robotaxi networks should be able to perform about 2-4x better on this metric, if the family of vehicles in the fleet is designed specifically for this purpose. As @MC3OZ noted, the two-seater also could be designed for a narrower body to further improve aero drag, weight, size and cost. If narrow enough, two-seaters could even hypothetically drive two across in Boring Co Loops, which are just barely wide enough to make this a plausible possibility.



Most of the time, passenger ingress & egress will occur from the curb side. Due to this asymmetry in typical loading/unloading patterns, it might make sense to have a laterally asymmetrical vehicle design and unconventional door configurations. Should there be bigger apertures on the primary entry/exit side? Should there be a sliding door like a van or dual sliding doors like the Zoox robotaxi prototype (see image below)? Rear doors as suicide doors (i.e. hinge on C-pillar instead of B-pillar) in order to enable a large single opening?

View attachment 1036468

Also, at least some of the robotaxis will need to provide accessibility for disabled people. The design decisions for the doors and surrounding structure and wiring also may affect design decisions regarding wheelchair ramp integration.

There are even more questions when we take it to first principles and look at the details. Should the low-speed, high-capacity, urban vehicle be longitudinally symmetrical like the Zoox so that it can drive in either direction equally well, to increase flexibility in tight spaces and save precious time on turning around? If we design for aero efficiency without side mirrors and with a radically unconventional rear end design, how does that affect the optimal upstream aero design of the front end? Since the driving is done with only cameras, do we still need a wiper for the entire windshield? If not, how does that affect the rest of the vehicle design, from the slope of the windshield to the arrangement of internal subsystems? How does deletion of the steering wheel and wiring (looking at Cybertruck drive-by-wire as the current state of the art) affect the configuration and layout of other subsystems? When you aren't constrained by driver visibility angles, how does that affect the design of the A pillar? And so on.

None of this stuff should be considered in isolation, because there are all sorts of interdependencies in the design. It's not just about deleting unnecessary parts and processes. It's also about exploiting the new opportunities that arise when those parts are no longer taking up space and constraining other design choices. Good vehicle design requires intelligent systems integration, which Tesla has always focused on and excelled at. I expect they will continue to do so with the robotaxi platform, and that's why it probably will have major differences from consumer vehicles.

Speaking of the zoox robotaxi, it is currently running an autonomous shuttle service between zoox offices in Foster city CA. I think the ideal form factor for a robotaxi would look something like that.
They appear to have the manufacturing part down some but are going down the same Lidar dead end as everyone else

 

[LuckyManX]

When I disengage FSD Super at end of drive by pushing down on right wheel it asks me to leave a message as why I disengaged.

I've never seen this message. When the AI asks why, does it offer multiple choices, or does it want a text message or, safer still, a voice recording (since you're likely still driving)?

 

[AudubonB]

It requests a voice recording. I used it for about half the disengagements I have encountered; once I figured out what was going on I believe I never responded when it was for something I wished to do, like changing route or going faster.

 

[SPadival]

I see now that you have been sent on a vacation, I cannot agree more.

Operation Vacation in action

(Long time lurker.. first time poster. )

 

[EVCollies]

You forgot a big one: BRAKES.

The Robotaxi won't have a need for 40 to 50 lbs, PER CORNER, of unsprung mass: heavy brake rotors, calipers, pads, and more. They'll instead need a very small parking brake, likely mounted inboard at the motor.

Software will simply upscale braking as needed to ensure excellent stopping performance, while also ensuring that there will be NO use case of a fully charged battery when the RT begins a trip at the top of a mountain.

Savings in the hundreds of dollars per RT, perhaps even up to the low-four figures when factory labor and maintenance savings are included

No way, rid of brakes? Still needed when regen unavailable, cold weather, low battery, first few miles driving after a respite...

 

[Musskiah]

You mean like an "agreement will extend H&T’s supply to Panasonic Energy’s Kansas facility, which is scheduled to begin operations by March 2025."

SOURCE: https://www.greencarcongress.com/2024/02/20240228-panasonic.html

And in case this part was missed I'll repost...

Tesla-battery maker Panasonic may add 4680 battery capacity to Kansas plant​

Tesla battery supplier Panasonic Energy is considering pouring new investments potentially up to $4 billion in its De Soto, Kansas, plant to produce 4680 battery cells for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla’s next-gen vehicles.

electrek.co

"Tesla battery supplier Panasonic Energy is considering pouring new investments potentially up to $4 billion in its De Soto, Kansas, plant to produce 4680 battery cells for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla’s next-gen vehicles."

 

[STARR X]

Yes my Roadster was similar, To me it sounded like the Enterprise launching into Warp drive, and it felt like it.

I bought a 2012 Model S new, many years ago. After about 5 or so years of ownership, the electric motor whine became apparent. I currently drive the car with Uber. I find riders in my Ubers either do not mind or like the sound.

 

[heltok]

Tesla get the BIG calls right. I think they are wrong on removing USS, FSD transfer limits, and limited color choices. I think they get the big things right. They built giga nevada when the idea of a car company making batteries was mad. They researched 4680s when everyone thought 18650s were fine. They started building a lithium refinery when everyone else thought they would just buy theirs in walmart.

It's easy for us to pretend to be CEOs of billion dollar companies, but let's face it, we would likely make a lot worse decisions. I think it's better to try to understand why they make the decisions and what it implies rather than trying to figure out which decision had the highest EV.

Elon likes to go for the long term solution. Sometimes this means that in the short term some customers suffer on aspects, while delivering incredible value in the long term. Plus the customers who was unhappy about aspect x was probably very happy about aspect y and z which came from a previous long term strategy sacrificing some customers satisfaction in the past.

This will make Tesla look like a joke to TSLAQ but a few years into the future they look like geniuses on that aspects but like a joke on a few new. So expect goal posts moving all the time and Tesla always being a joke, while totally dominating aspects that they were a joke on a few years ago.

A good example is USS. Give autopark and ASS a few more end2end iterations and it will make USS look like a joke.

It's important to remember what a joke Tesla was with Roadster not long ago. Now they are the standard to beat. In so many domains… And they got there by looking like a joke once in a while and if they were not willing to do that they wouldn’t have gotten anywhere close…

 

[Gigapress]

All these models seem to assume that the robotaxis will be privately owned, and therefore Tesla has to share some of the profit. Why would tehy bother to do that rather than just own them themselves?

I know Elon proposed a "use your car as a profit center for us" model years ago. But he's proposed all sorts of things over the years that he pivoted away from. IMHO, if Tesla really is going to do this, they'll own and operate all the cars. And while they may have a dual-purpose model 2, all the manufacturing will be soaked up by the Robotaxi use for quite some time. Its not that they would be 'canceling' the small personal car -- its that producing it isn't the best use of manufacturing capacity so it would be low on the priority list. I see it as a backup plan... if regulatory approval takes longer than they'd like, they may produce and sell the personal version until it gets done.

"Use your car as a profit center" makes more sense in areas of medium-low population density where it's harder to make a robotaxi fleet economically viable. It's a good intermediate hybrid option. Owners can retain the benefits of having their own private car available on-demand, while also making money on the times they aren't using it.

 

[heltok]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1777041486464590132