Interesting article...I think the share price drop is mainly due to the lifting of the restriction on selling IPO shares.
This quote in the article just reinforces the fact that many in business (or who write about business) are weak in their logic about understanding TM's battery science, logic, redundancy strategy, etc...
"Whereas Tesla uses thousands of small cylindrical cells to produce one of its battery packs, many other manufacturers prefer instead to use large-format cells which are laminated and shaped like tiles. The Leaf, for instance, uses 192 cells, each about the size of a magazine. Four of the cells are combined to form a module and the car's 24kWh battery pack, which is air-cooled, is assembled from 48 modules.
Mr Musk is not impressed and has described the Leaf's battery as “primitive”. Nissan, however, is extremely confident in its technology, not least because it has enabled the Leaf to go on sale as one of the first mass-produced electric cars. The company also supports its battery with a eight-year or 100,000 mile warranty.
Tesla's approach to building a battery is somewhat different. It uses what are known as “18650” cells (which are 18mm in diameter and 65mm long). These cylindrical cells are widely used as the rechargeable batteries in thousands of consumer products. These small cells, reckon Tesla, allow for more efficient cooling and precise management of charging and discharging. For the roadster it assembles 6,831 of them into blocks which are used to build a 65kWh battery pack, which is liquid cooled."
So Tesla investors should be wary of the Leaf's battery technology?...and this gives investors the jitters just because TM is a leader, not a follower?
The article (to me) reads as condescending to TM's engineering staff ("These small cells, reckon Tesla")...like TM does not know nor has proven their battery strategy is viable...I don't know many engineers who "reckon" :biggrin::biggrin:
TM is so much further out in front of the pack on EV battery technology...I just don't understand why the difference in battery technology is being considered in a negative premise here (when in fact is is an overwhelming positive for TM !)