Credit Suisse Report and 10 percent more energy per cell

[eepic]

During the ER CC Elon mentioned that Model X reservation holders do not have enough information to know how right they are to have made the reservation (my paraphrase). There were previous hints from Elon about the second row seats and autopilot driving from the highway ramp on to ramp off. So the question is what else was not even hinted publically that makes reservation holders so right without knowing why? I believe that upgraded battery and drivetrain might be just this missing piece. So the fact that there was no any public mentioning of this before does not make this speculation less likely to become reality. If anything, I would argue the opposite is true, as explained above.

I have included snap shot of the page that you referring to only as a point of clafification for the wording used by CS. The actual page that was quoted in the original post by BlakeGallagher was specifically referring to introduction of the Model X in 2015 (see snapshot below)

The AWD design that was optimized to have neutral effect on the range, as mentioned by JB, is not in any way linked to the capacity of the battery. The CS report specifically talks about increased battery capacity - "cells that are 10%+ more energetic"

If it hasn't been mentioned then it is the literal definition of speculation even if it's well-reasoned speculation. For the record I agree there's a good chance Tesla will bump battery sizes with the MX launch but it's also quite possible they won't, so we shouldn't proclaim it's a done deal already.

The CS snippet is in the context of margins, referring 10% more energetic per cell (not necessarily 10% more energetic per pack).

- - - Updated - - -

yes, the question was asked about the GF, but as I hear the answer, the 10-15% chemistry improvement would be in the GF cells, but the first use of the new chemistry wouldn't necessarily be with GF production.

question is at ~25:20 http://www.media-server.com/m/p/bbz2caea

Good catch... I can't listen again right now, but the impression I had was it was all part of the ongoing improvements to the pack (A, B, C, D packs MS owners are reporting)? I could be wrong, but I think it's not necessarily a step change with the MX introduction, although it would make a lot of sense to introduce a step change at the same time if it's ready.

 

[SteveG3]

Good catch... I can't listen again right now, but the impression I had was it was all part of the ongoing improvements to the pack (A, B, C, D packs MS owners are reporting)? I could be wrong, but I think it's not necessarily a step change with the MX introduction, although it would make a lot of sense to introduce a step change at the same time if it's ready.

eepic, I think you are right to be cautious, but the Credit Suisse report excerpts here twice quite specifically say this will be with the X. I've seen journalists get far more basic facts wrong, but when it comes to the analysts they tend to get basic facts right (even if some may shade interpretation in ways that seem disingenuous). Looking at that report I think it's ~70+% likely the X will be introduced with improved chemistry.

 

[eepic]

eepic, I think you are right to be cautious, but the Credit Suisse report excerpts here twice quite specifically say this will be with the X. I've seen journalists get far more basic facts wrong, but when it comes to the analysts they tend to get basic facts right (even if some may shade interpretation in ways that seem disingenuous). Looking at that report I think it's ~70+% likely the X will be introduced with improved chemistry.

For sure, and I'm not debating Credit Suisse's point as Dan Galves is actually fairly well informed. He's pointing out that a 10% more energetic cell would improve margins, and that's leading folks here to conclude there's going to be a 10% increase in battery pack size at MX launch. They are not the same and I'm pointing out that even if the former is true, the latter is still speculative at this point.

 

[SteveG3]

For sure, and I'm not debating Credit Suisse's point as Dan Galves is actually fairly well informed. He's pointing out that a 10% more energetic cell would improve margins, and that's leading folks here to conclude there's going to be a 10% increase in battery pack size at MX launch. They are not the same and I'm pointing out that even if the former is true, the latter is still speculative at this point.

fair enough, they are indeed two different things. still cautiously optimistic on a bigger pack size based on other comments made in the past about the S and X.

 

[chickensevil]

Keep in mind that in 2012 when they revealed the MX they said then that the performance version of the MX would have a 0-60 time of 4.4. I find it hard to believe that the improvements they would have had access to by delaying the MX for one year would not improve this number. I would not at all be surprised to see a 4.2 or better 0-60 time on the MX. Although technically the MS gets about 3.9 seconds

I would also not be surprised if they didn't up the battery sizing just yet. For one, we are still heavily battery contrained. The only legitimate reason to off a 100 or 110 or whatever pack, would be to get the range of the MX up to match the MS. Because I doubt very much that they want to make a sub 200 mile car, and a 60kW MX is going to have a tough time getting that distance. Unless they have REALLY improved the aero of the car and such to hit that target. If so then that is good news indeed.

I will say, per the CC, that a drop in weight because of the battery is not going to be THE contributing difference between them getting a 265 rated car and a 238 rated car (what a 10% hit would be).

 

[vgrinshpun]

For sure, and I'm not debating Credit Suisse's point as Dan Galves is actually fairly well informed. He's pointing out that a 10% more energetic cell would improve margins, and that's leading folks here to conclude there's going to be a 10% increase in battery pack size at MX launch. They are not the same and I'm pointing out that even if the former is true, the latter is still speculative at this point.

Well, eepic, since you were responding to my posts, I read that 'folks' referred in your post is me.

I think that you either misunderstand or misrepresent what I was posting, hopefully the former. What I was doing is giving my interpretation to the slightly awkward wording used by the analyst - '10%+ more energetic per cell' - as meaning that analyst assumes that new iteration of the cells will be available and will be used at start of Model X production. I agree with you that the analyst used this assumption to back up case for improved margins that are built into his valuation case. But I did not "conclude there's going to be a 10% increase in battery pack size at MX launch". What I actually posted (refer to my post #16 above) was:

It is up to TM to decide how to package this, but I would take the following swag on how they might...

 

[vgrinshpun]

Keep in mind that in 2012 when they revealed the MX they said then that the performance version of the MX would have a 0-60 time of 4.4. I find it hard to believe that the improvements they would have had access to by delaying the MX for one year would not improve this number. I would not at all be surprised to see a 4.2 or better 0-60 time on the MX. Although technically the MS gets about 3.9 seconds

If official 0-60 time for MX will indeed be 4.2, it would be reasonable to conclude that it would actually hit 60 in 3.9 :biggrin:

BTW, my P85+ also hits 60 in 3.9 seconds (as measured by a Beltronics accelerometer)

I do not know whether an increased battery will be offered on MS - it could go either way... But I have hard time to believe that TM will not do this for Model X at launch, particularly after hearing how Elon was talking about MX during the ER call...

 

[32no]

If official 0-60 time for MX will indeed be 4.2, it would be reasonable to conclude that it would actually hit 60 in 3.9 :biggrin:

BTW, my P85+ also hits 60 in 3.9 seconds (as measured by a Beltronics accelerometer)

I do not know whether an increased battery will be offered on MS - it could go either way... But I have hard time to believe that TM will not do this for Model X at launch, particularly after hearing how Elon was talking about MX during the ER call...

The Model X only needs to go 0-60 faster than 4.3 seconds to be called the quickest SUV in production (which is currently the Porsche Cayenne Turbo S). It could be called a "super-SUV"

 

[Chickenlittle]

C

The Model X only needs to go 0-60 faster than 4.3 seconds to be called the quickest SUV in production (which is currently the Porsche Cayenne Turbo S). It could be called a "super-SUV"

Great but sales will not depend on this. Being the safest and most comfortable/fun to drive most important

 

[chickensevil]

C
Great but sales will not depend on this. Being the safest and most comfortable/fun to drive most important

It seemed to be a goal of Elon's back in 2012. I don't think we had the Cayenee Turbo S out at that point (the new Turbo S wasn't announced until Oct 2012), and the comments from the reveal was the functionality of a minivan, the style of an SUV (strictly comparing with the Audi), and the performance of a sports car (which was actually a picture of a Porsche 911 of all things haha).

Performance is a key factor and selling point. They want to highlight the main flaw in SUV's today, which is that most of them have the movement of a tank. Go watch the reveal again, because the crowd (while excited at just about anything Elon was saying) went pretty nutts over the performance factor of the X.

Unless I am misreading your comments.