The issue I see is that people are taking the < 2kWh/mile and making it =2kWh/mile so they get a 1MWh pack. Everything else in the quote is based on that worst case pack. Rough calcs I've done put it at more like 1.6 kWh/ mile or a 800 kWh pack.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
Tesla's Supercharger Team was recently laid off. We discuss what this means for the company on today's TMC Podcast streaming live at 1PM PDT. You can watch on X or on YouTube where you can participate in the live chat.
Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)
- Thread starter Robert.Boston
- Start date
-
- Tags
- elon is an ass investing TSLA
The issue I see is that people are taking the < 2kWh/mile and making it =2kWh/mile so they get a 1MWh pack. Everything else in the quote is based on that worst case pack. Rough calcs I've done put it at more like 1.6 kWh/ mile or a 800 kWh pack.
I do wonder if the difference between vehicle product and in-production vehicle is being ignored here. That is, they have the battery that can have these qualities on hand-built cars (in their design process available to only a few), but can't be scaled yet (to those cars that are available to many).
It's like they're taking an Internet-based approach to the product lifecycle of a car and evolved the design and sales process while they were at it. Bodes well for the future.
It's like they're taking an Internet-based approach to the product lifecycle of a car and evolved the design and sales process while they were at it. Bodes well for the future.
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
By "at the same time" I mean Tesla may not be first, but they will do it close enough in time as everyone else that it will make little to no difference to the market.
Beating Tesla by a year or more could potentially have some impact. GM's bragging rights for bringing the Bolt to market at least a year before the Model 3 was valid. Though GM is plagued with a bad reputation among EV buyers (for the EV1) and the Bolt is a very different car from the Model 3. Tesla also plans to mass produce the M3 while GM is content with a limited production car in the Bolt.
Tesla's internal politics point the opposite direction from older car makers. All the older car makers have dinosaurs in their management tree who will try and slow down EV development. The CEO of Fiat-Chrysler has gone as far as to say EVs will never be profitable. (There is a formula for going out of business.) All the traditional car makers also have billions in R&D that needs to be thrown out to switch whole hog to EVs.
Tesla's management is all behind pushing the innovation curve as fast as it will go. Any new technology that shows promise to increase range and lower costs is going to be pursued with no hesitation. Any naysayers are likely going to be shown the door, even if they have legitimate concerns. As a result Tesla is more likely to make a mistake jumping into a new technology too early than drag their feet.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Banks and media outlets are still low on their projections, but are increasingly willing to name a year much closer than 2040 or "halfway through the century". That's a very good sign. We can certainly double this figure with relative safety considering the traditional difficulty in seeing the timeline of disruption.
Rise of Electric Cars Quickens Pace, to Tesla's Benefit
Rise of Electric Cars Quickens Pace, to Tesla's Benefit
Its still going to take a while to build enough battery factories to convert worldwide production to EVs. I suspect demand will be there long before the car companies can meet demand. Though demand from the public might decline as ride sharing becomes more common.
Reciprocity
Active Member
Demand like Tesla is seeing with the model 3 is a monster. Ten years ago, no one had smart phones. Now, no one doesn't have a smart phone and they cost 2x as much as my 5 year old laptop and people must upgrade every year, even though the phone would work fine for several years. You will be shocked to see how fast the market folks the vacuum Tesla had created. And it's by design. It's part of the master plan. There is no way Tesla can do it alone, they had to create a car so awe inspiring that everyone must have it. Wait until these things got the road in mass, you ain't seen nothing yet. Us nerds have waited what will be 2 years, the masses want it as soon as they see it. Elon's alien dreadnaught is not some cool idea that he wants to play with, it's the only way to fulfill the demand. It's a necessity. They just can't build the vehicles fast enough. The Y will be even more demand. The most popular car in America is the Nissan rogue... I'm as shocked as anyone to learn that.
First off cell phones are small. They also include components that either already exist in volume, or existing production lines can be modified to make the new parts. Making a new IC for a phone is a minor retooling job in an existing factory. The world's IC manufacturing capacity is well built out and the production lines that used to make ICs for desktop computers, Walkmans, and other electronic devices now make the ICs for smart phones.
Battery production is a different problem. The equipment needed to make li-ion batteries is unique to that business. At the moment the companies that make the equipment to make li-ion batteries need to make the equipment to make the batteries. The volume of batteries is also staggeringly high. Apple currently sells about 215 million cell phones a year, the capacity of the battery in each phone is about 2/3 the capacity of one 18650 cell used in a Model S/X.
Tesla is on track to sell about 100,000 cars this year. If sales are 50% small pack and 50% large pack, that's somewhere around 700 million cells a year. So Tesla sells 3X the batteries as Apple with more capacity per cell. And that's today when Tesla's entire output is a tiny fraction of the total car market.
The Model 3 may end up being the best selling car in North America next year, or one of the top selling, but at 500K production per year, that's still only 1/2% of world car and small truck production. And that's with one GigaFactory providing cells. I believe Tesla plans for enough cell production to make about 1 million cars a year from GF 1 production, but that still requires 99 more GF equivalents that need to be built to cover worldwide demand if the world is going to build 100 million cars and light trucks a year. Overall production might be lower with autonomous cars and ride sharing on a larger scale, but I'm skeptical of the predicted widespread use of ridesharing in the future. It will likely increase, but it may top out at about 50% of the market.
According to this the Toyota RAV-4 sells better than the Rogue. Though the Rogue has moved up the sales list a lot this year:
USA best selling Cars. The top 100 in the 2017
HG Wells
Martian Embassy
Would be nice to understand why Toyota discontinued selling the electric RAV4 (Tesla drive train). Then became so anti electric.
1. Dealer push back ? Little to no service.
2. Tesla ? Ticked them off, Saw a future competitor, etc?
3, Just did it for CARB's ?
4. Just plain old marketing?
5. Price of batteries?
RobStark
Well-Known Member
There was a lot of friction between the Toyota powertrain engineers and the Tesla engineers. There were some early problems and Toyota engineers always wanted a mechanical solution while Tesla engineers prefered a software solution.
Then when the battery pack contract was coming to an end, according to Tesla executives, Toyota wanted a larger volume long term deal. Tesla couldn't provide the battery packs Toyota wanted and produce enough packs to supply Model S demand.
Tesla chose to become an OEM vs a Tier 1 Supplier.
According to Toyota executives, they determined RAV4 EV was a stop gap in accumulating CARB ZEV credits but that the medium term future was the Mirai and long term future was a family of FCEV.
@RobStark nailed it. The RAV4 EV was a compliance cars who's time came and went. I heard Tesla also had problems with Daimler's engineers who wanted mechanical solutions for things Tesla wanted to do with software.
I think Toyota has made some major mistakes in the last few years. Toyota has long been one of the most conservative auto makers. One reason for their high reliability is they tend to stick with tech that works rather than go with new wiz bang tech. Whenever a new car design or an extensive redesign hits the market, there are always problems the first year or two. If you watch Consumer Reports car rankings, when a car take a dip in reliability, it's almost always when there was a major redesign.
Toyota does have overall good production and engineering, but they also avoid too many of the first year bug problems by coming out with newly redesigned cars less often than most other car makers.
Toyota was hearing from customers that their cars were looking a bit dated, so they decided to mix things up with some radical new noses and taillights on some cars. Many people think the new designs are fugly and it will likely get worse as the market moves towards electric cars and Toyotas with the giant grills scream "I'm an ICE!"
Their decision to double down on hydrogen when it looks pretty clear the future is going to go electric is another big mistake. The advantages of hydrogen are really only short term and illusion. For the customer, fueling a hydrogen car takes about the same amount of time and is a similar process as fueling an ICE. And the oil companies like hydrogen over electric because the most economical way to make hydrogen fuel today is from natural gas and North America is awash in an oversupply problem.
But once the customer goes through the learning process of the new habits around fueling an EV, most are going to like it more than having to go to the gas/hydrogen station. Fueling an EV on a road trip does take longer, which is a drawback, but Tesla has made that as painless as possible.
There may be some niche for fuel cells somewhere, but they require a whole new infrastructure to be built. EVs need an infrastructure for fast charging, but there are few scenarios where you will be stranded without fuel at all. Anywhere there is an electrical outlet, there is an opportunity to charge the car. Get outside the support network or end up at a station without hydrogen with a fuel cell car and you're getting towed home.
Fuel cells give the illusion of fitting into the existing infrastructure better, but in reality EVs fit in much better and hydrogen cars require an all new support network.
I suspect Toyota's market share is going to fall in the next few years.
I think Toyota has made some major mistakes in the last few years. Toyota has long been one of the most conservative auto makers. One reason for their high reliability is they tend to stick with tech that works rather than go with new wiz bang tech. Whenever a new car design or an extensive redesign hits the market, there are always problems the first year or two. If you watch Consumer Reports car rankings, when a car take a dip in reliability, it's almost always when there was a major redesign.
Toyota does have overall good production and engineering, but they also avoid too many of the first year bug problems by coming out with newly redesigned cars less often than most other car makers.
Toyota was hearing from customers that their cars were looking a bit dated, so they decided to mix things up with some radical new noses and taillights on some cars. Many people think the new designs are fugly and it will likely get worse as the market moves towards electric cars and Toyotas with the giant grills scream "I'm an ICE!"
Their decision to double down on hydrogen when it looks pretty clear the future is going to go electric is another big mistake. The advantages of hydrogen are really only short term and illusion. For the customer, fueling a hydrogen car takes about the same amount of time and is a similar process as fueling an ICE. And the oil companies like hydrogen over electric because the most economical way to make hydrogen fuel today is from natural gas and North America is awash in an oversupply problem.
But once the customer goes through the learning process of the new habits around fueling an EV, most are going to like it more than having to go to the gas/hydrogen station. Fueling an EV on a road trip does take longer, which is a drawback, but Tesla has made that as painless as possible.
There may be some niche for fuel cells somewhere, but they require a whole new infrastructure to be built. EVs need an infrastructure for fast charging, but there are few scenarios where you will be stranded without fuel at all. Anywhere there is an electrical outlet, there is an opportunity to charge the car. Get outside the support network or end up at a station without hydrogen with a fuel cell car and you're getting towed home.
Fuel cells give the illusion of fitting into the existing infrastructure better, but in reality EVs fit in much better and hydrogen cars require an all new support network.
I suspect Toyota's market share is going to fall in the next few years.
Versus me:
* Still uses flip phone, with prepaid "minutes" card
* Has "smart" tablet, but it's five years old
* Uses desktop workstation in 10-year-old case, replacing individual parts as needed (quite cheap compared to laptops)
...I realize I'm abnormal. However, avoiding unnecessary churn of expensive devices does leave one with more money to invest in stocks (or spend on travel, or the theater, or fancy meals). I mean, if you really get a lot of enjoyment out of constantly having new devices that's great but I think a lot of people don't really get much joy out of it, but get the new devices anyway.
Of course, those people who are burning their money by buying a new Tesla every year (when the car will last for 20 years) are effectively transferring it to my stock gains, so I suppose I shouldn't tell them to stop!
With Tesla, however, there's still a huge market of people who haven't even got *one* electric car... and an electric car is in many ways much more life-improving than a "smartphone" (for someone who already has a cellphone and a computer).
The market is really going to be huge: the correct description is that Tesla's addressable market is the entire world car market, and so far there are only half-hearted competitors with tiny volumes.
Indeed, you're absolutely right. They simply can't build fast enough to meet demand: and even if they built a lot faster, they still couldn't. The "alien dreadnaught" of full automation is really the only available way to scale up as fast as possible, especially with the limited cash they have available and the need to make a profit soon.
Toyota didn't make a mistake. It's a calculated act. Their goal is to make as much profit as possible, before this inevitable electric switch. As it stands now, Toyota earns $1B profit from gasoline cars per month. After the market switch to EV, they will have a hard time to make any profit. They know it.
Waiting4M3
Active Member
Toyota should start looking into how to spin off some of those ICE car factories, like Saudis trying to sell off some of Aramco. Maybe Tesla will take another factory off of their hands.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
ICE car factories are 90% BEV factories. Usually only the engine is produced at the final assembly factory. Transmissions are usually outsourced.
Toyota and Mazda to build $1.6 billion factory in the U.S.
As a result
Toyota Confirms It Will Scale Back Mexico Plant Investment
But it is still building two new factories in North America.
I'm not quite as far behind the curve as you, but I'm usually well behind the bleeding edge. I avoided getting a cell phone at all until well into the early 2000s. And even then I don't always have it with me when I'm out. It normally sits in front of my work computer's monitor and there are times when it doesn't move for days. I almost showed up at an appointment today when the person I was supposed to meet canceled by text. I only noticed the text because I turned my phone on to take a picture of the cats who were sleeping in a cute way by my computer.
I'm a programmer, but I usually use older tech. I have a 2009 vintage laptop I only trot out for travel. My usual computers are two desktops, one I built in 2001, though many parts have been swapped out since. The motherboard and processor are a few years old. The project I'm working on has gotten big enough it takes a while to compile, so I did breakdown and upgraded my work computer a few months ago, though I put Windows 7 on it. I used Windows 2000 until about 2011, then XP until they stopped support of it, and I'm resisting Win 10.
I drove a 1992 Buick I bought new until I bought my Model S last year. I only started looking at cars because my SO's Subaru is not a good road car for my back and my father in California is getting to the point in life where I may need to run down there at any time. He'll be 98 in February.
I actually hate learning new OSs or new devices. If I see a value in it I bite the bullet and do it, but I avoid learning something new just because it's the latest. I realized a couple of years ago it probably was due in part to my mild dyslexia. I have a friend with severe dyslexia and I've noticed the secondary traits in me. She navigates the world through patterns. Everything is a pattern and she gets anxious to the point of meltdown when patterns change. Another friend who worked for Apple and upgraded her phone reorganized her icons the way he felt they should be organized and she turned into a blubbering mass. She couldn't handle the icons moving, it destroyed her patterns.
I realized I do much the same. I organize my devices a certain way so I can use them without thinking much about where anything is and I navigate by the icons and patterns. When they decide to upgrade the OS and the icons and patterns change, I have to do a lot more work finding things and have to think to do things I normally did by habit. It slows me down quite a bit. I don't have the emotional breakdown my friend has, but I can relate to how she feels.
Reciprocity
Active Member
I don't get why now people don't see this. The Saudi Aramco deal is an exit strategy, period. No one invites the scrutiny of the public markets unless they require funds to expand rapidly or the founders/owners want an exit. Which do we think it is? Anyway... I agree. Though I don't see who buys their ICE related assets when the future is clearly written in the wall.
I think I wrote a year or so back on the Saudi Want Out thread that I have a friend who is now a retired Geophysicist who spent his entire working life in the oil business. He said a few years ago the moves the Saudis were making telegraphed that the easy and cheap to produce oil was running out. The Saudis were quietly beginning secondary recovery programs to get the remaining oil out.
Texas oil was dirt cheap for 7 decades because it was under pressure in salt domes. Getting the oil was easy, drill a hole in the top of the salt dome and install a spigot. Turn the spigot and light sweet crude flows out. When that oil began to run out in the 1970s and the oil companies needed to switch to secondary recovery efforts to get the remaining oil, the cost of that oil went up and the US declined as the world leader in oil production.
Saudi Arabia has been blessed with the same type of Geology and massive amounts of reserves. They have been able to control the world price for oil by adjusting how open the spigot is. With their reserves declining, they are in a similar position the US was in the 1970s. The US was also a massive consumer of oil and Saudi Arabia's domestic consumption is tiny compared to their exports, so there are differences, but with Saudi Arabia declining the next biggest producers rise in power and that list includes some countries that aren't as friendly to the US like Iran, Iraq, and Russia.
The US gets very little oil from any country in the Eastern Hemisphere, almost all US oil comes from Western Hemisphere countries or is produced domestically. However the oil market is a global one and hiccups in one corner of the world are felt everywhere in a very short time. Many of the US's tightest allies also depend on oil from the Middle East or Russia. An oil embargo on US allies could strain alliances that are already a bit shaky.
Reciprocity
Active Member
Great post, but are you in the camp of exit out as I call it sexit. Are you in the camp of need funding to do secondary recover, let's call it scovery. or a third call I just made up.. Saudi Aramco is going to take all the money and but solar and export it that energy instead.. call that came sexport for solar export.
So to sum up.. sexport, scovery or sexit? I know which one I choose. What so you.
Hard to say what their plan is. I have read that the Saudi government has been investing in long term infrastructure for some time. The oil running low isn't a great thing for their economy, but I think they have been planning for it.
On the other hand, they will want to recover as much of the oil as they can.
I think their most likely play is to invest in secondary recovery while investing in the future. Doing an IPO with Aramco might be a play to sell out at the top and milk as much as they can out of the remaining oil. I think it's likely the investors will be left holding the bag in the end.
Similar threads
- Locked
