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

[Surfer of Life]

If you get the tent you can make your CT your house.

Looks to me like removing the back seats would open up enormous versatility; why fool around sleeping in a tent when you can just hop in back to a well insulated heated/ air conditioned roomy space - if only Tesla added that extra bit of versatility to the design?

Trying to remove part of my 2018 X75D 60/40 second row seat to accommodate my wheelchair was an eye opener with all the wasted space below the level of the folded seat back as well as the wasted space filled with styrofoam blocks below floor level (it just wasn’t designed for seat removal, with 10 wire connections and one computer module in that seat unit alone).

But I ended up having to replace them, and I assume removing the Cybertruck rear seats would be just as futile.

 

[UkNorthampton]

Wait, you must have meant to put GM there.

Done

Modern EV tech is just getting started. It will get better every year, largely led by Tesla.

ICE GM tech progress is largely moribund.

 

[The Accountant]

Picked up my 3rd Tesla yesterday (now have 2023 MY RWD, 2022 MX LR, 2021 MY LR)
Some observations from this Mt Kisco NY location:
- Delivery process getting better and better each year. I was on the road with my new car in 20 min. Would have been less than 15min but took time to set up 2 profiles and 2 phones on the car.
- Car quality was excellent - no issues
- For Monday 11am, the delivery center was very busy. About 25 people buying or picking up cars. 2 car carriers were unloading.
- Though crowded with much activity, associates were in control, organized, calm, smiling . . .overall positive vibe among customers and associates.
- The delivery center was delivering about 50-60 cars that day . . .they deliver 7 days a week and had delivered over 80 cars one day last week.
- The 12 cars I saw prepped were 6 Y's, 4 3's, 1 X and 1S

My 3rd car is for my new beach house in Florida. The beach house and 3 Teslas were paid for by my Uncle Elon.

 

[UkNorthampton]

We have new EPA data for the Cybertruck battery.
Source: https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=58895&flag=1

• Voltage: 816 V
• Ampere-Hour Capacity: 150 Ah
• Energy Capacity= 816 V * 150 Ah =122,400 Wh =122.4 kWh

• Energy density at pack level: 170 Wh/kg
• Pack Weight =122,400/170 =720 kg =1,587 lb

Spoiler: X Sources - Troy

https://twitter.com/x/status/1731887174818181120

https://twitter.com/x/status/1731891364084773341

Here is a comparison. Higher is better
Energy density at the pack level:
• 187 Wh/kg Model S/X 18650 cells
• 170 Wh/kg Cybertruck 4680 cells
• 169 Wh/kg Rivian R1T Large Pack 2170 cells
• 165 Wh/kg Model 3/Y Long Range 2170 cells
• 126 Wh/kg Model 3 Standard Range LFP cells

 

[UkNorthampton]

A post on a well known social network was liked by Elon. A single like of one post isn't enough (in my opinion) to help us understand Tesla's plans, but a few more breadcrumbs/hints might give an indication of what Elon thinks is possible, even if optimistic or a stretch goal.

My personal opinion is that Tesla really want to stimulate the 48 volt component supply to allow easier ramping of future 48 volt models or upgrades to 3/Y. Therefore Tesla may guarantee to 48 volt suppliers that Tesla may take all that they mutually plan for. This allows suppliers to concentrate on scaling and not worry about Tesla cancelling. Larry Goldberg and others have suggested that Tesla themselves will be a 48 volt component supplier to other OEMs within a year.

Greater 48 volt volumes, the more per-unit savings can be found for all 48 volt companies.

@avoigt

My Prediction for the Cyber Truck RampConsidering the incredible amount of breakthrough innovation that has never been seen in the auto industry in a single model including tooling and the production risks involved, the first year can be extremely poor to average. On the upside, Tesla has learned a lot over the last 15 years and very likely knows how to avoid production hell.

2024: If a lot goes wrong I could imagine they just get 70k - 80k vehicles delivered but if all goes perfectly with high automation and the supply chain it can be easily around 100k - 150k

2025: The year is clearly dependent how 2024 but I would expect a 250k production runrate within the year. and an output between 250k to 400k.

Between 2026-2027 everything between 250k to 500k is a possibility and I believe the demand with lower prices will exceed 500k p.a.

This is just for the US and internationally including all relevant countries and long term the annual sales are supposed to be between 1 and 2 million vehicles delivered. Because the Cyber Truck is one of its kind and hard to impossible to copy from the competition I expect an over-average very strong margin. $tsla

Spoiler: Source

https://twitter.com/x/status/1732008152692875333

 

[scaesare]

Yes I agree that SS has lots of benefits. There was some commentary from Franz that they were able to redesign the body to take advantage of the SS exterior, but overall I'm still not seeing any evidence of weight savings.

Curb weight of the cybertruck AWD is ~6600 lbs vs. ~5000lbs for an F150 Supercrew 4x4 V8

The F150 Lighting with extended battery is 6400 to 6900lbs depending on trim level

Won't matter very much if they can get production ramped and battery performance up 15%

While @Gigapress did refer to weight savings in some applications when he said:

Putting the strength in the skin makes the structure more rigid, holding mass constant. Cybertruck is structurally designed like a boat, airplane or rocket, all of which use stressed-skin designs primarily in order to save weight. As a result, Cybertruck can haul more than similarly sized and configured trucks with similar mass,

I think he was just highlighting that implementing the load-bearing structure as the skin is a way to optimize the strength/mass ratio. For boats and planes/rockets that reduces weight.

But notice that he emphasizes additional rigidity and strength if you "hold the mass constant". Thus, if you use a stressed-skin design, you can "haul more than similarly sized and configured trucks with similar mass".

So, I don't believe he was claiming a weight savings using the SS skin, but rather greater load capacity.

 

[Knightshade]

But notice that he emphasizes additional rigidity and strength if you "hold the mass constant". Thus, if you use a stressed-skin design, you can "haul more than similarly sized and configured trucks with similar mass".

So, I don't believe he was claiming a weight savings using the SS skin, but rather greater load capacity.

But the cargo/hauling capacity does not appear to actually be better than similar sized non-SS-exo trucks. The production cargo capacity is 1000 lbs less than the 2019 announcement, and towing max is 3000 lbs less.

 

[jerry33]

While @Gigapress did refer to weight savings in some applications when he said:



I think he was just highlighting that implementing the load-bearing structure as the skin is a way to optimize the strength/mass ratio. For boats and planes/rockets that reduces weight.

But notice that he emphasizes additional rigidity and strength if you "hold the mass constant". Thus, if you use a stressed-skin design, you can "haul more than similarly sized and configured trucks with similar mass".

So, I don't believe he was claiming a weight savings using the SS skin, but rather greater load capacity.

Agreed, but I thought the weight savings he talked about was over the original prototype? I recall something like 25%.

 

[FreqFlyer]

A post on a well known social network was liked by Elon. A single like of one post isn't enough (in my opinion) to help us understand Tesla's plans, but a few more breadcrumbs/hints might give an indication of what Elon thinks is possible, even if optimistic or a stretch goal.

My personal opinion is that Tesla really want to stimulate the 48 volt component supply to allow easier ramping of future 48 volt models or upgrades to 3/Y. Therefore Tesla may guarantee to 48 volt suppliers that Tesla may take all that they mutually plan for. This allows suppliers to concentrate on scaling and not worry about Tesla cancelling. Larry Goldberg and others have suggested that Tesla themselves will be a 48 volt component supplier to other OEMs within a year.

Greater 48 volt volumes, the more per-unit savings can be found for all 48 volt companies.

@avoigt

Spoiler: Source

https://twitter.com/x/status/1732008152692875333

One wonders what will Tesla do with the extra year lead time till the Model Y MMC or refresh. Makes sense to put the 48V one of the world's best selling cars. Thats all the motivations supplierss need to ramp up production. The 48V idea has been around for decades, nothing new, OEMs know about it, study and researched it. Till now no one moved on the idea. As usual Tesla moved the needle.

 

[GhostSkater]

Supposedly the Cybertruck battery is only 123 kWh. With 340 miles of nominal range, that’s 362 Wh/mile. The website numbers are much higher. It will be interesting to see real world testing and the official numbers on fueleconomy.gov

The website number is from the wall since it's used to calculate electricity costs

Battery pack now is pretty much confirmed as 122.4 kWh gross and 220S6P configuration, 1320 cells and 92.7 Wh per cell, 7.1 % improvement over gen 1 4680s

So at the worse case scenario it's rated at 360 Wh/mi or 2.78 mi/kWh, but you have to included a buffer, 5 % seem reasonable, if not on the low side, or 116.3 kWh usable for 340 miles, resulting in 340 Wh/mi or 2.92 mi/kWh

Seem way to good to be true but makes sense, comparing the dyno coefficients with the R1T, Cybertruck is more efficient or equal at low speed up to 30 to 40 mph and worse at higher speeds due to the higher drag coefficient and frontal area, meaning that at highway speeds it will likely take a bigger toll on range than Rivian, so no 340 miles of range there, likely sub 300 miles at 70 mph

 

[mongo]

Battery pack now is pretty much confirmed as 122.4 kWh gross and 220S6P configuration, 1320 cells and 92.7 Wh per cell, 7.1 % improvement over gen 1 4680s

220S would be 924 V at 4.2V/cell. Where did that number come from?

 

[scaesare]

But the cargo/hauling capacity does not appear to actually be better than similar sized non-SS-exo trucks. The production cargo capacity is 1000 lbs less than the 2019 announcement, and towing max is 3000 lbs less.

I wasn't speaking to the validity of the point, just the point I think he was trying to make.... I don't think he was claiming weight savings.

 

[GhostSkater]

220S would be 924 V at 4.2V/cell. Where did that number come from?

EPA document, Tesla always uses (so far) the nominal pack voltage. 816 V x 150 Ah = 122.4 kWh

And that number lines up way too well with one of the possible configuration. I did a long post, that I can't link here sadly, going through all the possible battery configurations and there is really few options that line up with ~ 800 V, pack being able to split in two, ~123 kWh and close to 1366 cells

All other ones apart from 220S6P diverge too much from the requirements above

 

[scaesare]

Agreed, but I thought the weight savings he talked about was over the original prototype? I recall something like 25%.

I don't see any references/comparisons to the original prototype in the context of the thread. He was replying to @30seconds who said:

As an investor I really don't see that stainless was worth the added manufacturing weight, cost and ramp issues. It isn't clear to me of how much is gained by having the exterior shell provide crash impact vs. larger body with more traditional stamped steel / aluminum.

 

[scaesare]

EPA document, Tesla always uses (so far) the nominal pack voltage. 816 V x 150 Ah = 122.4 kWh

And that number lines up way too well with one of the possible configuration. I did a long post, that I can't link here sadly, going through all the possible battery configurations and there is really few options that line up with ~ 800 V, pack being able to split in two, ~123 kWh and close to 1366 cells

All other ones apart from 220S6P diverge too much from the requirements above

What's more, the current S pack is 110S72P, (462V max), so that's simply double the "400V architecture" to get to an 800V system...

 

[2daMoon]

Did Wally get the CT memo?

 

[Knightshade]

Did Wally get the CT memo?

If they did it wasn't a flattering memo, SP is still down 10-15 bucks from the price this time the day before the first deliveries.

 

[growler23]

One wonders what will Tesla do with the extra year lead time till the Model Y MMC or refresh.

5 words: "Ramp like the wind, baby! "
Ramp like the wind!
Ramp the 4680's to the freaking moon.
Ramp the Megapacks out the wazoo.
Ramp the 3 and Y until we are absolutely SICK of seeing them on the road.
Feeling bullish today, the stonk movements notwithstanding. Investors yet have little idea what Tesla has shown last week in terms of technology.

(I agree with you that Tesla have started the boulder rolling downhill on 48V, and are in the enviable position of being the ones _behind_ the boulder, rather than in front of it...)
Come on, get with it Wall-E, I want Uncle Elon to buy me the house next to @The Accountant before I get too old to enjoy it

 

[MartinAustin]

 

[scaesare]

EPA document, Tesla always uses (so far) the nominal pack voltage. 816 V x 150 Ah = 122.4 kWh

And that number lines up way too well with one of the possible configuration. I did a long post, that I can't link here sadly, going through all the possible battery configurations and there is really few options that line up with ~ 800 V, pack being able to split in two, ~123 kWh and close to 1366 cells

All other ones apart from 220S6P diverge too much from the requirements above

So... maybe I missed it, but I don't think I've seen a current capacity for the 4680's discussed here. If the above numbers are correct, that puts the current incarnation of the 4680's at 25Ah each.

Using rough numbers, the original 18650's were about 3.4Ah with a volume of ~16,500 mm^3. The 4680's are ~132,900 mm^3, so about 8x the volume, but only about 7.4x the capacity...