JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Look at the distance between the bottom of the vehicle and the footwell, if his heel is on the floor there is room for a double stacked layer.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
It looks as if he could be picking up his leg to exit the car. The heel may not be on the floor.
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
TL;DW is that historical Wright’s Law trend for LFP battery cells and extrapolate another 4 to 6 years based on expected growth of production volume, then the cost of an LFP cell would be less than $45/kWh which is the free amount from the US clean energy subsidy.
We should all understand that warranty reserves are actuarially derived in general. When a new product is introduced the warranty reserves must invariably be higher than if the product has had years fo experience. This process also applies to Lease and loan securitizations, which use over-collaterization to compensate for lack of experience.
Warranty Week publishes warranty reserve calculations for nearly all public data available.
Their data, as has been posted here several times, shows that even in the beginning which had numerous teething issues with Model S and X, the warranty reserves were consistently well above actual expenses. That data even included the titanium battery shielding of the first Model S, repeated common replacement of motors and batteries, plus problems with screens and other systems.
As experience has grown and actual warranty expenses have remained well below reserves Tesla has maintained highly conservative warranty reserves. That is wise, in part because of rapid evolution, changes in supply chains, adoption of new battery technology, manufacturing and so on.
The only major diversions of the downward trend in warranty claims related to the infamous 90 battery on S and X, and the falcon wing door. Those events did NOT alter the downward warranty expense trends.
The other fundamental elements in warranty expense that the actuarial estimates did not consider were all related to the Tesla business model:
First, traditional OEM highest warranty expenses are for dealer diagnosis;
For Tesla this category is nearly zero since OTA vehicle monitoring mostly simplifies or eliminates service center diagnosis, which anyway has no profit margin when it does happen.
Second, traditional OEM second highest warranty expense is dealer repair;
For Tesla, most 'repairs' are OTA updates, others are by mobile servicing, and there is no dealer profit margin
Third, traditional third highest warranty expense is recalls, mostly dealer expense.
For Tesla most recalls are OTA, others are mobile service and the Service Center is at cost.
Just to repeat, the actuaries are generally ignoring the business model effects.
From my own work with three OEMs warranty reserving and management I am acutely aware that OEM's have intense pressure from dealers to increase warranty revenues and also to increase required maintenance. The latter point is exemplified by a Hyundai required coolant change for battery pack. There are numerous other examples. That pressure is acute because warranty service is often the second highest income category for a dealer, following "Finance
and Insurance".
The net effect of all that is that Tesla is not only best in class for Warranty reserving but also on warranty expense and maintenance expense.
Much of the data is easily found in Warranty Week. For anyone who is interested that is an excellent source. What they generally do not emphasize are the business model issues, partly because they cover all industries and partly because they are typically not presenting much about causality unless there is something especially notable and notorious.
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
While he has said a lot of wrong stuff in the past, this is still an ad hominem argument you’re presenting. Each claim should be evaluated irrespective of who made it. In this video the author is extrapolating LFP cost trends into the late 2020s and assuming that the $45/kWh subsidy will remain. If you disagree with either of those premises then explain why. (Edit: as @kbM3 did in a post below)
Last edited:
Partly because of their suburban Detroit area location, they have a general view that very large SUV and pickup trucks are the most lucrative markets, because they are, for most of the US and Canada suburban and rural markets. Because of that they miss the rest of the world where the largest sellers are much smaller vehicles. They are not wrong, in their own market.
1. Wright’s Law is based on a CUMULATIVE increase. Not an increase in annual production.
2. He originally tweeted > 100% gross margins for Megapacks. Then backpedaled to cells.
3. The credits would NEVER remain in place after cell production decreased below that amount.
4. Wouldn‘t tax credits get accounted for as revenue and not under COGS reduction? If so, then the whole negative cost claim goes out the window.
I believe the consensus from that thread was that his foot was lifted in the process of getting out of the car, (and it appears that way to me too) and that the unusual door-sill profile was that of the floor profile. So, it appears there are higher floor heights under the seats, implying stacked battery modules there.
On edit: Agree with @2daMoon
Aren't most trades just bots trading the same shares back and forth with each other? (plus the virtual shares that are created by the MMs)
Smaller is not equal to less profitable. Nearly all of us forget about Gigacasting, for example, which can do a smaller car with a single cast, and so much more. Until Tesla the piece count regardless of size tended to not vary with size so much as it will with Tesla technology. Remember the long ago promised 'designed in China' vehicle?
For some strange reason some us have problems understanding how Tesla approaches problems.
Sandy Munro may be suggesting another future Tesla product - the world’s most comfortable executive chair.
I can testify to the comfort after tripping 14,200km across Canada and the US over a month.
I can testify to the comfort after tripping 14,200km across Canada and the US over a month.
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
The quality and utility of the posting in this forum has improved dramatically in the last couple weeks. Thank you everyone!
Tesla has gone up how much during those weeks? lol
bballshinobi
Member
MMs are delta heding as traders have broken though a lot of the previous call walls.
(Edit: nicer version)
I would add safety to the list of things all things functional with CyberTruck. Lights on a tailgate up high seems pretty safe considering the options. Perhaps those taillights can also be seen when the tailgate is down - maybe necessary? (Is driving with gate down allowed?)
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Yes, it's fake, mostly HF trading by 'bots. Are you aware that MMs don't even have to pay the full SEC stock-sale fee that Retail investors are charged? Yeah, they get a bulk-rate on the SEC fees, and maybe even some flat fee.
It's not discussed, but that's how HF trading becomes profitable. When they're making only pennies per share on a trade, the fee that SEC takes from Retail investors would kill the volume quickly. But some pigs are more equal...
U.S. government is not investigating Elon Musk’s Twitter purchase
Musk’s purchase of the site had drawn scrutiny after reports that the deal provided special privileges to large foreign investors, including a Saudi prince’s holding company and a cryptocurrency exchange founded in China. But at least for now, U.S. officials on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) do not believe they have jurisdiction to formally probe the deal, according to the two people who were briefed on the committee’s decision and spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect internal government deliberations.
Musk’s purchase of the site had drawn scrutiny after reports that the deal provided special privileges to large foreign investors, including a Saudi prince’s holding company and a cryptocurrency exchange founded in China. But at least for now, U.S. officials on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) do not believe they have jurisdiction to formally probe the deal, according to the two people who were briefed on the committee’s decision and spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect internal government deliberations.
Federal requirement are the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp must be within 3 inches of the lower edge of the rear glazing (non convertible) and 34 inches or higher off the ground. Size requirement is 2,903 mm^2 (5.5 sq inches).
Tailgate positioning would be less often blocked by cargo vs standard cab mounted options.
However, the recent photos have a couple issues:
If mounted to the tailgate, it is not visible with the gate down.
High mounted stop lamps cannot be combined with anything other than cargo lights, and not optically combined with cargo lights. So CHMSL as part of full width light bar is not compliant.
Additional issues, in general, is that the CHMSL needs 45 degree horizontal visibility, which the sails may interfere with. Vault lid prevents use of rear window interior mounting.
One route to compliance is to mount it at the top of the rear structure where the vault cover tucks under.
Driving with tailgate down is most definitely allowed, that's how trucks with less than 8 foot beds remain useful. Many trucks allows the removal of the gate.
As seen in other images, the tail/ brake lights are duplicated on the rear frame so that a set is visible with the gate down.
navguy12
Active Member
I had to sell two chairs at $US 196.351 (just now) because, via an error (over-contribution) on my part back in 2022, I had to pull $CAD 600 out of my Tax Free Savings Account because I'm over the contribution limit for 2023.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
