1/1/2015
guest I agree, I was at the reveal and do not remember hearing this (and it is something that I would have paid special attention too).�
1/1/2015
guest This general idea is in-line with my own thought that there is going to be a cottage industry redoing Tesla interiors in 10ish years. As older Teslas are still running fine and the interior is getting dated / worn out, the cars will get a new life with a fresh interior. Maybe its more like 20 years. Sort of like a remodel for a house.�
1/1/2015
guest Yes, I've long considered an aluminum or composite bodied EV more like an airplane or boat, which might get an interior refresh and some new components after 15 or so years and be like new.�
1/1/2015
guest Hi,
Aside from capacity the main differentiating feature is cycle life. The major factor in the cost difference of the two types of Powerpacks appears to be energy density mainly I believe, because the increased energy density means you get more kw for the same number of cells. Both types of packs have the same rated power output, which as you correctly pointed out is relatively low.
It turns out that this was not exactly what he said (I mixed up the types of cells :redface. But I believe that the facts support my original conclusions. Because the Powerpacks that use the cells that have a "chemistry is quite similar to the car" are the least expensive type of stationary storage packs.
I also didn't notice that utilities would have an interest in the low cycle count packs. Thanks for motivating me to dig into this in more detail!
The quotes below are from the 2015 Q1 Earnings Call Transcript:
Tesla Motors' (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk on Q1 2014 Results - Earnings Call Transcript | Seeking Alpha
So I believe that we can safely that the high-energy packs, which use identical 18650 cells, except for a "quite similar" chemistry are very close in cost per kWh to the car packs. I am not sure which type of Powerpacks (high energy or high cycle life) Tesla is selling for $250 per kWh or that Panasonic is selling for $180 per kWw. If it's the high energy packs my estimates were based on valid numbers. OTOH if those figures are for the more expensive higher cycle life packs my estimates for the car packs were based on numbers that are too high!
Either way when we factor in GF price reductions the prices are either disruptive, or very close.
And:
Energy Storage Tipping Point Within 10 Years, Tesla Motors CTO JB Straubel Contends | CleanTechnica
�
1/1/2015
guest Long-Term Fundamentals.
I'm getting very worried about Tesla's awful, awful management decisions. See the threads about Tesla's elimination of prepaid Ranger service.
This is the sort of thing which can sink a company with great products.�
1/1/2015
guest @neroden: You say "decisions" but point only to the change in offered pre-paid Ranger service contracts. Are you thinking about additional issues?
As a shareholder, I understand why Tesla had to reevaluate whether the Service Anywhere offering was sustainable. I want Tesla to be successful, and part of the success is profitability. The Service Anywhere warranty suffers from what economists call a selection bias: the only people who buy it are the people most likely to be very expensive to service. For example, I bought it knowing that I spend nearly half the year in a fairly remote part of Maine. If my only property had been my Boston house, 5 miles from the Watertown Service Center, then I wouldn't have paid the extra $100/year.
Does Tesla give up some sales by not offering a Service Anywhere warranty? Sure. Do those sales generate as much margin as other sales? No. As long as Tesla is production-constrained, it should rationally be selecting the highest-margin sales.
Note that Tesla continues to honor its existing commitments. With my pre-paid Service Anywhere contract, I've never paid for Ranger service and never had to say a word to anyone about it.�
1/1/2015
guest
This + 100�
1/1/2015
guest Along these lines, I predict we will eventually see the current Tesla owners Grandfathered into free supercharging for life, and everyone else will see a modest pay-for-use. its the only solution to some of the looming problems with the prepaid model.�
1/1/2015
guest I would hope that it is more of a soft cap - enforced for chronic misuse that is clearly defined - on usage as opposed to pay for use.�
1/1/2015
guest Better yet. Free to use for 100kWh/month (making up a number) and then charge at cost after that.�
1/1/2015
guest Just make the limitation annual instead of monthly and it is good. 2500kWh in any 12 month period.�
1/1/2015
guest Done.�
1/1/2015
guest So what?
I think it's a very dangerous marketing error. As soon as Tesla is "the car which only works for big city dwellers", Tesla gets a damaged reputation. And the reputation will *stick* even if Tesla eventually builds enough service centers (which is not happening so far). Eventually Tesla wants to sell cars in upstate NY, or Pittsburgh, or Montana, etc., right?
There's a reason the Anywhere Service was offered in the first place: so that Tesla wouldn't be written off as a "region-limited car". Now it WILL be written off as a "region-limited" car. Big big marketing error. Could hurt for decades.
Worse, a lot of people didn't buy the Anywhere Service under the assumption that Tesla would provide reasonable prices for service. Now those people -- the ones who live in Montana, or Pittsburgh, or upstate NY, anyway -- are gonna be *ticked off*, and they will happily spread the bad news about Tesla. I already know someone in Ithaca complaining about this. Tesla is still not clearly documenting their new decision to make Model S limited to regional availability -- there's no giant warning of "NO SERVICE AVAILABLE" which pops up if you enter an address in an unserved area, and they're still advertising Ranger service. This is a good way to generate ill-will.
(Yes, I'm also thinking of additional issues, but detailing all the communications failures of Tesla would take a long time... they just don't seem to be able to get their act together.)
The cost of providing Ranger service at reasonable cost to the minority people *outside a reasonable distance from the service centers*, but still in the continental US, should be written off as a vital marketing expense. Ranger service isn't needed for people who live close enough to an Service Center, and if Tesla has any coherence in Service Center deployment (which Tesla currently does not), it should keep the number of people using Ranger service limited.
I do too, and I think sending a big "**** YOU" message to rural Tesla buyers -- and by rural I am including *Pittsburgh* -- is a poor marketing choice. If they're serious about eliminating affordable warrantly service for future buyers, they need to own up to it in big warning letters. More sensibly, they could go back to offering the service they should be offering.
This does bring up another management failure, which is the utter failure to deploy sufficient service centers.
----
So far Tesla has earned *positive* free media. They could just as easily be earning *negative* free media, and they seem to be making choices which will lead to that. It's stupid and destructive.
Whatever the cost of unlimited Ranger service for people more than 200 miles from a Service Center is, it should be considered a vital marketing expense and written off. It has to be cheaper than paid advertising.�
1/1/2015
guest Good. This would be absolutely acceptable as the "fine print" Fair Usage Policy I suggested upthread.�
1/1/2015
guest I am a huge Musk fan and love the fact that he is more in it for the benefit of the environment and general population rather than profits. However, as a long term investor it would be nice to see the company making money off of their Supercharger network, which Tesla has spent large amounts on in order for it to have a distinct advantage. Given this competitive advantage, and the use of open-source patents, I think the company can make a fortune from charging competitors to have access to the superchargers. Or better yet, charge the customers of the competitors a small amount per charge for their cars.
Think of this scenario: 8-10 years from now, there are millions of EVs on the road and the general adoption is in full swing, and Tesla still holds an advantage in charging capabilities. People who own Teslas will continue to use the superchargers for free but now other companies or other consumers have to pay a small amount when they use them. That way: 1) Supercharger stations wouldn't be ridiculously packed because some competitor vehicle owners would rather charge elsewhere for a lower rate. 2) It's the best free advertising for Tesla. Every owner of an EV other than Tesla will have to consistently notice first-hand how beneficial it would be to switch over to a Tesla. 3) Profits. Tesla has spent so much money on expanding the supercharger network and technology that it would be a shame if they never got any real direct return on them.
What are your thoughts on this idea and has it been discussed before? I am relatively new to the forum. Thank you.�
1/1/2015
guest EVERYTHING has been discussed before�
1/1/2015
guest ROAD TRIP
Just returned from road trip from Toronto, Ontario, Canada to Myrtle Beach/Orlando/Clearwater, Florida, USA. Took Maryland route down and returned West Virginia route.
Observations:
300,000 conservative estimate of cars seen en route (Interstate highways and parking lots)
4,950 km (3,076 mi.)
$500 in gas (Honda Pilot)
17 days
four Teslas spotted (three Model S and one Roadster)(I can spot one from 500 yards in the dark)
0 Tesla Supercharges spotted.
0 generic EV charges spotted.
I asked a few locals and none had heard of Nikola Tesla, the Tesla Coil, Elon Musk, Tesla Motors, Model S or the Tesla Roadster. Regular posters on this TMC forum, especially those on the California coast, may think that all things Tesla are common. From my observations, this could not be further from the truth. My guesstimate is that 99% of the World's population have yet to hear of Tesla Motors, and of the 1% in the know, only 1% of those (one in 10.000) could accurately cite Tesla produces only one 100% electric vehicle with a 300 mi. range and 0-60 mi/hr of 3 seconds.
This is pre-1998 Apple (after the Mac is introduced but before the first iMac).
The potential is enormous.
Note to Tesla Motors: Install Supercharges on all Interstate State Visitors Welcome Centres and Rest Areas (this is where most travellers stop), and increase the range to exceed that of gasoline engine cars (it is just a matter of time).
The family had a fantastic time at Myrtle Beach, Universal Studios in Orlando, and Clearwater. Great Country.�
1/1/2015
guest When I used to talk to my colleagues about Model S - the usual question would be who makes it ? They assumed it was just a car model made by one of the big OEMs. The very idea of a new car company is no novel.
Now-a-days it is a different matter. Most colleagues here seem to know what Tesla is. But I'm on the west coast and EVs are very common.�
1/1/2015
guest Not if they can help it. Metering costs money. Better, if possible to limit Supercharger. Enforced parking time limits plus limited charging rates near home would help. Plus there's also Autopilot. Shouldn't be too long before cars can move themselves out of the way.�
1/1/2015
guest Hi,
Tesla is selling the more expensive higher cycle life packs for $250 per kWh, so my estimates were based on numbers that are too high (based on Powerwall prices about 20% high)! Also the trays are hot swappable, which is a great feature, but probably more expensive to build than the car packs.�
1/1/2015
guest My mind was blown when JB showed the inside of the power pack and said the racks are hot swappable. Definitely a huge plus going forward for future serviceability, and if better chemistry comes along, it means that the packs can be "upgraded" if the clients wishes.�
1/1/2015
guest I wonder if this opens the way to use modules of different ages within the same Powerpack. This has two advantages: you can upgrade one module at a time, and you can use used modules of different ages. Thus, used cells from an EV pack can be broken down to modules and repurposed in Powerpacks. Could this be a path to repurposing EV batteries?�
1/1/2015
guest sure seems like it. and with the new 90 pack being an upgrade option soon per elon's announcement, tesla will likely start getting its first batch of returned batteries. i wonder if we will evenutally see two prices for the powerpack -- one for the "new" model, and a cheaper price for a powerpack with "factory refurbished" batteries.
surfside�
1/1/2015
guest One question is how much tolerance the design has to accept different chemistries and other pack characteristics. If they will accept repurposed packs, as Nissan and GM are both doing today, tesla must have some sort of pack-level control that treats each pack as an independent, not necessarily equal, source. That presents an interesting problem for data displays and BMS. I, too, think they are probably planning for that.�
1/1/2015
guest Forget about storage, I'd like to see cars - Model S 85 refurb battery for the price of S 70 new battery.�
1/1/2015
guest I have been saying for years this is how they should "recycle" cells. Put them into powerpacks for their factories. They can absorb cells for a long time without need for any other plan to re manufacture them or break them down for lithium.�
1/1/2015
guest Interesting article in the Guardian about Google push into the automative market.
Tidbits:
- "The tech giant has flirted with major car firms as it explores driverless cars but has also quietly set up its own auto company, according to documents obtained by the Guardian."
- "In March, he told USA Today: �Making cars is really hard, and the car companies are quite good at it. So, in my mind, the solution is to find a partnership."
- "Paperwork filed by Google Auto with the NHTSA, and seen by the Guardian, indicates that the cars are rear-wheel drive in design, with each wheel having its own braking system. The cars are powered by a modest 20-30kW electric motor from a lithium ion battery. All the cars built so far have been assembled on the outskirts of Detroit, Michigan, by Google�s manufacturing partner, the engineering firm Roush."
(X-post from General Forum > Cars and Transportation)�
1/1/2015
guest I'm curious if anybody saw something in the most recent earnings call or shareholder letter that has actively changed (positively or negatively) their long term view of Tesla's prospects?
I've not yet had a chance to listen to the replay, but hope to get to it this weekend.�
1/1/2015
guest Tesla will probably have sold 200,000 total cars by the first half of 2017, which will exhaust their $7,500 per vehicle EV credit granted by the US government. What does everybody think the chances are of the government either extending these credits or giving similar incentives to electric vehicle makers like Tesla? If they are not able to get any additional subsidies, it would greatly impact their margins and selling price of the model III. A few thousand dollar difference in the starting price matters a lot more when making a "mass market" car like the M3 when compared to the Model S. Are there any candidates in particular that have a higher chance of granting federal subsidies? (this is not meant to be a political discussion/debate)�
1/1/2015
guest Ludicrous, only US sales count toward that 200k. Also, the credit then doesn't start to drop for two calendar quarters, and is available but reduced for four more.�
1/1/2015
guest If there is one thing that concerns me about the Long Term fundamentals of Tesla, it is communications and the future of the Supercharger network.
Some Model S owners are receiving letters warning them that the Superchargers are only for long-distance travel: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/51482-Supercharging-letter-from-Tesla. However, many of these owners say they don't use their local Superchargers much, if at all, and some recipients of the letter appear to have no local Superchargers at all. Meanwhile, there are several people who claim to use their local Superchargers often, but have not received a warning letter. It's idiotic at best and damaging to the brand. :cursing:
This is going to be a complete nightmare if Tesla can't get its act together for the Model 3 launch.�
1/1/2015
guest I think the chances are fair if the next president is a democrat - even though the last one was passed when Bush was president. The sentiment would be pro such bills if a Dem becomes the next president. Small change to the language of the old bill can be added to some omnibus bill to pass it. It will have bipartisan support from congressmen from CA, MI & TN.�
1/1/2015
guest I'm still hoping that Tesla does not provide "free" SC for the Model 3.�
1/1/2015
guest Why? That's what makes a Tesla so compelling, right? They just need to put limits on it, not start charging per use or something like that.�
1/1/2015
guest To keep the sticker price down, this and many other services can be sold on a subscription basis. There's no sense paying sales taxes and ad valorum registration taxes for things like future software upgrades or access to charging infrastructure. I don't want to pay interest on a loan for that either. Tesla needs to work on pricing that minimizes tax and financing costs.�
1/1/2015
guest Because there won't be enough superchargers to prevent people from having to wait in line. Remember they expect to ramp up very quickly to 1,000,000 cars per year. Free supercharging would be bad for people who really need it for road trips. Simply putting limits on it will not be enough.�
1/1/2015
guest I don't think so, the vehicle is what is compelling. Certainly the "free", (prepaid), SC access is not a value proposition to me as a future Model 3 buyer, and certainly not as a shareholder. As we've seen, a prepaid service encourages abuse. I'd prefer to see that remain with the lower volume up market vehicles such as the S and X, and the mass market 3 get it billed to your account per use, at a slightly higher rate than local electricity prices. That should discourage those with access to home charging from tying up SC's while allowing those who may not have home charging to still own a Model 3 with substantially lower fueling costs than an ICE.�
1/1/2015
guest This is going to run into several legal hurdles at the State level because Tesla is not a utility. In some/most States only regulated utilities can re-sell electricity.
I say put a limit on Superchargers within 50 miles of where the vehicle is parked on a regular basis. Not parked occasionally but regularly and put a very high cap on yearly usage.
The person that drives 100k plus miles a year using the Superchargers 90% of the time even if away from home is also abusive.
BTW IF you don't want to finance Supercharger use then just pay $2k more down. If you make it separate many will chose not to buy when they should and have a terrible experience and relate that terrible experience to others.
BTW II If I had a nickle for every owner that said they didn't need Supercharger access for their needs but how great the Superchargers are to use then......�
1/1/2015
guest �
1/1/2015
guest 
�
1/1/2015
guest +1
I think Elon really needs to do something about it - either you keep it "free", expand it and increase the upfront price for supercharging (as part of the overall price of the car), or you don't keep it "free" and break with the past. But this "in-between" is a disaster. Make a decision, Mr. Musk!
I mean, if you put some limits (how would that work anyway?) on supercharging today: How will those limits ought to be changed in one year? In two years (when Model 3 is launched)? In three years? If they want to limit supercharging, then let people pay per use or double the price for it upfront - as a future Model 3 owner, I'd be willing to pay those $4,000 or something to have a real "free" supercharging experience.�
1/1/2015
guest +1
Agree�
1/1/2015
guest What is this "in-between"? It's "free" (included in the price of the car) for long distance travel for the lifetime of the car. Elon has not said anything else, and this is what is has been from the start, and probably will continue to be. Anything else is just speculation on the forums (with a little help from JB).�
1/1/2015
guest Yeah, i have no idea how people find so much to grouse about. I see no issue whatsoever with the current status of supercharging.�
1/1/2015
guest Then a SC "Hook up" fee or something added on to each charge. Tesla should be able to charge extra for using their equipment.
Also a rare outlier. People using a SC as a free gas station near home will likely be a much higher number when there are 500K+ Model 3's on the road.
How would a pay per use model create a terrible experience?
Again, pay per use allows use of the SC but prevents abuse. I'd like to use a SC occasionally but paying $2K for a service I might use a few times a year doesn't make sense to me. I doubt I'll ever have local access to one but if I did and prepaid I'd be more inclined to try and get my money's worth.�
1/1/2015
guest Because it is unsustainable. There will be hard feelings between users honestly using SC as intended, and locals using it daily as a free gas station. "free" leads to abuse. The entire value proposition goes to hell if you try to road trip and you experience full chargers at every stop. The simplest cure for this is a modest pay-per-use which would take away the incentive to charge locally.�
1/1/2015
guest Maybe not the simplest cure, but there is only one solution to this that fixes all problems. Make supercharging so quick that it doesn't matter how many people are using it, quick in quick out! :tongue: Might need to crank up the liquid cooling...�
1/1/2015
guest This^^ is what I see. The GF starts cranking out 'next gen' batteries and the JB team comes up with the necessary hardware to allow for 10 minute 80% charging.�
1/1/2015
guest Faster charging also means it's even less of a hardship for locals to get their money's worth if it's prepaid, which means increased use. Faster charge times may not solve the problem. I also think we are years away from 10 minute charging.�
1/1/2015
guest yes... I feel like we are arguing about how to best allocate scare resources. If only there was a science dedicated to this...
Economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We are arguing the merits of socialism vs free market allocation.�
1/1/2015
guest What if they dialed down the charging rate for local users, making it less convenient?�
1/1/2015
guest This could backfire and lead to owners simply hogging the stalls for longer periods of time, which is precisely what the company wants to avoid.�
1/1/2015
guest If only there was a visionary in charge of the company with a clever and agile team behind him and a track record for finding smart and consumer friendly solutions. Alas, the stock is probably doomed, since our internet forum cannot agree on how to fix this issue... :wink:�
1/1/2015
guest Wha? Does that mean I can sue Chargepoint, NRG, and the other providers of charging equipment because they charge by the kwh? I'm not quite sure how that can be illegal because they're providing a service for a car, not supercharging people's homes.
Regarding long-term SC future, here are my thoughts:
-Local supercharging is necessary for the Model 3. Musk isn't going to revolutionize anything if ~40% of the population (apartment dwellers) cannot charge. The Supercharging Network is Musk's greatest asset against competitors.
-Free local supercharging is not necessary for the Model 3. I think it should remain free for original owners of the current Model S population at a minimum, but they will want to spell out clear rules and regulations for future buyers.
-Pay per use fees are good for local supercharging, with some of the cost still being built into the car. Free for long distance I think is a huge selling point without much cost to the business because people tend to think of their $300 gas bills on road trips, not the $50-100 it'd take on electricity. They don't have to charge anything ridiculous--it just needs enough of a margin to help maintain and continue build-out of the SC network.
-Prepaid unlimited local supercharging I think is a dumb idea for a non-luxury car. It makes sense when starting a build-out of a nationwide network, it doesn't make sense for a mature network. It'd be disproportionately abused by people with extremely long commutes and people running commercial ventures like Uber on their MS. (When something is free or a flat rate, you'll run into the issue of 5% of the population utilizing 95% of the resources, no different than Unlimited Data being removed from most phone carriers)
-Restricting charging speed will cause more harm than good. If someone charges at the SC to save $2-3 on a $70k car, you can be quite sure that they're charging there due to no other convenient alternatives.
I really wouldn't worry about the communication aspects. I work for a Fortune50 company and I'd peg Tesla's internal and external communications much better than that of my own company.
Drivetrain reliability is definitely a huge issue and it is integral that they fix the reliability issues in the car. You don't hear about Leafs with any problems, really, outside of their crappy battery capacity (thanks to no temperature management system!). Volt EV components are flawless over 200k+ electric miles. It's something that is passable on the Model S because a luxury company can afford to give incredible customer service in the event of failures such as buying people taxis and hotel rooms on drivetrain failure on trips, but it's not possible for a mass market company.�
1/1/2015
guest Such line of thinking may be rational today but hopefully not in the future.
My experience is that many resources that were scarce in the past are much less scarce today. Some resources are abundant and free. I'd like to think that electricity might become free one day, or at least so cheap that no one bothers to go to supercharger for a charge unless they need to.�
1/1/2015
guest Or simply:
- time limits on parking so you can't use it as a parking spot
- low priority on local Superchargers so you don't slow up other people charging
- low maximum rates so it's inconvenient to charge there (and you can't get a full charge)
There's stuff they can do to deter and minimize the impact on others while avoiding the additional overheads and regulatory issues associated with billing.�
1/1/2015
guest No we are not! The question is whether the most best and potentially most cost-efficient model (pay up front, free at point of use) can be made to work. If people use the Superchargers when needed, which could simply happen if people rationally evaluate the value of their time, and the market shifts such that access to home charging (driveway, lot, garage or street) becomes easy and universal, the network will be much cheaper to build, maintain and operate.
The key difference between this and, say, Internet or cellphone breakage models, is that (a) Tesla's approach has no ongoing billing (b) using a Supercharger as an unnecessary alternative to home charging is an inconvenience in exchange for financial savings, which is something that people do not normal do selfishly, and frankly a weird thing for a premium car owner to do.
It's that combination that could make it work. Tesla has a margin to play with; just need to keep it within the margin.�
1/1/2015
guest You'd think, but it already seems to be enough of an issue for Tesla to send out warning messages about local SC abuse. Now think about what happens with the much higher volume, lower cost Model 3, with much more cost sensitive owners.�
1/1/2015
guest
If it is there then it is almost assuredly legal.So no you can't sue. Sometimes the chargers are owned by the electric utility and a private company runs the program for the utility. Sometimes public chargers are outright owned and operated by the utility,sometimes the charging company got an exemption and in some instances there are no laws against reselling electricity by the kWh.
When Chargepoint or whoever wants an exemption for a public charger that is "non-discriminatory" goes to the utilities commission they get one treatment. My guess is when/if Tesla ask for a similar exemptions for a private network that serves cars in the $35k-$150k range they will get another treatment entirely.
And Tesla can't have a patchwork of rules like CHAdeMo or CCS. It needs to be uniform and seamless and at the very least national if not global.�
1/1/2015
guest Eloder: in states where they can't charge by kWh, they charge by hour. California is one of these.�
1/1/2015
guest I can certainly imagine that for the Model-3 Tesla might consider some way of billing for the use of SuperChargers within a certain range of your living address or even for use of SuperChargers much higher than what is considered 'fair-use".
As long as Tesla makes sure that in case of any problem with authentication / billing the (free) charging is enabled by default.
For me one of the biggest advantages of the SuperCharger 'billing' model is that nothing can go wrong with authentication and billing. They simply always work
Billing and authentication are the parts of any such system that cause most problems by far. No one should be unable to get to his / her destination because of such problem.�
1/1/2015
guest Even though there is no billing as of now, there most certainly is authentication. Try plugging in a non-SC enabled 60kWh Model S and see what happens. I have never heard of any issues with authentication.�
1/1/2015
guest Johann, yes you are correct. While typing this I had to think of the several RFID cards I have in case I need public charging. Pff, how I had those, glad I hardly ever need them anymore
Tesla's authentication system indeed seems very reliable.�
1/1/2015
guest Oh, interesting.
Well, I'm sure they can figure it out with some model that will work out. I imagine Tesla has an incredible amount of data and knowledge to help manage the SC network.�
1/1/2015
guest With today's price action, the possibility of Tesla pursuing driverless services is now being talked about publicly. This could have enormous impacts on the company's long term profitability. There's a lot of separate small pieces to this driving service puzzle already out there that may point towards Tesla and other companies pursuing such a service.
1) The whole reason this conversation got started was after the MS analyst asked if they would compete with Uber or "cut out the middle man" and provide services themselves. Elon's non-answer implied that they have at least been thinking about it.
2) Aside from Tesla, both Google and Apple have been testing driverless cars for some time now and a lot of focus/capital has been spent on autonomous technology from some quite revolutionary companies. Elon once said that that Google's way of doing driverless cars is much more expensive and not profitable, so why would they be trying so hard to push for driverless vehicles if it can't profit off vehicle sales to the public?
3) The recent video that emerged of the self-charging Tesla charger fits right into all of this. If cars are going to be driving people around by themselves, they're going to have to charge themselves. Putting that much time into making an automatic charger just to save people the 10 seconds of a normal charge doesn't make much sense to me.
4) There's recently been news of simulated city in Michigan currently being built just for development of Autonomous cars. It's not just a fantasy anymore. People are beginning to realize that this will play a major role in the future of transport. This project should speed of the technology and hopefully regulations that are to come.
5) It all generally makes sense. Tesla's mission is to accelerate the advent of electric vehicles and what better way to do it than to take out all of these gasoline taxis and ubers? The more people they can get to try out a Tesla, the more free advertising and positive publicity that would surround Tesla and EVs in general. This would also be arguable the most profitable aspect of Tesla's business model. Tesla has to do much more than just sell cars to reach the $700B cap within the next ten years that Musk has mentioned. Autonomous driving is a much bigger deal than many are anticipating simply because it sounds like it's something out of a movie. Once the technology is perfected and regularly out on the road, services like Uber are worthless.
This may all take a long time to come to fruition but at this point it's hard to believe that Tesla isn't going to at least try to incorporate this into their business. It would make Tesla a bigger part of everyday life and it coincides with their company mission.�
1/1/2015
guest A tempering observation about self driving cars and some huge market that will suddenly appear and leave everything else out of business - we're a group of people that have personally dealt with the paradigm shift from filling a car with gas, to charging our car in the garage. And if you talk to people while out and about, or you attend EV show and tell events, and talk to people about the mental shift to bring electric driving into their life, then you know how hard it is for people to make that mental leap.
I'm curious how easily people think large numbers of people will get into a vehicle with no steering wheel, or a steering wheel with nobody sitting at it, to carry them to where they want to go? That looks to me like a gargantuan release of control on the part of customers. Granted, there are plenty here ready to ditch the (steering wheel), and there are always the innovators / early adopters. But Early Majority and crossing the chasm into widespread acceptance?
My guess, and that's all it is, is that there won't be any labor savings to be had for about 2 decades - the first decade of implementation will still necessitate a human driver sitting behind the wheel, even if they aren't doing anything except being ready to participate. It'll take a decade of having auto pilot with a human to begin to see significant legal changes that will allow for auto pilot without a human - self piloting and driving cars, with the driver seat just another passenger seat.
I do like that people are thinking along these lines. Down this line of thought are a lot fewer vehicles needed in the world, lots more miles going onto fewer vehicles, I suspect a huge increase in the amount of miles traveled (lower overall system costs trickle through to the consumer in the form of lower commute costs), better utilization of our roadways, fewer traffic jams, and lots of other good outcomes. I certainly hope I'm alive to see some of these things happen.�
1/1/2015
guest I see the increasing number of people aspiring to be freed from car ownership.
This category is likely to embrace self driving cars if they come with no ownership attached.�
1/1/2015
guest My guess is most people who today drive cars would find it very difficult to give up control. So, it might take a generation or two before driverless cars become the majority.�
1/1/2015
guest There is a big policy advantage in self-driving cars. 5-10% would probably make traffic go smoother. 50% and it is probably dramatic. I see state and local governments encouraging this because it is a lot cheaper to encourage people to change their cars than to build new highways. In other words, we won't have to depend on consumers pushing, there will be pull from policy makers too. This is different from ICE/vs EV in the sense that state and local governments don't care, other than for altruistic green reasons. Self driving will provide tangable traffic improvements and increase capacity on existing roadways, as well as being safer and arguably greener.�
1/1/2015
guest Returning briefly to the local vs long-distance supercharging point: not all Tesla owners the means to charge at home or the office. I'm in that category. Tesla understands this, which is why there's such a density of SuperChargers in London, where a great many likely customers don't own a parking space. That said, I think a pay-per-use model for the Model 3 is a good idea, as it will encourage those who can charge at home to do so (as if the convenience of home charging isn't argument enough).�
1/1/2015
guest Unless, as has been suggested by many, self-driving EVs lead to a significant increase in miles traveled, which increases congestion. As much as I think they're the future and will do good for the world, it seems very likely that they will increase the amount of cars on the road.�
1/1/2015
guest I would argue that the status quo is about as close to the worst case scenario as you can get. people already choose to live far from where they work to save on housing costs, already drive wasteful paths to get groceries and run routine errands, run their kids around. We already hire UPS drivers to have Amazon prime send us one small box. We are sitting smack in the middle of the worst case. By automating driving things will just be more efficient. It is possible that people will choose to live even more far out from city centers, but there is a balancing effect of city dwellers having more ubiquitous cheap transport options. Plus there is some statistic that 50% (don't remember the real number) of miles driven in a dense city center is people looking for parking. All these things get smoothed out. I am unconvinced that we can get worse.�
1/1/2015
guest oops....
Forgetful scientists accidentally quadruple lithium-ion battery lifespan | Chips | Geek.com�
1/1/2015
guest http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/17/3692190/california-pension-plans-fossil-fuel-losses/
�
1/1/2015
guest I think people underestimate the traffic benefits of self-driving cars.
Imagine a traffic light now v. with full autonomous drivers. Now. there's at least a .5-2s delay between every car in a line starting to move, once the car in front moves. With autonomous cars, you'd probably see the entire column of cars begin moving within 2 seconds. A traffic light that's normally a two minute affair is cleared up within 15 seconds.
Rivers don't have traffic because all the water particles are moving simultaneously. With half-decent infrastructure, traffic could become a thing of the past with fully autonomous cars.
Or better yet (as some people have modelled), fully autonomous cars wouldn't even need traffic signals and could utilize much more of every intersection at any given time.
Cost of ownership and insurance are likely to be two very huge factors pushing people into acceptance. Cars are pretty expensive to own--second only to houses, but unlike houses they whittle away and depreciate into nothingness pretty quickly. A house on the other hand, when you have a 2-4 people equally sharing living costs, ends up being a relatively minor expense and appreciates with time.
With the car2go carsharing service in my own city, I calculated that I could drive about 4000 miles annually on the carsharing service before having my own vehicle is worth it. Now imagine such a carsharing service when the fuel is a fraction the cost, where the cars go from maybe 10-20% utilization to 70-90%+, all the cars are low-maintenance and long-lasting electrified drivetrains, and when there's no crews needed to fuel up and go out to maintain vehicles sitting at the side of the road. That 4000 mile number could very easily and very quickly jump to 20,000-50,000 annual miles needed before a personal car is more worthwhile, as the level of autonomy for the cars go up.
Look at the popularity of services like Lyft and Uber, which could be slashed in price with fully autonomous EVs.�
1/1/2015
guest Eloder: Current highway capacity is estimated to be at about 5% utilization with human drivers:
Source: http://www.automatedvehicleinstitute.org/pdf/TAVI_8-CapacityPinjari.pdf�
1/1/2015
guest I think you meant 55-65%...�
1/1/2015
guest Nope, well, roadway space at least, from the documents:
�
1/1/2015
guest Most of the Panglossian claims that self-driving cars will allow for more efficient use of road space are simply garbage. Their little toy models fail to account for things like pedestrians.
You can fit more cars in on the *expressway*, but on the city streets, where it matters, it's not nearly so easy.�
1/1/2015
guest I think anyone stuck in a traffic jam on an expressway might disagree.�
1/1/2015
guest When a train starts moving, all the cars begin moving nearly simultaneously.
A column of autonomous cars will act in the same way because computer reaction times are a tiny fraction of all humans.
Also, I'm not sure of any city whose traffic problems originate from having pedestrians, even remotely...�
1/1/2015
guest Autonomous Vehicles (was: Long Term Investing...
I agree with your conclusion, but I disagree with the "human reaction time". I can, and sometimes do, pull away right behind the vehicle in front of me. With an EV, it feels as though you have that degree of control. Most would say this is unsafe, and in so doing, support my claim that it's really about risk reduction. We need to drive defensively, in case "something unusual happens", and so we leave extra room. With the computers in control, nothing unusual should happen, and in the ideal scenario, they tell each other what they're doing. If a panic stop is necessary, that car may be on the brakes even before the human is, and that car will have already discussed this maneuver with those behind it. The following cars can use the (small) buffer between them to compress the line, so that each succeeding car is decelerating a little less hastily, so the "panic" part only applies to the two or three in the front.
We might even see the laws change to suggest not jumping out in front of a vehicle just because you know it would stop for you.
Note my tongue-in-cheek alteration of the thread title.�
1/1/2015
guest The spacing between cars has to increase as the cars speed up in order to maintain safe braking distances. So the cars certainly won't move simultaneously. Not at all like a train.
Unfortunately, what happens now is a lot of reckless tailgating. If self-driving cars cause cars to drive responsibly and safely in cities, it would be a great safety improvement, but it certainly wouldn't increase throughput; it would decrease it!
- - - Updated - - -
Touche. Most traffic jams are on city streets, though.�
1/1/2015
guest My claim is that the notion of safe braking distance changes with automation. After all, it may take you 300 ft to stop, but it takes 300 ft for the car in front of you to stop, also. Drivers mostly react to the car in front (yes, better ones look ahead), and they also gauge how much to react. When they underestimate, each succeeding car ends up decelerating more intensely than the one in front, and you get the opposite scenario than the automated one I suggested.
I guess we'll just have to try it and see.�
1/1/2015
guest Not if it hits something.�
1/1/2015
guest Going to veer slightly on-topic for a moment, with a little long-term frivolity.
"O Traders, come and bet with us!"
The Market did beseech.
"A pleasant ride, a pleasant dive,
and bargains within reach:
A chance to catch some falling knives,
While TMC'ers preach."
The Eldest Oyster looked at them
But never a word he said:
The Eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head--
Meaning to say he did not choose
To see his holdings bled.�
1/1/2015
guest Oh no... Not again... Didn't this trigger a 10pt drop last time?�
1/1/2015
guest No, that was haiku. And this is after the fact. Plus, these days, a 10 point change is "noise".�
1/1/2015
guest Yea, at least its not a 40pt crash�
1/1/2015
guest Any comments on this article? Anyone familiar with this technology?
Has Apple Found The Holy Grail Of Electric Vehicles?
Has Apple Found The Holy Grail Of Electric Vehicles? - Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) | Seeking Alpha�
1/1/2015
guest 1. Seeking Alpha.
2. Journalistic Question Mark.
3. Premise: Because cellphones:
...therefore, cars.�
1/1/2015
guest Lol. Thanks for the laugh this morning. I feel better already.�
1/1/2015
guest Hi,
There might be an application for big trucks. But IMO for cars batteries are already too cheap.
http://www.intelligent-energy.com/our-divisions/automotive/overview/
�
1/1/2015
guest Hibben is usually a fairly good writer, but he missed the mark with this one. For example he says 6 gallons of this new technology holds the same amount of energy as an 85kWh Tesla pack, but ignores the fact that a fuel cell is maybe 60% efficient, compared to the 85-90% efficiency of an EV motor/inverter, so the fuel cell vehicle would need a higher amount of energy per mile.�
1/1/2015
guest I just sent him a message and also commented on the article. The calculations are way off. That device is 229ml and 25wh. No idea how that translates to 4kWh/l. Not even close.�
1/1/2015
guest Big deal. 9 gallons is still a pretty small tank compared to most hydrocarbon powered cars. His point stands.�
1/1/2015
guest Yeah makes little sense. The hydrogen is supposedly "stored at low pressure in some kind of powdered medium". What, like bound to some metal with 10-100 times the atomic weight of Hydrogen? Good luck extracting 4kWh/liter from that (85kWh from 6 gallons). Back of napkin math shows this must be way off.�
1/1/2015
guest Which is why refuse to go to Seeking Alpha web site.ALWAYS BULL$hit, every time, all the time! Thanks for your time!:smile:�
1/1/2015
guest Apologies, must admit I didn't read the article (Not opening another SA link since I found that they even published Mark Spiegel). It does seem like the numerical reasoning here is absolute horse****.�
1/1/2015
guest
Your cool with me:smile: Glad we can agree!:wink:�
1/1/2015
guest I saw this comment from Khrom Capital (incredible track record, look it up) and thought of Tesla. Maybe it is another company but I doubt it.
http://www.gurufocus.com/news/355992/khrom-capital-june-30-letter-to-investors
We recently made a new investment based on taking this lifetime view of a business. This company is disrupting a large industry; it has only a 0.3% share of a growing market, a clear and increasing competitive advantage, an astute and well incentivized board of directors, and is run by an extraordinarily intelligent CEO who has a clear strategic vision and has created an outstanding corporate culture.
However, if our investment strategy focused on trying to estimate what the stock price could be in a year � or even five years � from now, we might have passed on this investment. There are many reasons that the stock price could decline in the near term. Competition will likely increase since the opportunity that this company is pursuing is large and lucrative. The company�s current profitability is depressed, and its CEO will likely continue to suppress it further in pursuit of significant advantages of scale. The U.S. economy may enter another recession, and since this business hasn�t previously proven itself through an economic contraction, there may be panicked sellers of the stock. These and other factors may make for a �messy� stock price over the next few years.
However, by encouraging ourselves (and structuring our partnership to allow us) to think as permanent owners of the business, we focused our attention not on the share price this company could trade for in a few years, but on the profits this business is likely to produce over the next few decades. Ironically, the farther out we look, the easier it becomes for us to approximately predict things.
Focus on long-term profitability
For example, take the risk of competition. We think that this company has obvious and growing competitive advantages that should help solidify it as the dominant player in its space. (Think how the number of search engine startups dried up once Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) solidified its dominant position.) We think it is ideal that this management is willing to reduce short-term profitability to invest in growing the company�s competitive advantage, increasing the quality of its long-term profitability. (Think how Amazon.com, Inc. [NASDAQ:AMZN] has barely shown any profits for over a decade, but the value of its business has grown significantly every year.) We think that a recession could benefit this company, since their cash-rich balance sheet, economies of scale and prudent management team would enable them to grow stronger as weaker competitors die off. (Think how Wells Fargo & Co. [NYSE:WFC] is earning more money today than before the Great Recession.)
In short, since we do not need to concern ourselves with where the stock price will be in the next few years (since you have allowed us to follow an investment strategy that focuses on the fundamentals of a business), we are able to look beyond all the short-term noise. That is how we attempt to generate our excess returns. By taking the profits that people cannot take (and hopefully avoiding the losses that they incur) because they want to rent a stock.
?�
1/1/2015
guest Absolutely must be TSLA. I love their analysis here and their investment attitude - it seems to line up very well with Elon's and this is the kind of institutional investor you want for thel long term.�
1/1/2015
guest Except that Tesla does not have a "cash rich balance sheet".�
1/1/2015
guest True. Perhaps they were thinking cash flow rich?
Or they're not talking about Tesla. If so I'd like to know who.�
1/1/2015
guest The X timeline reminds me of the S rollout in 2012. Assuming that the X ramps faster than the X (as per Elon's statements), we should ramp production by the end of the year. Then by Q1 2016 we should have clarity as to free cash flow.
Of course, the signs will be there by the end of 2015. So if the ramp goes relatively smoothly, expect a nice rally by December. IMHO.�
1/1/2015
guest
I know this is irresponsible but as long as we're speculating on Model X features, I'm gonna call it right now: optional quad motor AWD. Would be a game changer and could provide a major boost.�
1/1/2015
guest There may be a growing multitude of possible configurations for the Model X, and they all have to be tested. Any delay that may cause is understandable. I�d prefer this is done right rather than rushed.�
1/1/2015
guest At this point, if it came out tomorrow, it wouldn't be considered rushed. What is it now.....22 months late?
I really believe Tesla needs to stop trying to re-invent the car with every vehicle they design and build. It's ok to build a run of the mill, small car or truck that gets 225-250 miles per charge - just get it to market. With all the time and money that has gone into the X, it HAS to be a huge winner. It can't have any deficiencies. I'm not sure why Tesla wants to put themselves under that kind of pressure as such a young car manufacturer (for example, gull wing doors - why?).
What differentiates Tesla from other manufacturers is the power train. That's enough. The Camry, Accord, and Fusion are all about the same, and all sell well. So, Tesla doesn't need to do something SO different to sell their cars. The same type vehicles, with the same features - just have Tesla quality and customer service - and be an electric car. That's enough.�
1/1/2015
guest I have wondered for quite a while if the X design isn't suffering from the second-system effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month#The_second-system_effect). I'm hopeful that the 3 will just be a demonstration of what a BMW 3-series could be with an all-electric design. No crazy enhancements, just a battery-powered vehicle that will blow away any ICE in its class in a head-to-head comparison.�
1/1/2015
guest "I really believe Tesla needs to stop trying to re-invent the car with every vehicle they design and build. It's ok to build a run of the mill, small car or truck that gets 225-250 miles per charge - just get it to market. With all the time and money that has gone into the X, it HAS to be a huge winner. It can't have any deficiencies. I'm not sure why Tesla wants to put themselves under that kind of pressure as such a young car manufacturer (for example, gull wing doors - why?)."
Elon is the chief product guy, his ego could be getting in the way. Whoever asked for falcon door, or sculptured back seats,
AWD and 90kwh are enhancements that have an impact, the rest along with the complexity it adds to manufacturing is nonsensical.
Some of his craziness might explain personnel departures and airplane wing walks.�
1/1/2015
guest Rush a slightly compelling car to market to appease short-term investors? No thanks. That's not Tesla.�
1/1/2015
guest I'm glad we finally got around to airing wacky surprise ideas. I think with the towing package, it will back itself up to the trailer by itself. And once connected, it will back it up for you without jackknifing. This feature will be of great interest to like twelve people. The rest won't care. And the press will go nuts. And no one will be able to make sense of any of it�
1/1/2015
guest Honestly, just making the Model X a compelling CUV vehicle would have been better for Tesla's long-term goals--mass electrification of transportation. Less capital spent + more money for developing Model 3, the only car that really matters for achieving Tesla's end goal.
The flashiness of the Model X is going to generate a ton of press, but most of the extra fluff isn't going to make a huge difference to probably 95%+ of consumers. Plus Tesla could have always iterated and added these features in after the fact, just like they do with the Model S.�
1/1/2015
guest I don't understand this logic.�
1/1/2015
guest As a patient, long-term shareholder I strongly disagree. Tesla has succeeded where others have failed because of the brilliance of the top-down marketing approach. Elon understands that the long-term goal of transitioning to sustainable transportation requires building cars that blow away ICE counterparts on every dimension. The desirability of the product needs to be a no-brainer. People need to lust after the product in order to overcome their hesitations and and the FUD around electric drive. And creating a high-end, aspirational brand with halo cars like S and X will greatly increase the addressable market for Model 3.�
1/1/2015
guest Other than the drivetrain, you can find every feature of the Model X (except for the two-hinged falcon wing door) on other vehicles in the market. The only thing you can't find is the incredible drive train, range, and Supercharger network, which is even more true in a SUV format.
I just think they would have been better off doing a crossover version of the Model S and focusing those development dollars more toward the Model 3 and post-launch iterative improvement. Just like the Model S, they would have made those improvements anyways. (Do you think Tesla would have been as successful today if they held the original Model S launch until they had Autopilot, Insane Mode, and AWD? They could have done the same thing with the Model X).
Similarly, you could apply the same thing to the Model 3. If they delay the Model 3 for three years and wait to add crazy premium features in, this stock won't be doing too well.
The incredible press of the Model X's crazy features will be awesome, but ultimately crazy press hasn't turned Corvettes into a transformative mass market force and Tesla will really need to double down on making a mass market car with the Model 3 and they don't have much time to hit their timelines for such a drastic undertaking.�
1/1/2015
guest I don't think it'll be priced in. And if we get an April's Fool tweet again on the subject.... But you make a good point, the stock should already be going up before the CF+ reveal because the X will be (yes, I'm certain) receiving accolades up the wahzoo from reviewers, mags, customers, etc... So much so that people might temporarily 'forget' about CF+. We might also be seeing buzz about Model 3 reveal around that time as well as buzz around progress of the Gigafactory. Next spring could be a VERY exciting time.
- - - Updated - - -
This is to not understand any of it. The S and the X HAD to be/HAVE to be stunning. If they weren't/aren't then Tesla wouldn't have been able to sell enough to do everything else they have done to this point and will do moving forward. Nobody is going to buy an 'meh' EV for 100k plus unless it makes the equivalent ICE 100k car look like a piece of crap on several metrics.
The S and X HAD to be/HAVE to be COMPELLING on many fronts for Tesla to reach it's ultimate goal. That's why the fancy door handles, and the 17" UI screen, and the 0-60 craziness, and the voluminous cargo space, and, and, and. Lastly, for the millionth time, they are not 'gull wing' doors. They are 'falcon wing' doors....double hinged and entirely different and they are stroke of genius. People will eventually realize this when they get use the X on a day to day basis.
The wing walking is exactly the type of thing I'd expect a person such as Elon Musk to do for fun and to de-stress. Good on him, I say.�
1/1/2015
guest
I'd argue just the fact that a SUV gets 4-5x the fuel economy (equivalent) of the next best SUV, and also will go 0-60 in under 4 seconds, is stunning enough.
Anyways, I think the point I'm trying to make is that how they're handling the Model X doesn't bode well for the Model 3. Mass market and incredible premium EV are two different beasts entirely. I'm hoping Musk doesn't loose sight of the goal of the Model 3, and delays the vehicle for years over features that could easily be held for post-launch development or extra features. A 200 mile real world range EV with a Tesla drivetrain for $35k base with a Supercharger network is all that's needed to kick-start the EV revolution (just think of how many people buy $35k Leafs with 40-50 mile winter ranges and double digit 0-60 times), but more importantly to keep Tesla in a leadership role of the EV revolution.
Going back to the short term, any other delays to mass volume production will not bode well for the stock price, and could even put a damper on an Q1 2016 over continuing fears on meeting goals and maturing to a mass market audience.�
1/1/2015
guest I agree that the Model 3 doesn't need to be extremely complicated....just compelling. Model S and X, however, needed to be dramatically better than their ICE counterparts in order to be disruptive.
And regarding the Model X website, the release won't do much for the stock (unless it reveals unheard-of features, like smell-o-vision)....but any further delay of the release beyond August will have a short term negative effect on the price.�
1/1/2015
guest Regardless of whether or not they are actually talking about TSLA, their comments ring quite true (except maybe the cash rich balance sheet thing).�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét