Thứ Hai, 31 tháng 10, 2016

Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA) part 6

  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    If there is money to be made, I expect them to do that. Also, by selling their battery chemistry, they will be able to license and offer the Supercharger network.

    Elon's stated goal is to hasten the adoption of EVs, not become the biggest car maker.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I assume a lot of you read the latest SA article. One thing I found interesting was his point on the potential impact from the fire on insurance costs. I do not know much about how car insurance premiums are determined, but curious what others think about the impact of fires. Any chance insurers stop offering insurance on the Model S? (from the article "My question is simply how will the car's vulnerability to catastrophic damage to its most important - and most expensive - component affect insurability.") http://seekingalpha.com/article/1830792-tesla-reality-is-beginning-to-set-in
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    That's certainly his goal, but will his investors be happy with that given the dismal historic returns and low margins associated with battery manufacturers?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    GEN III at 500,000/yr would n't make them anywhere near the biggest- that said whatever size it makes them, it's the only way to achieve the 'hasten adoption goal' he has in mind; otherwise he's already achieved it, and I don't believe he would agree with that today
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    It's been pointed out that personal injury is far more costly for insurance companies than vehicle replacement, so unless the cars are being wrecked at a much higher rate than other vehicles I don't think it should be much of an issue.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I'm a TSLA investor and I am happy with it.

    The greatest companies are no longer just focused on the financial bottom line. They are also focused on their environmental and social responsibility bottom line too. Businesses that do not focus on all three bottom lines will have a hard time surviving the next 10-15 years.

    His vision makes me want to get behind him more.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    My first post. Been lurking everyday for the last 5 months. Hi all.

    Kinda want to rant a little concerning this recall claim crap and the crazy valuation.

    This is the first mass market, vehicle from this company. They have a realistic 10+ year road map for the future. If a problem was evident to them, they would address it.
    They have produced 20k or so cars. (figure is unimportant. Only importance is it is lower and earlier then when they hit full stride)
    Tesla wants to get this done the correct, and safe way NOW! Not when they are building 100k cars in a few years. Not when their competition has caught up. But now.
    We all agree, Tesla included, that positive electric car perception is incredibly important. Much more so then ICE based cars.
    If the car was flawed, whatever part it may be. INCLUDING the primary power source, Tesla would take every single action to correct it. Its that simple. A public image hit now may be painful, but is cheaper now, then when 500k cars are out on the road. If Tesla does not think its product is flawed, then I truly don't believe it is.

    The major current concern is if the nhtsa might think there is a design flaw. What they might find is unknown to all of us. (This is my concern for the near future. I joined the party late and am paying for that.)
    They truly might find nothing, just like TESLA did when they essentially over nite-ed all 3 burnt cars back to Cali to perform their vehicular autopsies. My guess, after they declined to investigate the first 2 fires, is no defect exists. I would buy more tesla now, but am a bit over stretched currently :-( )

    While I despise conspiracy theories and all that crap, make no mistake of it. Tesla and its "accelerated" growth and interests are ruffling feathers with many in the petrol industry. Maybe not for current production (next 1-3 decades worth), but after that. It should be a good show. I don't think other automakes are worried just yet. Most develop partnerships and what not anyways. If majority of a vehicles costs are design and development. And now you have they legwork complete so all you have to do is adapt it to your companies current/future platform via licensing agreements. Sounds pretty good to me. (Tesla is already capitalizing on this with a few automakers). Its only going to get more profitable. Get your popcorn ready for the next 20 years.

    Also, while I have gotten killed in the last week or so with the drop in stock price, I am not too worried about it. This stock is a lock long term.
    This company/business (autos) is much more complex and difficult then say ipods. Why analysts cant grasp this concept is beyond me. Elon explained/reiterated this to all the noobs out their during the earnings report. Minimum time frame for design to in customers hands is for 2-4 years. There is a reason automakers only do major redesigns every four or more years. Its difficult and takes time/money!

    People wanting/expecting rapid changes in vehicle/battery design are delusional and clearly out of touch with the auto business. The current drive train tech in Tesla cars will be the norm for the next generation or two. Hell, it may even go past the gen3. Decreasing production/manufacturing costs of said parts should help the model x/gen 3 meet the expectations of what they will cost the end user. Cost of materials as well as production efficiency and vehicle output should drive the prices down. Mass production is vs one off = lower overhead = more profits! Teslas goals with the gen3 are completely attainable with their current road map. Its that simple. The tech/demand will not stop Tesla.

    The big question question mark was how would Tesla fair when a significant road block presented itself. I fortunately sold right before the first fire and watched from the side when it dipped. After watching it run past my sell point going back up, I reinvested...at a higher entrance point. I expected and assumed Tesla had met its major obstacle for being a $200 stock and would continue rise. I didn't want to miss the boat. I was wrong. Institutional and algo investors didn't see the positive guidance most of us saw and tanked the stock. This is a comon theme it seems.

    I found it funny listening to analysts get all giddy about this "gigafactory" concept. Elon eluded to it by mistake in my opinion. Once the cat was out of the bag, that's all they and us as investors, whom were taking a beating wanted to hear. We wanted good news. Sorry guys. This is years away from happening. If by going off the literately hours earlier announcement of the Panasonic deal/extension. It should be assumed that this will possibly become a reality during or after gen3 production. And how many years away is that...? This gigafactory should only help the long term investor. Not the obvious quarter to quarter traders/analysts. Maybe I am getting this wrong as I am a noob myself, but this seems pretty straight forward to me. Its comical when a company exceeds expectations, yet suffers due to not meeting the "revised and over the top" expectations from an analyst who changed his predictions/valuations multiple times. I wish I could make guesses and have no consequences when I am wrong. Where do I send my resume!?!? But as I am learning, that's the stock market. Take it or leave it.

    I bought in knowing the valuation was over the top. I just hoped it would continue to climb as people bought in hoping to grab some stake for the future when production meets demand. Where demand will finally max, was/is positively unknown. But no, the stock market does not like the waiting game. The drop over the last week or so is neither good, nor bad for the Tesla in my opinion. It hurts many of us individual investors, but also allows us to increase are stake. I've seen it before and read it again on these forums recently. Warren Buffets quote...
    I think it goes something like, buy when others are fearful, sell when they are greedy...
    I didn't get the greed part right, but am working on the fear part now. The time is now.

    Also, the media sucks. I heard that there was a time when only "factual news" was reported, not made up/embellished. Must of been before me.

    I have referenced a few quite a few things here, and am generally all over the place. I assume most of you can get the gist of what I am saying. Its from you as whole I have learned/researched these things. If I got something wrong, please let me know. I can use the help now...$ :rolleyes:

    I just had to rant.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    You are correct. There is a reason that in my state, ambulance chaser billboards make up more the 70% in my opinion of all out door advertising. Human injury is the number one cost determining insurance. My sub 3 year old, sub 10k used car with standard airbags costs more to insure then a triple the price caddy with airbags everywhere. Tap someones bumper, they somehow have lifetime debilitating injuries. That is an easy 30-100k+ payout if they are victorious in court. Most often the insurance companies will settle before it even gets to that point. Hell, look at what legitimate claims can cost. Broken leg, ok. A couple thousand.
    Head/neck/back pain. BOOM. 100k+! Give me the Tesla any day if I am an insurance company.

    It was explained to me that the legal precedent for injury or something along those lines had changed a few years back in my state and now its a field day for ambulance chasers. Insurance companies didn't lobby hard enough she said.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    If the giga factory is to be up and running for high volume G3 production in 2018 or so they probably have to start building it by 2016 at the latest.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I think Gen III will certainly be a long ramp up to full production rate, at least 2 or 3 years from the time the first production model rolls out. So, giga factory investment can be staggered as well. 2016 through 2019 would be my best guess as of today, maybe adding additional capacity each year for an additional 100K cars per year.

    As the GenIIIBuyer, I've been thinking about when I should start putting aside cash to have at the ready for Sig #1 :p

    I assume they won't start taking reservations until after they've started delivering Model X's, so I have some time. However, with the X wait-list approaching 10K one year before the first delivery. I think the GenIII queue could be 100K* long when it's one year out from first deliveries. 100K x $5K per reservation on average = $500M. Gigafactory year 1 crowd-funded! BOOM!

    *Know that seems high, but don't underestimate the price elasticity of demand.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    This is why I brought up the subject, I don't think this giga factory is far away (unless TSLA postpones or cancels the Gen III).

    To sum up:

    - Current (Panasonic) and likely suppliers (Samsung, LG...there are not so many worldwide) can only cover Model S and X cars with their battery capacity.

    - Beyond these cars, TSLA has an absolute need for this "giga factory". If you don't believe me on this, listen to Musk's CNBC interview earlier this year (factory tour, video clip:Musk: - CNBC ) and the November 5, 2013 conference call.

    - In my guesstimates, this factory will cost 5-10 billion USD for 250-500k Gen III cars/year and related tooling.

    This giant investment has to be in place in about 2 years to get permits and start construction (and TSLA has to bet on the "correct" battery technology, otherwise there will be expensive changes later to adapt and additional Gen III delays).

    This is the most important strategic decision and challenge facing TSLA until 2020 in my opinion - along with the decision to produce a mass-market car at all.

    PS: If you think my estimates about 5-10 billion are off the mark, please add yours. Also, most people on this site might have seen the video clip already, but it's worth re-watching. This will influence TSLA stock far more than guessing 500 less or more vehicles per quarter in 2013.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    the ultimate size they willeventually want may cost a total of 5-10bn but they can purchase in pieces and build it out as demand grows. Maybe 2-3bn to start for initial Gen III demand. Elon said in the q3 conference call last week that they are looking into this with partners....this means that TSLA will likely not finance most of the factory which means no dilution of TSLA shares to build the factory.
    That is the best indication we have now of how the giga factory plays out.

    On a side note, last night on CNBC, Capital IQ analyst who's one of the few analysts with a SELL rating on the stock did not deny that they may change their rating to a BUY soon when asked. Sentiment is going to reverse again to drive the stock price higher, just a matter of when. If/when Bear analysts (Capital IQ, Barron's, GS) start flipping their rating from SELL to BUY or HOLD then watch out, the momo roller coaster will begin again...perhaps up to 250 before correcting back down to 180-190.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Many of the line components have built in flexibility, they can operate perfectly well with chemistry changes, and any format changes are up to Tesla, which the machines can also accommodate within reason. With improving energy density Tesla will need fewer cells per vehicle so they can stick to the 18650 format or something similar if they think it makes sense.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Yes, I expect your numbers are way off the mark. First I'd like to know what data you used to come up with that number.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    My simple assumptions and market comparables are:

    - How much Nissan spent on their three battery plants (and earlier JV investments with NEC since 2007, see details below *) used to supply the Nissan LEAF and future EVs from Nissan-Renault. Current LEAF battery is smaller than the one needed for the Gen III.

    - How much Panasonic invested to expand (or restart existing idle factory capacity) battery supply for Model S and X.

    - Raw material input costs of cylindrical cells (18650 or slightly larger) now and later this decade, see Argonne PDF from December 2012 linked in the giga factory thread (or here: http://www.cse.anl.gov/batpac/files/BatPaC%20ANL-12_55.pdf )

    - Tooling costs for a Gen III (proposed range of 200+ miles) production of 250-500k cars and batteries/year -> hence the wide range of 5-10 billion USD


    I'm also assuming that:

    - the plant is running on clean energy and includes recycling options for batteries (this based on Musk's remarks in the latest TSLA conference call on November 5, 2013).

    - Supply for Model S and X batteries continues to be produced by external suppliers as is (supplier Panasonic, maybe Samsung or LG added down the road).


    I would like to hear additional numbers from readers - or numbers pro analysts covering TSLA came up with. So far, I have not seen analysts producing public numbers or asking specific questions. This includes the latest conference call, there were no questions about the investments needed for the "giga factory".

    I doubt that even need for this plant was on the agenda of most analysts before Musk himself discussed its need, first in summer 2013 (CNBC interview linked above) and then again in the latest conference call.

    ________

    * TSLA is certainly not the first or only car company thinking about vertically integrating the battery production for EVs. Nissan now has three global battery plants in place; below is a 2013 tour of the one located in Tennessee (the other two plants are in Japan and Europe):

    Nissans New US Battery Plant Shows Major Dedication To EVs - HybridCars.com

    Roughly: 2 to 2.5 billion USD in Japan, 1.7 billion USD for the US plant and 420 million GBP in Europe for batteries and the Nissan LEAF. These three numbers do not include some earlier JV (Nissan-NEC) investments, but do include tooling updates for the LEAF car itself.

    Note that while the Tennessee plant can eventually be expanded to 200k batteries/year (it's running/built-out well below capacity at the moment!) the current LEAF batteries are much smaller (24 kWh) than the ones needed for the upcoming Tesla Gen III car (at the promised 200+ miles of range).
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    If there is demand for more cars, there will be demand for more batteries, and this has been known for roughly the 10 years that Tesla has been operating -- it's not news. If there is a need for more batteries, then more will be made, either by Tesla, a joint venture, or an existing battery supplier. Unlike building a Tesla, making batteries is a century-old proposition that is not complicated, and can be scaled with much less complication. Finally, when there is money to be made making batteries, then someone will step up to the plate and do it, regardless of cost.

    Unless there isn't demand for the products Tesla makes or there aren't enough raw materials to make enough batteries for the whole world (there is, and there are), these problems are all solvable. In fact, these "problems" are completely wonderful. Most companies would kill to have Tesla's current and projected demand curves, power over the supply chain, and completely known supply constraints.

    Move along, nothing to see here.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    So doubling the total global Li-Ion battery production is trivial in your opinion?

    Did you have a look at the three Nissan plant numbers I provided above? About $4.5 billion when added up.

    The TSLA "giga factory" also has a deadline attached, around 2016. (Otherwise the Gen III car can't be built in volume by 2017, mixing battery suppliers for one car model is probably not a good idea)

    But first, TSLA has to come up with the money (either alone or in a JV with a battery supplier with loans from the private debt markets or from the DoE).

    I'm just estimating the numbers needed to be raised. With a market cap around $20 billion and $0.8 billion cash at hand, raising $5-10 billion and servicing the debt is also not trivial imho.

    I believe most analysts tracking TSLA are underestimating the funds needed for this factory in their models.

    Most didn't even acknowledge the need for such a factory until recently.


    My estimates may be completely wrong. That's why I would like to see other investment estimates and timeframes for this "giga factory". "Move along" doesn't help there.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Your estimates may indeed be completely wrong. It has not yet been established what kind of battery volume will be required three to four years from now to support demand. But if the need (read:demand) for battery production your "guesstimates" imply comes to fruition, we are already living in a world in which Tesla Motors has succeeded in obsoleting the combustion engine industry, and to imply that a $20billion market cap is realistic at that point is absurd. TSLA would be at $500 or more by then and the world will be begging to throw money at anything Elon Musk desires or needs to accelerate their ability to own his products. Which would be, as I said, an enviable problem to have. That's why I don't really care how much battery production costs. It's just not relevant in a hypothetical world dominated by Tesla Motors anyway, which your assumptions imply.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    All I know is that once Gen III sketches and reservation comes out, I'm putting my down payment down.
    Imagine if 100,000 other customers do the same?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I am ordering two. One for my wife, one for my son.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I also wonder how many Signature reservations they'll make available. If it's a mass market car, meant for 10x the volume of Model S. I imagine they'd make 10x as many Signatures available? Maybe for 20K down.

    10,000 Signature * $20,000 = $200M
    90,000 Production * $5,000 = $450M

    For a total of $650M.

    Also, was giving this some thought the other night. I don't think nearly as many people would be willing to put down a reservation over a year in advance if checking accounts weren't paying 0.01%. Tesla sure is benefiting from historcial low cost of capital at its most capital intensive growth stage.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Two points:

    1. It is not about the battery production costs, but mainly the initial plant investment itself. Longer-term, costs may even go down for TSLA.

    2. I wrote nothing about "world domination", far from that. My estimates above are for "just" 250-500k TSLA Gen III cars/year, each with a range of 200+ miles as advertised. To put these numbers in perspective: Worldwide car production is (2012) currently at 85 million cars/year, 65 million of those are passenger cars.

    As a starting point, I posted the numbers Nissan invested in its three smaller plants over the years. I doubt Tesla's much larger plant including recycling will be much cheaper in just 3 years from now.

    Again, I would love to see other estimates, thank you.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    There is so much wrong with many of your assumptions I'm not sure where to start. First of all real volume G3 production probably won't hit until 2018 so they don't even need to start building the plant until probably 2016. Lead time for equipment is around 6 months, Panasonic built a plant in about 15 months from announcement to production. The Tesla factory doesn't need to achieve full production volume from day one, it can and will ramp up over time. The solar and recycling elements can also be added over time, especially the recycling which won't even be needed in volume until 10 years from now or more. Comparison to the LEAF factories is misleading because Nissan uses a less energy dense chemistry, Tesla will need less production volume per kWh of energy storage, especially 3-4 years in the future with more advanced chemistry.
    I've had some private discussion with a lithium battery researcher who estimated $300-$500 million for initial equipment costs + around $100 million for plant build costs, then maybe $2 billion for full capacity line equipment.
    Bottom line, the time frame is well within reason and the cost will be as well. I fully expect a joint venture to spread the costs or the creation of a separate company. Tax breaks and government support to promote a modern, green facility can be expected as well.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Ok, thanks for the estimate. (My estimate of 5-10 billion includes the tooling and ramp-up/space for the Gen III car in addition to the battery factory).

    Given that current worldwide 18650 battery cell production is at around 2.5 billion cells/year (TSLA would probably need to equal that production volume in its plant) I can't come up with a number below $5 billion USD myself.

    One can also arrive at estimates using a different method (per cell-year upfront costs). There were earlier discussions in this forum based on a paper which stated:

    Source: http://americanmanufacturing.org/files/1-s2.0-S0378775312018940-main%20%284%29.pdf

    So assuming a simple calculation of:

    ($4 cell-year) * (4000 to 5000 cells for each Gen III) * 500k Gen III cars/year = Total investment for TSLA battery "giga factory" (non-car related).

    Funny enough, this comes quite close to the upper limit of my alternate estimate ($10 billion) using market comparables.

    Assumptions:

    - I assume the Gen III requires 4000 to 5000 cells because the Model S requires about 7000+ cells (for the 85 kW�h pack version)

    - Further assuming cost reductions until 2016 and economies of scale/cell due to sheer size of the plant, but then adding tooling for the Gen III car of $1-2 billion will balance themselves out.


    PS: Of course, that paper may be also be completely wrong, but my estimates using market comparables and the paper linked above using per-cell pricing result in similar estimates.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    This is much more in line with my research and estimates. All, told I'm looking at about a $1B Tesla investment (half) spread over the next years. On the other side of that equation, the competitive advantage it adds (relative to other EV) is worth many times that imo
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    If Tesla Motors is selling half a million cars per year, it's game over. They have won. Scaling then-proven volume production into the millions would then only be a matter of time, the combustion-driven passenger car industry would at that point be on a firm path to extinction unless they partner with or buy from Tesla, and TSLA's stock price would reflect forward projections of its dominance of the global automotive market for years to come. That is Tesla world domination, and that is a market cap, balance sheet and income statement so far exceeding your projections that self-funding and joint venture more than pay for increased production, with minor if any external capital requirements.

    You are also assuming that management would make a business decision to fund a maximum-capacity battery plant by themselves years ahead of need for its full capacity, which is just a bad business decision. Therefore, I assume it has a low probability of occurring. Incremental supply chain reinforcements that factor in available technology improvements, car design changes, joint venture possibilities, and leverage a network / coalition of interested parties is the much more likely course.

    We still have to saturate Model S and Model X consumption before we even talk about GenIII consumption anyway.

    If you want comparable "investment estimates" then show us your projected balance sheet, income statement and cashflows of Tesla Motors from 2013-2018. Otherwise you are isolating one item in a growth curve affected by way more variables than hypothetical CapEx.

    Show us your model, perhaps? Or do you have one?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    About "world domination": If EVs take off in the mass-market I expect other car manufactures to follow the Nissan-Renault and TSLA example: They will enter JVs with battery supplies or go alone and build their own battery plants. Why should they buy from competitor TSLA (except for maybe TSLA investors Daimler, and less likely Toyota) ?

    I also expect many car companies to mostly sell PHEVs (Toyota, Audi, GM, Mitsubishi, Ford...) in the near future which require much smaller/different battery packs than pure BEVs.

    As for my model used. I did use to have one but have in the meantime switched to the one provided by Prof. Damodaran (NYU Stern). It is much better and detailed than mine ;)

    His TSLA .xls-file and valuation is available and discussed here:


    Musings on Markets: Valuation of the week 1: A Tesla Test

    Musings on Markets: Tesla: A Follow up

    Musings on Markets: Many a slip between the cup & the lip: From forward value to value per share today


    You can play with the .xls provided. Many people critical of the output/results did not see that an .xls-file is provided to alter the inputs.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Damodaran's model has been roundly proven to be flawed and incomplete. He does not use standard 5-year Pro Forma financial projections and thus it is not a full DCF model with visibility into future GAAP accounting statements for this or any company.

    He made this model for his students to play with stock valuation in a somewhat idiot-proof manner by plopping a few inputs into one page. No serious analyst would use such a rudimentary model.

    So you've answered my question, and you don't have a pro forma model of your own. That's cool, I don't have an updated model I'm using either.

    But I would caution you that investing based on a student's tool into which you plop assumptions you didn't create and whose dependencies you do not fully understand is a dangerous way to value any company. Tread carefully.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Serious analysts covering TSLA? Which ones? Please provide links. I would love to see more detailed estimates, research reports and models used.

    Have you for example seen the simple models used by the GS (bearish example) and Dougherty (bullish example) analysts covering TSLA?

    I doubt Andrea James (Dougherty) even used any model worth speaking of when she comes up with "estimates" such as:

    $300 PT - $100 "execution risk" = $200 PT for TSLA

    I prefer Damodaran's model and approach to both the GS and Dougherty analysis to value TSLA, at least as a starting point.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Do you have experience interacting with professional analysts from major investment banks and research firms? Each analyst's model is perhaps their most closely-guarded secret, so of course I don't have access to them, and neither do you. Not even their top-tier clients get the actual models they use, they get reports based on those models. It is on you to build your own model, if you understand how do do so. Which it seems you do not.

    We have also discussed this before, over a month ago, in another thread. Your blind praise of Damodaran's model without even understanding the math contained in it, and your cavalier dismissing of Andrea James (who is a professional analyst, and you are clearly not) are things you have spoken in the past. Why do you suspect her analysis is inferior? Do you know her? Do you think her bank would hire an idiot? Do you think it's because she's a woman? I really don't understand this line of attack.

    Finally, assumptions drive valuations, and smart people differ on assumptions, but to pretend that one assumption determines future value on its own is foolish. And to pretend that one assumption carried through an already flawed model is an accurate indicator of future performance is equally unwise as a basis for investment decisions.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Why do you assume that analysts have so sophisticated proprietary models in comparison? I have worked with IB analysts and their models (although not related to TSLA or car industry) often are sub-par or cobbled-together spreadsheets.

    I'm aware most of them can't share their models. But I have read quite a few research reports on TSLA (since the IPO up to 2013) and am not that impressed. Most analysts just follow the stock price and rewrite their reports accordingly.

    Let me give the example of the Deutsche Bank analyst covering TSLA. His recent price targets were:

    21 Feb 13: $35 (from $28)

    15 May 13: $50

    26 July 13: $160

    19 Sept 13: $200 (re-iterated)

    Close to worthless in my opinion, the stock already jumped and he just follows suit. And and let's remember that these guys and gals have priviledged access to the company via factory tours, interviews with execs and close contact with Investor Relations as well as industry sources, premium reports and a free Bloomberg Terminal on their desk. So the outcome is a PT that basically follows the TSLA price movements ex-post?

    I can look at the TSLA stock chart myself...I don't need an analyst for that :)

    I have seen her CV:

    Andrea James - Resume

    Andrea James | LinkedIn

    She might be a fine journalist who jumped ship and is now a "senior analyst" at Dougherty (a series 7 exam and what else?) covering TSLA. I certainly don't criticize her for being female. She just sounds like a cheerleader whenever she is covering/discussing TSLA, no critical thinking.

    Listen to the latest CC again. She is "excited" to hear about the "giga factory" but fails to ask what the investments and other challenges are - same for all the other analysts present on the CC (mostly male), so I'm not even singling her out. She just happens to have one of the crudest PT assumptions for TSLA stock as I outlined above.

    PS: And yes, I'm using simple models as well. But at least I was aware months ago that battery supply was a critical path in the TSLA supply chain and try to estimate the investments needed.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Good grief, congrats on finding an old resume. She has been an analyst covering stocks for Doherty since 2009. Without seeing her model, or any analysts model for that matter, you cannot critique it. You can disagree with her conclusions but it is again cavalier and odd to discredit her as an analyst based on a price target alone.

    And I said "WOW" at exactly the same point she did on the call when Elon spilled the beans on this giga-factory concept, which I am positive his fellow Tesla Motors executives did not intend for or expect him to reveal because it was nowhere in the letter. Hence Andrea's surprise, and mine, and everyone's. She did ask a rather incisive follow-up question immediately about it, as well.

    I understand you are not long Tesla, but please don't pretend you know more than analysts who cover the stock for a living, unless you have the model to show for it.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    tftf, A genuine request. Can you get off this forum please? You are turning this into Seeking Alpha. I know you from there as well.

    You are just detractor trying to mess up this forum's appeal - where there was valuable information and insight exchanged. Please don't ruin this.

    - - - Updated - - -

    For others to see: this is Mr.tftf

    http://seekingalpha.com/user/5760541/comments/symbol/tsla
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Though tftf and I have had our arguments I don't want to see him chased off. His points aren't completely invalid, (at least when he's not trying to pretend that Tesla's superior charging standard is somehow actually a negative, but I don't believe he's brought that nonsense here, though I guess I just opened the door :tongue:) He's much better than Tippydog, Solucky and that Ducnguyenphotography Petersen sycophant.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    :) :)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I totally agree.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I think I have provided some valuable insight. Otherwise, please let me know what the specific issues are?

    Did you follow my links (not the ones about Andrea James, sorry if I got distracted there but maybe it's also worthwile to know the background of so-called "senior analysts" covering TSLA)?

    This is the long-term fundamentals thread. I have asked questions about the investments needed for the "giga factory" and for example included a link to a PDF from Argonne Labs, 140 pages long. This is a very detailed paper on battery pricing and outlook from one of the most respected battery research labs I'm aware of ( Energy | Argonne National Laboratory ). Have you read it?

    I also tried giving my estimates and later found similar numbers were discussed on this forum using another method.
    Even if these numbers are way off due to economies of scale and price drops until 2016 the numbers are quite relevant for TSLA investors. Let's for example assume $2 instead of $4 upfront investment per 18650 cell we still arrive at close to $5 billion assuming 500k Gen III cars:

    ($2 per cell-year) * (4000 to 5000 cells for each Gen III) * 500k Gen III cars/year = Total investment for TSLA battery "giga factory" (non-car related).

    I think this is much too low so I stick to my original estimates.

    Please do share your numbers if you don't agree with mine - or even think this "giga factory" is a non issue. I would love to hear your opinions and estimates. So far, only Fluxcap and kenliles gave other estimates.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Let's play with some more numbers. Currently Tesla is using 3.4ah cells in the S. There are 4ah cells in the pipeline, lets assume they are available 3 years from now. I think Tesla can do the base G3 with 45kWh pack, using 4 ah cell x 3.6 V nominal = 14.4Wh/cell, divided into 45kWh = 3,125 cells. a 50kWh pack = 3,472 cells.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Is there a way to vote tftf off perhaps?
    I'd prefer to read him on seeking alpha as he ruins these threads. He's definitely either a paid troll or heavily short himself and spends his day trolling this site, seeking alpha, and who knows where else.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I can only speak for myself but I do not mind alterative views on open forums as long as they people are respectful of each other and there is good moderation of the threads. If there is a particular person who just seems to 'rub me wrong' I just ignore that person's posts.

    I think we have good moderation here, especially compared to the official TM site where there is lots of bashing, hostility and troll hunting.

    Just my 2 cents
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I doubt TSLA will need any funds for the giga factory. They'll sign a contract to agree to buy some quantity of batteries that's enough guaranteed money for someone like Panasonic to build it. And then Panasonic (or whoever) will scale the production out over a few years to meet rising Tesla (and/or others) production.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I agree, debate is always the best form of enlightenment because truth is usually somewhere in between and we get closer to it by weighing the various viewpoints. A decent community with educated people will have contrarian views aplenty and being able to voice them and discuss and debate them is a valuable resource. This path however is always prone to rub some people the wrong way and fuses have different length for different people and that's what we have moderators for. As long as people provide their viewpoints with good arguments and remain respectful I would love to hear proper comments from both the long and short side as that gives insight into how people think and does help me understand better why the stock is doing what it's doing. And long term is anyway a theoretical estimation until it actually happens therefore there are various paths that the company might take and hence we need various viewpoints to map out the paths.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I was both long and short TSLA in the past, but since I'm not Carl Icahn I doubt this is relevant.

    I am trying to have a discussion in this thread what the "giga factory" (TSLA needs it for the Gen III car. CEO Musk is saying this himself, not my daydream...) is going to cost.

    I have provided many links and have spent quite some time looking at the investment numbers and IR reports from Nissan-NEC (large cell-size example) and Panasonic-Sanyo (18650-cell size example).

    To my knowledge these two plus LG and Samsung SDI (I have not found enough LG and Samsung numbers in English and do not speak Korean) are the only four companies supplying EV batteries on a global scale in significant levels at the moment.

    I have also provided links to two peer-reviewed PDFs about battery and battery plant costs.

    Why is this "giga factory" so important imho for the longer-term fundamentals of TSLA?

    - Battery supply volumes represent the critical supply path for Gen III (no one is going to argue TSLA can't procure enough wheels and touch screens for Gen III or KUKA plant robots).
    Most other supplied parts are the same or similar to ICE cars or not in short demand on the global market with enough lead time.

    - TSLA batteries are currently tied to a single supplier. While TSLA may add Samsung or LG to the mix one day, short-term TSLA is dependent on Panasonic. If Godzilla stomps the Panasonic factory, there is a lot of disruption.

    - The costs are meaningful. Based on my sources, I assume total costs of 5 to 10 billion USD for 250-500k Gen III cars/year. TSLA may opt for joint-ventures with battery suppliers or other partners (e.g. Daimler would opt for a portion of the supply from the same factory), but the impact on its balance sheet or its debt structure is probably still very significant.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Ok, thanks. In your estimate, are the 4 ah cell costs roughly comparable to current 3.4 ah cells in a few years, for example about the same same raw material input and production costs?

    In the PDF I linked, the current cell raw material costs are (table 2, page 297) pegged at about $ 1.3:

    http://americanmanufacturing.org/files/1-s2.0-S0378775312018940-main%20(4).pdf

    But since TSLA is (according to Musk himself, see middle section of this older video: GTM TV: Elon Musk on the Model X SUV and Teslas New Batteries - YouTube ) using a separate/tweaked chemistry it will be hard to compare raw material costs with standard cells in detail.

    I therefore focused more on the plant investment ($4 per cell-year upfront for smaller battery plants according to the same PDF), not the detailed battery cell costs per unit.

    PS: I was also under the impression TSLA is currently using 3.1 ah cells, not 3.4 ah for Model S (?). Maybe this info is outdated:

    Panasonic Presents First Electric Vehicle Battery to Tesla | Press Releases | Tesla Motors

    3.1 vs 3.4 ah was already discussed here in detail:

    Tesla Motors CTO talks future batteries and charging protocols - Page 4
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Calculating initial investments per kWh instead of per cell is more sensible. The study that claimed $4 upfront cost for one cell yearly plant capacity was doing calculations with not high density cells, like 4ah. The 4ah cells most definitely would require more investments per cell capacity compared to 3ah cells.

    Price per kWh on the other hand should not change much. It might be even cheaper with high specific energy chemistry.

    I do feel like using current specific energy 18650 cells with $4 is a good estimate. That place gigafactory into ballpark of 10 billion. But even better estimate would be using actual Nissan investments into their Smyrna plant. That would place 8.5 billion $ price tag for whole gigafactory. But first part of it, with enouph capacity to produce 200k battery packs yearly should cost 3.4 billion. Well within the reach of Tesla Motors. Especially in the case of JV.

    - - - Updated - - -

    If we count just biggest battery producers in the world, I feel like BYD should be added to the list. And they do produce EV batteries too.

    But yeah, not that many big players out there.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Thank you for your estimates. I included rough tooling costs for the Gen III car and battery integration costs in my estimates (about $1-2 billion for 250-500k cars including costs for battery pack and battery management manufacturing on top of the battery cell production, since obviously TSLA can't use "naked" cells directly) so my total numbers for 50k cars more are probably similar to yours in total:

    $5 billion total for 250k Gen III cars and batteries per year as a low-range estimate.

    I didn't use cell numbers per car (that was the other calculation method), but I would assume 3500-5500 cells used for low-end to high-end Gen III cars.

    In comparison: According to my estimates (earlier posts in this thread), industry sources and Nissan IR, Nissan spent about $4.5 to 5.5 billion (give or take a few % because of moving EURUSD and USDJPY exchange rates) on the LEAF car and battery-related investments.

    Yes, BYD should be added, thank you. There may be more down the list. Here's a top 12 list of potential battery partners and competitors for TSLA (not in any particular order):

    1. LG Chem
    2. Johnson Controls
    3. GS Yuasa (new JV with Bosch and Mitsubishi, also JV with Honda)
    4. AESC (Nissan-NEC)
    5. A123 Systems (now in Chinese control, Wangxiang)
    6. Panasonic Group (includes former Sanyo)
    7. Samsung, former SB LiMotive (Bosch left, now just Samsung SDI)
    8. Hitachi Vehicle Energy
    9. BYD
    10. Electrovaya
    11. Blue Solutions (recent IPO in France, tied to Bollore)
    12. Li-Tec and Accumotive (Evonik and Daimler JVs)

    Maybe there are many more, especially domestic suppliers in China for e-scooters etc. may be missing on the list. These are the biggest (by revenue or market cap) I found, please add yours.


    PS: That being said, I will refrain from active contributions once again as don't feel the need to defend myself against "trolling" accusations instead of discussing the thread topic (long-term fundamentals for TSLA, I think the "giga factory" and the Gen III car investments will have a major impact on that until 2020).
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    That is my assumption.

    Elon recently stated materials costs were around 70-80 cents per cell.



    We've had a number of discussions, the problem is the figures don't work out with the 3.1ah cell. Tesla has stated the number of cells in the 85kWh pack are close to 7000 cells. 3.1ah x 3.6 nominal voltage = 11.16 wh divided into 85kwh= 7616 cells 3.4ahx 3.6 nominal Voltage = 12.24 wh divided into 85kWh = 6944 cells. Assuming there is a bit more than 85kWh actual capacity in the pack the 3.4 ah cell fits perfectly. It could also be a 3.2ah cell or a 3.3ah cell since it is a custom cell made just for Tesla.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    You have an Ignore option TSLAopt for individuals you would prefer not to read. You can vote him off your own island anytime :)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Okay, just my two cents:

    I think there are a number of variables that need to be thought of here, from a long-term perspective. First let's take a look at the recent news and statements (I most likely don't have all latest info, but generalizing comments).

    Recently, the TSLA price droped which results from something a bit deeper than what most analysts/"gurus" have concluded. In my opinion, the price went up due to a very strong output expectations 3-4 years from now, with almost no bumps in the road (i.e. no challenge to meet demand). Well, now there is a statement by the CEO stating that there are still supply related issues (i.e. limited supply of batteries), which could impact how many vehicles actually get delivered/sold 3-4 years from now. Add on the "flash in the pan" stories about the fires and some of these law suites... you have a perfect opportunity for the shorts to make back some money and the short-term holders of the stock to panic.

    Long-term, I think all of this news actually makes for a really strong future growth! In my opinion, I think the statement about the restricted supply of the batteries is a good strategic plan. It's like playing chess and thinking 8 moves ahead. I've argued for a long time that Tesla is not just a auto company... It's a energy management company, which makes great vehicles! With the plans for the super chargers (US and Europe), and with the statements about a potential "giga-factory" to produce the batteries, I'm starting to feel I was quite right! If this is the case, then all of the "competition" from other auto companies could end up being a huge possitive for Tesla in the long term. For example, Toyota and Mercs already have battery pack deals, and BMW just signed a deal with SolarCity for energy deal to their buyers.

    My TSLA stock and company business model predictions:
    Short-term: prices could go down a bit more, but will get to over $150 within 3 months. Potentially far higher or sooner, if the highway department finishes their inspection and they find no reason for recalls or safety concerns. Tesla will also announce the need for the "giga-factory" within the next 3 months. This may be part of a joint-venture, but I think it'll be mainly Tesla controlled.

    Long-term: Over $300 within 2 years, and $500 within 4 years. Expecting the "giga-facotry" to be completed and operational within the next several years - ready in time for the start of GenIII production (2017?). This will help bring the battery costs down well below the $200/kWh (potentially by half, as middle-men are out of the picture as well). Also, this would help Tesla, the "energy management company", go into other energy intensive industries, like house energy (think solar panels powering backup batteries in each house...). The Model S, X, GenIII and future models are all great to keep the company making money to fund the future growth!

    Again, just my 2 cents. :)
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    HiTech, I agree and have said the same thing about Tesla in these Forums. And Tesla already produces just such a battery for solar systems, see Home Energy Storage & Battery Backup System - SolarCity

    It is finishing beta testing in California and I have been told it will be for sale next year. I want one!
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    They've already announced that need.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I don't think this is possible. Maybe a JV, but TSLA will need to be involved directly given the amount of cells needed. The requested supply of 25 to 40 GhW will require huge investments imho.

    Please have a look at the giga-factory thread and the numbers involved (up to 40 GWh in 2019, compare the number to current global battery production *). This info comes from someone who needs to know the numbers (CTO Straubel, minute 22:00+ in the video). Due to the hostility in this thread, I won't comment further here. The people calling me a "troll" should check out Straubel's video and run the numbers again (I looked at it back in September. I doubt many others did, the video just got 400 hits up to now).

    _______
    * video can be found here: How to solve the battery factory issue - Page 6
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I'm sorry you feel hostility from this thread. I'm long TSLA but I find that there's a little over-exuberance here and I hope you keep posting to provide some balance.

    As far as Li-Ion battery factories go, manufacturers have been historically loathe to build them, and for good reason. Conservative companies like LG, Samsung, and Panasonic distrust Tesla's promises of future EV demand. They see this young upstart automaker and think just because Tesla is willing to guarantee sales doesn't mean they will be around to honor those guarantees in a few years. The other problem is nobody wants to build a plant when the technology is so immature. Why spend billions on something that may turn out to be obsolete before your equipment has lived out its expected lifespan. Much of that equipment is chemistry dependent. For these reasons the plant really almost has to be built by Tesla. It's the same reasons that Tesla had to start making cars in the first place. Nobody else has the same vision, or as much at stake as Tesla, so ultimately Tesla will have to build it.

    While I'm on the subject of over-exuberance, I have to admit that I think most estimates about Gen III demand that I see tossed around here are low. There's no way to do a legitimate market study about something that doesn't exist and nobody knows anything about. Having said that, we all know how much better the EV experience is. It's only a matter of time before we reach a tipping point where everybody wants one, the major automakers aren't ready, and worldwide cell production is inadequate. Having their own giga-factory up and running will give Tesla a big market advantage.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I'm not sure that much of the equipment is chemistry dependent. Foil extruders, mixers, infusers, winding machines, etc., should be able to handle a variety of different cell chemistries. Even between different chemistries I think the majority of cell components will remain the same.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Correct.

    But there could be a switch from li-ion to lithium sulfur batteries in a few year timeframe(a big unknown). If li-s materializes, it would require new production technics for cathode/anode/separator. And supply chain would have to invest, and have to invest heavily under Tesla's guaranties/contracts. It is a tricky question what battery tech would be most economical and still mature enouph for large scale production in 2018. May be in couple years from now the answer would be more clear shuffle.gif
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I am just as willing to hear "short" case on TSLA myself, but I want to hear it from people who genuinely believe in what they are saying. tftf obviously has an agenda, and that is to distort the truth on TSLA. I haven't read all of his posts, or even more than 20% of his posts, but that is enough to see that he is clearly misleading people on this forum (and elsewhere) in order to scare people away from investing in Tesla. I despise people like this. Remember that tftf seems to have researched Tesla extensively, which is evident in all of his posts that are backed up with links to videos, documents, research, etc. I am somewhat skeptical that one person has enough time on their hands to always have an answer for everything with links to back it up. I wouldn't be surprised if he is a lobbyist for oil companies or has some other similar agenda.

    tftf is clearly trying to mislead us, but he does it in such a convincing and creative way that a lot of unsuspecting people will tend to believe him. Think of him as trolling on steroids, i.e. taking trolling to higher level. With all of his extensive knowledge and "proof" to back things up, he always seems to omit facts that are inconvenient to him or don't support his thesis. He always pulls up all of the misleading (or downright incorrect) research reports to prove his points. Compares apples to oranges to support his thesis.

    Here are some of the examples of things I have seen him write just over the past day or two (I am paraphrasing but not distorting anything):

    1. tftf wrote: raw material costs for a battery cell are $1.30 and provided a .pdf file to back up his claim.

    He completely ignored the fact that Elon Musk said that raw materials only cost $0.80. But some random .pdf file suited his agenda better, so he used that. One problem is that he underestimates people on this board and the truth always comes out. JRP3 already corrected him on this.

    2. Linked to a McKinsey (top consulting firm) study that shows that batteries cost $600/kWh and might go down to $200 by 2025. He even admitted that McKinsey was wrong on today's price of $600, so he said that he will give Tesla the benefit of the doubt and say that batteries go down to $200 by 2020 instead of 2025.

    Once again for someone who knows everything on Tesla, he completely ignored the fact that Tesla is already buying batteries at roughly $250 per kWh. And more importantly he completely omitted the fact the Elon Musk said that batteries will reach $100 kWh very shortly. I can't remember what Elon said, but I think it was definitely less than a decade. Once again, these facts are inconvenient to his agenda, so he would rather spew FUD and make it look legit by showing some crappy consulting firm study. I know how consulting firms do studies and they are garbage.

    3. He keeps talking about how Tesla needs to raise $5b-$10b by 2015 in order to have the giga-factory on-line by 2017 so they can produce 500k Model E cars that year.

    Once again this is nonsense, because Elon even said in an interview that the first year or two of Gen 3 will be lower volume and they will gradually build up to 500k units. No need to raise all that money at once. Others have pointed out several times that the factory can be built in stages with a smaller initial investment and then expand over time. tftf conveniently ignores all of these posts and goes on with the same story that giga-factory must be built before the first gen 3 car comes off the line (not exactly what he says, but not too far off either).

    4. Nissan spent $X so Tesla will need to spend $X.

    Completely omitting the fact that Tesla's chemistry and strategy is different, and that Tesla pays probably 50% - 75% less than what Nissan pays for batteries.

    I have only read about 3 or 4 of tftf's posts and these are 4 things that I remember off the top of my head from his posts that strike me as complete BS. I can tell right away that he clearly has an agenda, and that agenda is for Elon and Tesla to fail. He also tries to throw in some kind words on Tesla or some good advice for other forum members just to trick people into believing that he has good intentions. His kind words are always followed by qualifiers, such as "Tesla Model S is a nice car, but..." Elon is a great guy, but..."

    We don't need people like him on this forum, he is no different than Peterson. His goal is to create doubt in Tesla. He wants to see Tesla fail. The easiest way for a company to fail is to get the stock price to come crashing down. He wants you guys to stop buying TSLA, and for those who hold shares to sell them. He is very sneaky in the way he goes about doing these things, but if you put lipstick on a troll it is still a troll.

    I would be all for banning him, because he is not adding to any meaningful discussion. His only agenda is to distort the truth. All he writes about is how this is going to hurt Tesla, how that obstacle is going to be impossible to overcome for Tesla, this is going to take Tesla a lot longer, etc. All negatives on Tesla. Never says anything positive. Always tries to look for the negatives. Andrea James model is crap, while Damodaran's model is the best to value TSLA.

    Please stop responding to tftf. I recommend that we all ignore him, because his goal is to create chaos on this board and it is working. As soon as you prove him wrong on one thing, he completely ignores it and starts spewing FUD on another topic. There is no benefit to having people like this on this board. He clearly has an agenda, just like John Peterson does.

    I don't know why so many people want Tesla to fail. If Tesla fails then so will our planet (eventually, and a lot sooner than you expect) and so will mankind. We should all be cheering for Tesla to succeed. I am all for pointing out obstacles to Tesla's path to achieving success, but I don't appreciate it when people purposely mislead others just to fulfill their own agenda. Don't fall victim to tftf's FUD tactics.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Sadly, a month ago I was starting to think that we had confirmation bias and that some alternative views would be appreciated. Since then, I've seen a lot of people posting negative things about tesla as the stock slides and some of those things have been misleading, and I've decided I completely agree with what sleepyhead said above.

    I stopped reading the Peterson articles because that guy would never write a positive word about Tesla in a million years, so I know from the beginning of his articles that the article will be biased and will be written in a manner that says that tesla will fail. I have had a little more difficulty commenting on TFTF, because I gave up reading the threads in which he comments. I gave up because I saw his comments on seeking alpha and picked up that he was trying to distort facts. Sadly, when I give up reading Tesla, those leading the war against tesla win. When TFTF moved over to the Tesla forum I assumed he was just going to do the same thing here and post in the same manner as he was posting on seeking alpha, and that makes this forum less useful to me. Curt challenged Tftf to post more information in another thread. Perhaps we should combine these two discussions into one?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Ok, as I pointed out in the other thread, all I have tried to provide is information and my (often critical) point of view.

    Why was I even posting here? I was mocked in an OT thread when I was a mere passive reader, that's why I even joined this forum in the first place. Check the thread: tftf on SA. Tired of him yet? for details if you don't believe me. Thank the posters in that thread that I even wrote one post in this forum :)

    In case some of you have losing positions in TSLA (?) and are now looking for a scapegoat (at least that's how the posts of mershaw2001 and sleepyhead partly sounded imho) I won't be the punching bag nor engage in personal fights. That's a waste of time for me, like I wrote in my first post in the very first sentence.

    It's also not in my interest to disturb an active and otherwise interesting forum. I will therefore refrain from actively posting on this forum (not just this thread) so it can find its inner peace again.

    tftf


    PS: As for the usefulness of my links and estimates, we will only find out in a few months or years. Just a few last corrections in sleepyhead's post as I don't like to be misquoted:

    - The PDF quoting battery cell material pricing at 1.3$ was posted as a sidenote ( I used an alternate method for my estimates), I even pointed out TSLA is using a special cell chemistry so figures/costs from standard 18650 cells can't be used directly. The upfront $4 per-cell-year investments was from the same paper and for smaller plants, this PDF was posted by other people on this forum months before I linked to it once again to compare numbers (I used another calculation method). Based on this PDF, these other posters came up with estimates at "10+ billion" for 500k cars (higher than mine, and their estimates were without the car investments, just for the battery plant part...).

    - My $5-10 billion estimate includes 1. all the tooling etc. for the Gen III car factory at 250-500k/year, not "just" the batteries and the battery plant part (and the battery part includes cell assembly and BMS, not just the cells) 2. the entire investment for both the cell and car plant running at full capacity, not just an estimate for a first cap ex wave with the plant still running below capacity. Again, some other forum members also came up with similar estimates for the plant independent of me.
    Being called an "oil sock puppet" is quite funny since I have been interested and invested in alt energy since well before TSLA even existed. Maybe that's why I remember how long alternative energy ROI takes and I experienced a boom and bust cycle in solar a few years ago with few remaining survivors.

    - In case other readers are more interested in cell pricing (this is too complex for me) I posted another PDF paper from Argonne Labs and later a summary from insideevs.com discussing it (because that PDF paper is long and hard to digest):

    http://www.cse.anl.gov/batpac/files/BatPaC%20ANL-12_55.pdf - 140 pages long, take your time :)

    If you know of better recent sources than Argonne Labs please let me know and post them. I know of only a few, if any - and these PDFs are not in English or not available to share publicly, so I didn't post them here (btw, sorry for any spelling mistakes I made, English is my third language only).

    - As for Andrea James' vs Prof. Damodaran's valuation models and price targets: I only stated which model I personally judge as superior based on my experience. Others came to totally different conclusions, including a poster (Julian Cox) who thinks TSLA can be self-funded and its capital costs are "zero" (?!). He thinks Damodaran is completely wrong (despite Damodaran offering just a DCF model where everyone can fill in different inputs).
    We will see who got it right when the battery plant and other investments are due. I highly doubt TSLA can finance these and other investments using operative cash flows. My bet is on Damodaran's, yours may be on Julian Cox (I will probably never get his capital costs=zero claim ?) and/or Andrea James' model.

    - Again, most pro sell-side analysts are bullish on TSLA with PTs (still) above $200, so why worry about my obscure posts online? Andrea James has 1000 times (at least) the audience and online klout to make a bullish case for TSLA.

    - As a value investor I would be thrilled with TSLA stock falling if its intrinsic value is indeed above $200 or $300. If you think Andrea James and other bullish analysts are correct, load up on the stock and make a lot of money if TSLA becomes as big as Toyota or VW and as profitable as Porsche in the future. I even remember another bull (Sal Demir) making the case for TSLA shares to be trading above $1000 in a few years (his Tesla Full Analysis 2.0 article on SeekingAlpha). I see it quite differently.

    - Finally, estimating future battery prices is very hard imho. I am always interested in estimates. But please include a link or source for such claims:

    $100/kWh very shortly? I really never heard of this, neither from Elon Musk or other EV battery makers. I always tried to include as many links as possible to numbers and sources I used - so readers can do their own due diligence.

    Edit: Thank you for providing a link to the claim (@sleepyhead later in this thread). 2023 looks possible if one is optimistic, I didn't think of that source because it said "very shortly". Also fixed a few typos in this last post.

    PPS: And yes, I post a lot and work a lot, I'm one person.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I too appreciate a well argued contrarian point of view but many of tftf's posts seem redundant, as well as relying on seemingly authoritative yet known to be inaccurate or irrelevant data.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Wrong again. I have written time and time again on this forum that I have exited virtually all of my TSLA positions in late September/early October. I have disclosed this several times in different threads, and I am sure that all active members are aware of this. The problem with trolls is that they post a lot, but never read what other people have to say.

    I have already seen you write this exact same thing about a month or two ago, and yet you are still posting here.

    I actually am thrilled. If you had read any of my posts you would know that I started buying TSLA again in the 130s and a lot more at around 120. I also wrote several times that i hope that the stock goes down even further, so that I can dollar cost average on the way down. If there are no new material events affecting TSLA, then the lower the stock price goes the happier I will be, because I will be able to buy a lot more TSLA.

    As far as your links go, they are all bogus. You only post links that support your agenda, and always ask if someone has any better links. When no one responds, you continue pushing those false links. But as soon as someone corrects you, you completely change the subject and ignore the more accurate information.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I asked tftf directly in the short-term thread if tftf was being paid to post, and tftf said no.

    Based on what I've read, I believe that tftf is not just anti-Tesla. Tftf is against automobiles in general. If tftf is a troll, I don't think oil companies are the intended beneficiaries of the trolling.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Well, he did admit to shorting TSLA, so he clearly had an agenda to spread fear and distort the truth on TSLA. He said that he exited his short positions in TSLA last week though. Now he said that he will not post here anymore, because he probably minimized his losses (or got back to break even) on shorting TSLA and will be getting out for good.

    Like I said, I don't mind hearing the short story. I just get annoyed when people knowingly use false data (or twist the data) to mislead other people. That does not benefit anyone. Just because you found a document on the internet does not mean that the data is accurate. But pretending it is accurate when you know is false is unethical and has no place on this forum.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    So what if we have someone who is negative? Is that not allowed in a forum? Ignore if you don't like, comment if you have something to say. Finished. Amazed at the amount of energy spent at spats.
    Tesla is going through growing pains right now. Invest at your own risk tolerance as it will likely be volatile in the short term, I think. Strong upside in TSLA in the near to medium term will likely be muted in my opinion. What will be the catalyst? Even Elon said he was uncomfortable with TSLA ATH levels. TSLA got ahead of itself with the passion surrounding its uniqueness and perfection in an otherwise boring industry together with the clean energy theme. I got caught up in that as well with all my eggs in one basket to the point that I became blind to calling an opportune time to take some profits, thinking TSLA could reach $250 sometime early in 2014! I have been through this cycle before in the market but this time I was head over heals with Tesla and became blinded. People who started buying TSLA late ($165 + ish) will likely have to wait for the long term IMO. I cashed out 75% of my TSLA around $140 and diversified into Solar as I wanted to reach a certain financial goal before year end (I am not a young buck anymore so time is more important for me than some others) or come close to it at least. I am a HUGE believer in alternative energy, whether it be cars or the power grid (I have a kid/ nieces/ nephews, and care about this world). I plan to not buy more TSLA until I have a warm fuzzy on positive catalysts. Sleepy has been talking about Solar for a while and I should have looked into it further much earlier.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Since I have received a request via PM to prove the $100/kWh expectation within 10 years:

    Report: Tesla Expects To Sell 500,000 Cars, Europe Model S Demand Strong

    Note: that 75% quote is from a Goldman Sachs article. They believed that TSLA was sourcing cells at $400/kWh. Just shows how clueless people were/are and that you can't trust any source for information. You need to do your own research on every topic. You would think that Goldman Sachs is a legitimate source, but it isn't. They did a very lazy calculation to get to $400/kWh.

    There was also a video (that I personally viewed in May or June and even referenced in a post on TMC in CO's thread) in which Elon Musk himself said that he sees $100/kWh within 10 years, but i don't recollect which video it was. It is impossible to "google it" because without a transcript, google will not find the quote.

    Let's also not forget all the Elon quotes from last year that said "we will get below $200/kWh very soon." So lets not pretend that it will be 2020 before we see $200/kWh.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Ok, I'm coming back for one LAST post because I have had it with these allegations that my short position was somehow hidden or that I have an agenda:

    My posts on SeekingAlpha included a disclosure, open for you and everyone else to see for many months, sometimes even inside the post as in August of 2013:

    A CNBC Top For TSLA ? - tftf - Seeking Alpha

    Except for my last Instablog entry from this weekend since I (again) no longer have a TSLA position.

    I also used the same avatar here (tftf) and linked/mentioned my SA posts: "if anyone is interested in more details, please see...", for example when I referenced the "Porsche exit strategy" blog entry or posts on Behavioral Finance.

    My past TSLA positions if you are so interested:

    long below $30 since autumn 2012 for first time
    sold out in 2013 after TSLA doubled

    then some quick long trades until $90 (stopped out, trading on technicals, these are the only ones I lost on)

    went short around $125 for first time
    covered half the short a few days later (after negative report from GS) at around $110

    added half of covered short position liqudity again around $170-175 (see link above) in late August 2013

    added more to short (0.3x) around $180 around Q3 earnings (in total 1.3x original short position)
    closed out entire short last week at a little above $121.

    Because my original long position was much larger I even made more on the TSLA long side than with the shorts.

    If people here mocked my posts on SA they could have also read my blog entries etc. where this was disclosed.

    Anyway, I plan to come back by 2015 to talk about the groundbreaking of the battery plant when things have hopefully calmed down :)

    Done.

    PS: So apparently shorts "distort the truth"? Funny enough, I rarely even talked about the fire issues over the last weeks (please check my postings here). To me this was overblown and likely sensationalized in the mass media, incident samples with EVs are too small so far imho.
    As I have written before, if people started paying more attention to battery supply challenges instead of some burning car videos on YT....this is the elephant in the room (especially since this is the LT thread).

    PPS: If shorting a stock is un-american according to some I invite you to read the story of Bill Ackman vs MBIA. If only people listened to him before the housing bubble burst a few years later.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    So, like many folks on the forum, I've lost quite a bit of money on my long position. But also, like many, I hold that position as I believe in the products long term, I provide what I hope is valuable feedback to the company to keep the products at the best possible value level for their target demographic, I stay vigilant when approached by just about everyone with their best impressions of Clevon that tease about the bad press (wow, that is tough, especially from generally well informed and bright people) and hope that the innovators, early adopters, EV enthusiasts, technically brilliant and financial wizards all can weather this time and keep the value of this forum high.

    These last few weeks have been hard and from an engineering POV I have no worries in how the product is built and rolls down the road as it will keep my family safe and I'm happy TM pays for the damage no matter what (thanks Elon!).

    Also, I'm going to spend more time on the Model X, GenIII and R2 threads as my S is humming along nicely with 5.8 thank you very much! Making those products better are the best way I can help ensure the stock hits a new ATH.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    You sure that hum doesn't need to be looked at, should be silent ;) Just kidding, couldn't resist...
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    > So, like many folks on the forum, I've lost quite a bit of money on my long position. But also, like many, I hold that position as I believe in the products long term, [Discoducky]

    So you've 'lost' quite a bit, ie 'paper' losses, but you are still holding your pre-November positions? Just checking.

    'Many folks on the forum' (myself included) should consider taking profits on a more or less regular basis whenever possible. In the long run you will come out ahead since you will miss fewer opportunities.
    --
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I took some "profits" around $50, huge mistake. Obviously times are different now but if I had kept taking profits from then on up I certainly would have been out of the stock probably well below $100.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Taking profits should be all about your income profile for the tax year, or of course covering a major purchase/gift. You can buy more of the same stock with those profits as soon as the cash settles (3 days); the more profit you pump into the holding the less of 'your money' is in there.
    --
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Perhaps you have no understood Elon's plan?
    He relishes competition.
    His goal is to encourage and / or force the big guns to build electric.

    I saw the Via video last week and if I am not mistaken they convert existing new vehicles to electric ... i.e. not built electric from the get go.

    In my book that's an E. For Effort, but how can you make money by taking a gas truck and converting it; ripping out all the gas rubbish and selling it on?

    But for those that buy, when Tesla does come 'round and built trucks, and this Via is worn out, theirs will be the brand of choice.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Via makes hybrid vehicles, they are no competition for Tesla, and that article is a ridiculous piece of garbage.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    And perhaps you do not understand english? Where do I write anything about this is bad for Tesla? I wrote it is good that Mr Lutz are into EV.

    I do not understand the point of your posts, but please stop reply to mine.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest

    It depends on an individual's strategy.

    I bought big when it was at 32.5 and 2 weeks ago sold all at 136. If I sold half when it doubled, to get my original investment back and play with the "house's money", I would have half as much profit.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    EVs have a market share of 14% in Norway this month. Considering that it is pretty Cold here, that is very impressive and shows that the EV revolution is starting.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    My family is of Norwegian decent. OK, that was a few generations ago, but maybe that's why I like EVs so much?:biggrin: Of course it helps to have government incentives, high petrol prices, and above average cultural concern for the environment.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Do you guys think they will be able to maintain sales on Model S if they don't make any significant changes for many years? If Model X and Gen3 come out in the next year to 3 years, the current Model S might seem like an 'obsolete'/old car and less people will want to buy it. Doesn't that leave Tesla to have to put out a new Model S soon after Gen3?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Elon mentioned the S would have a life span of ~7 years, and receive a refresh halfway into its life. So we could see the freshened S in 2ish years.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest

    1. as share holder, i'm not sure you relish competition.
    2. Tsla did exactly that with the roadster.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    1. Sometimes the market grows bigger through more offerings and more acceptance. In this case, I don't think Via is actually competition, but that was the original premise.

    2. If you're implying the Roadster was just a converted Lotus Elise, you're wrong. It had some parts in common, and Lotus was contracted to build the gliders, but it was still designed to be an electric vehicle, and that design was done by Tesla.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The VIA trucks are "Plug-in Hybrids" with a 40 mile range. Full electric is the drive-train that most people will want. Commercial fleet managers who do the math and invest wisely will see the savings of a full EV. Service fleets are generally driven during the day and can then charge at night. Southern California Gas fleets are all natural gas trucks. I would imagine that So Cal Edison Co. would love a fleet of EV trucks for the same reason. SCE might order, say 500? Multiply that times all the electric utilities in the USA and you get some scarey numbers!
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Ahh, yes, the rumor that will never ever die. If only the Roadster WAS 'just a converted Elise', it would make it so much easier to get parts! But for those of you who DO still believe that fud, approximately 6% of the Roadster parts are in common with the Lotus Elise. So what that means is ... mirrors swap out. But not much else.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Hey - the 3rd party glass top seems to be interchangeable between the Elise and the Roadster - so that's two parts (mirrors, roof). Almost indistinguishable! :tongue:
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    http://elbil.no/ladestasjoner/1172-kraftpakke-for-tesla-i-oslo-sentrum
    Some good News from Norway once again. This time someone set up free charging stations in Oslo.
    Bellona, which is a environment organisation in Norway are really working hard for EV, and especially Tesla.

    Bellona also published a report today regarding Taxis in Norway should drive Tesla.
    Not that hard to accomplish, considering Mercedes is the most common brand atm.
    http://www.bellona.no/nyheter/nyheter_2013/Bellonas_nye_taxirapport
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Can u imagine the possibilities for Gen III as a Taxi? they would sell out just by filling the taxi demand worldwide, it would be a no brainer... and then install private superchargers at taxi corp HQ for the largest cities or somethin(prob wont even need it).. just a very exciting thing to think about as an investor
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I know, especially in Norway. But I would rather have a battery-swapper. Imagine owning a GEN3 fleet and a swapper, you could let other People use the swapper aswell as superchargers are not common in the cities(yet). You would get Rich as hell.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    It really makes little difference who's got what battery. The question is: Who has the Supercharger infrastructure?
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Probably this one http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2013/12/japans-sekisui-chemical-develop-silicon.html?m=1
    Not sure why he assumes Tesla wouldn't have access to the technology, but frankly at 270Wh/kg and $290/kWh it's not that impressive.

    No, it really does matter who has what battery. A significantly better and less expensive battery technology gives a much greater advantage than a charger network. It lowers OEM cost per mile and reduces the number of chargers needed for longer distance travel, which is only a small percentage of driving anyway.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    (a) Taxis tend to be really high-end cars, so more likely Model S than Gen III
    (b) In most places, taxis now need to be wheelchair-accessible. Tesla *could* produce such a vehicle fairly easily. If Tesla were thinking about it, Tesla could make Model X work for this. Unfortunately, from what I can tell, nobody in Tesla management has been thinking in these terms.

    We've discussed Tesla taxis before, I'm not sure where the thread is.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I'm not sure but the Model S cells are at 250Wh/kg and probably around $200/kWh at the cell level now. Pack level density is around 150Wh/kg and priced at $320/kWh at the retail level, (the difference in price between a 60 and 85kWh car after subtracting the supercharger fee). Tesla is probably using the 3.4ah cell in the S and Panasonic has a at least a 4ah cell in the pipeline though I don't know the energy density of it.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    That article, Norse, is very strange. I am not sure whether the term used, "gasoline direct injection", is a term that we use here in the US - "direct injection" as opposed to a carbureted distribution of fuel has, of course, been around for many decades now.

    And, frustratingly, the article did not provide any links to the research cited.

    As far as I understand, the gist of the article was that in order to comply with CO2 emissions reductions mandates, automakers have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in thereupon increasining by immense amounts the quantity of particulates in exhaust. I suppose this could be true, but that runs directly counter to other statutes long on the books regarding NOX and particulate levels.

    Soo.... I'll await more info regarding all this.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Direct Injection is different from the multi-port fuel injection because the fuel is highly pressurized and injected via common line directly into the combustion chamber rather than into the intake tract. See Wikipedia for details:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Since standard EFI engines have virtually unmeasurable particulate emissions, the the fact that GDI engines are 1000x higher is not of immediate concern. Fortunately for consumers, particulate emissions are already regulated. And as it turns out, GDI emissions are below current guidelines. In fact, they are below future proposed European guidelines. However, they will likely exceed future US levels. If that is the case, an exhaust particulate trap will need to be added. Diesel cars already have these.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Theres really no reason for Tesla to worry about the Taxi/fleet car market until they have more supply than demand. There is no doubt in my mind that within 10 years nearly all new Taxi's will be electric. Hopefully Tesla can conquer that market eventually but right now catering to them would be a distraction.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest

    +1 has anyone actually read the rationale of that piece?



    Debt to Equity ratio exceeds industry average. Huh? As far as I know this company's debts comprise convertible bonds and a fantasy figure for GAAP liabilities scheduled to be written off automatically in 2016. As for the industry average how many Tesla's are there in the Tesla industry? I can't see any other cash flow positive electric auto makers demonstrating 100% compound annual growth with profits.

    Quick ratio raises concerns over short term cash?? What? (>$750 Million in the bank and cash flow positive quarter on quarter).

    Net profit of -8.92% What??? Total GAAP fantasy.

    Return on Equity - Fail. If you cannot account for the fact that the bank account is going up (no down) i.e. profits, how can you calculate ROE?

    The rest of it wails on about metrics that compare quarter on quarter results with 12 months ago when the company was not even selling the Model S for the most part.


    Dear [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"member of TheStreet Ratings Staff" shape up! This piece reiterates a load of absolute rubbish. [/FONT]
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I think you hit the nail on the head with the bolded part. This is where all of the TSLA bashers and analysts fall short on TSLA.

    Tesla is a battery company that makes electric vehicles almost exclusively FOR NOW. It will be selling high margin residential and commercial batteries for solar energy storage via SCTY. It will also be selling battery packs for other EV's; Mercedes, Toyota, etc.

    Tesla is just scratching the surface with its business model right now. There is a lot more money to be made in battery storage than there is in electric vehicles.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest

    I have actually been looking at this from an industrial consultancy standpoint: How to design a business to compete with Tesla in the Electric Automotive space.

    For starters, if your business happens to make ICE vehicles for a living you are in world of trouble from supply chain relationships to dealerships to the law (it is a nonsense to say that Tesla's industry peers are a list of legacy auto makers).

    So lets say instead that you want to make a big startup electric automaker. One of the first questions worth asking is what to do with the whole-life economics of batteries and charging. One very tempting answer is to team up with an electrical utility, have that utility purchase the packs and lease them for the first 3 years to car owners. That way the economics of grid storage work out, and so does the economics of driving on pure electricity. This cannot work with batteries that are built into the car and need to be scrapped along with the rest of the vehicle at end of life. Tesla's modular hot-swappable battery packs are the key.

    I would disagree that Tesla has the largest potential as a fixed-storage battery producer - the barrier to entry to making big battery packs is too low. Tesla's future giga factory may well be cost competitive and that piece of business may well be huge, probably so, but Tesla's vehicles will without doubt in my mind continue to compound in volume by 100% annually for a very long time with a very high barrier to the entry of credible competition indeed, enabling it to maintain Apple-like margins on huge volumes and ultimately huge market share.

    I do believe that Tesla has got the long term economics of vehicle batteries under control. The exit strategy for a vehicle pack's residual value in SCTY is all-powerful. That opens up the entire Tesla fleet to regular upgrading at huge profit to both Tesla and SCTY. This path slashes the upgrade cost to the vehicle consumer and slashes the cost of grid storage to the home owner. It is the combined use of a battery in both vehicle and distributed grid storage (24/7 solar) that is the killer proposition where the same cost item serves two entirely separate markets and value propositions sequentially (three when you include eventual recycling).

    The whole life environmental payback is also astonishing.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    That is pretty much what I have been telling people here every time they bring up the battery pack cost and lifetime and recycling and eco footprint. That Tesla is an energy company that produces the best cars and has a way with the battery packs for multiple uses. This will make it a huge profit area for TSLA and right now essentially all analysts are only looking blindly at the car manufacturing. The drivetrain business for others is considered marginal, the SC licensing for others is not accounted, the battery pack sales to SCTY & Co is not accounted for, the recycling of packs as a means to increase GM on re-use is not accounted. Sooner or later the stock will take all of this into account. That's why I'm long TSLA, but as my financial capacities are small I leverage on LEAPs.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Elon posts such an incredible video but less than 40K views. C'mon guys - lets make this a viral hit!! Forward it to every man, woman and dog you know.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TelUR5Bg9zE

    Spread it on!!!
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Beautifully made video. Good to see that the Model S performs well in snowy country!
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    It only has 40k views because it's too long. Most viral videos are less than 60 seconds. 90 seconds tops. It also doesn't have that "ooh I want to watch it again" feeling.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    The Tesla video is 4 minutes long. Of the top 30 most-viewed videos on YouTube, all but one are music videos and roughly 3-5 minutes long.
    The most viewed videos on Youtube in the World of all time - Videotrine.com

    Maybe Tesla needs some Korean dancers in Raybans. :)

    I've watched it four times. But maybe I'm biased.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Probably keep it as a replacement for a faulty or damaged pack, or maybe it will go into a supercharger for load leveling. Certainly the upgrade cost doesn't make it seem worthwhile, he would have done better to do a private sale of his car and then buy an 85, but I guess he wasn't willing to wait, or buy a loaner, or another used 85 from a private seller.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    brilliant that it's all software locks that prevents a 60 from the 85 in performance!
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Actually it's both hardware and software. It's the physical limitations of the smaller battery pack which prevent it from being able to supply the same amount of power as the larger pack, and Tesla sets up software limits to prevent the motor and inverter from trying to pull excess power from the pack which would damage it, or at least age it prematurely.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Take a look to the EV drag racing scene. They go a lot faster than 0-60 in 4 sec. And have much less than 60kWh on board. The pack is not entirely the limiting factor. It is the motor winding design, electronic speed control and throttle curve programming and more. You can program the 85 to always do 8 second 0-60. And you can also program it for sub 4.0 second. But only if the motor has enough power in its design.

    you are right that battery aging is the first thing that happens - based on ion plating. Future battery designs will have to look into ways to get rid of the chemical byproducts so that smaller packs can be used to their full potential.

    Lithium Battery Research: Plating

    Reminds me of lactic acid build up in atheletes. If we didn't generate lactic acid, people could run 3 minute miles and ride bicycles to work everyday 40 miles away. Now, only real cyclists can do such miles after extensive training.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    EV drag racers are using high C rate chemistry, and they don't really care if it lasts 100K miles, or even 100 miles. Completely different animal. I stand by my previous post, the physical limitations of the smaller pack limit the amount of power it can safely produce.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    I concur with JRP3. For the same reason, Toyota had to oversize the battery in the standard Prius in order to deal with the regen charging power. Someday ultracaps could be a better solution than batteries for a standard hybrid.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    or, perhaps, as part of a multi-stage battery. Ultracaps could quickly charge, absorbing power from regen, then slowly discharge into the main battery. Likewise, you could "spin up" the ultracaps to get extra juice for acceleration.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Given that, is there any way possible for NHTSA to then claim a safety defect? "Yes we just gave it a 5 star rating, again, but...."
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Agree, if there would be a possibility for a full blown recall, NHTSA would wait with the affirmation rather than issue it now.
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)