Thứ Sáu, 6 tháng 1, 2017

What Should Elon Include in His Top Secret Master Plan II part 2

  • Jul 13, 2016
    ccutrer
    Pretty decent inverters. And yeah, with a backup genny that large it wouldn't take long to charge everything back up and be good to go for another several days. Now if only you could get your Model S to act as part of your battery bank....! Or even be able to charge it directly with DC. Unless you've got more magic you're hiding up your sleeve and not telling me about...
    �
  • Jul 14, 2016
    SageBrush
    Presuming ~ 50% usable -- about 25 kWh battery capacity ?

    If correct then I am a silly city moron too -- I thought you would say at least 5x that amount, though I realize that heating is from wood.

    Actually, the more I think about this, the less things make sense to me. In the summer I can well imagine your 5 kW array generating ~ 20 - 40 kWh of energy. If your battery array can supply two days, that implies some 40 - 80 kWh of usable storage. My home in Colorado consumes about 4 kWh a day, but this is for two people who turn off lights and are spoiled by modest deer that do not demand coiffures and showers from the guests. I have always figured that I would need 7x my daily consumption of battery storage to keep a backup genset mostly dormant, and this is in a place that gets a whole lot more winter sun that your latitude.

    Sorry for the dumb questions but I am truly very interested and I think that your off-grid setup is wonderful.

    -- Eric
    �
  • Jul 15, 2016
    neroden
    Yeah, I'm just saying that "solving congestion" is an unreasonable and poorly-thought out goal because of induced demand.

    Best to focus on more reasonable goals like "allow people to get work done while travelling" or "allow people to get to their destination faster" or "stop emitting pollution while travelling". The roads (and railways, and sidewalks) will still be jam-packed in popular places, but maybe they'll be jam-packed with happier, healthier, more productive people.
    �
  • Jul 15, 2016
    neroden
    [because AudobonB is]
    Yeah, heating's the hard part, isn't it? I've been wondering how much would be needed in batteries and solar to do all-electric heating in the very cold latitudes. With superinsulation and high-efficiency heat pumps, it's probably much less than most people *think*, but it looks like it will still require too many batteries for almost everyone to consider. It would be good to quantify it better.

    AudubonB provides good proof that everything short of space heating can be handled with batteries and solar -- he's only got about 9 Powerwalls worth of batteries, and I could fit that in my tiny house if I had to! (I know he's still heating his domestic water with combustion, but that could probably be converted to electrical without adding much load, based on what I know. Space heating seems like the big one.)
    �
  • Jul 16, 2016
    MikeC
    The first Secret Master Plan has basically been my TSLA investing thesis since 2011. The fact that it has played out as predicted makes it easy to maintain conviction in the face of all the FUD.

    So I'm really looking forward to SMP2. I'm guessing it won't be anything ground-breaking, but will be a cohesive summation of what Elon's been talking about for the last couple years:

    1) Sustainable generation - manufacturing and installing aesthetic high-efficiency panels for residential, commercial, utility

    2) Energy storage - optimize cost and performance of cells; software-optimized integrated with solar and EV

    3) Sustainable transport - Future models and different vehicle types; autonomy/ride-sharing
    �
  • Jul 16, 2016
    AZ Desert Driver
    If you google his place, there are quite a few trees nearby that he can combust. I think he can still be green when deep in a forest using materials at hand.
    �
  • Jul 17, 2016
    jnuyens
    At least it needs to include something about his VTOL vision, no?
    �
  • Jul 17, 2016
    dkemme
    I installed 10KwH panel system on my house 7 months ago for about $25K, local independent installer, the tax rebates reduced this cost. I'm hoping, even with three EV's in the garage, to break even on my electrical bill. That would pay for the panels after the tax rebates in about 5 years.

    To break from the grid, I would need more PV panels (not a problem) and a lot of storage (problem). My worst winter months generated 22% of my best summer months, that is a lot of storage. This is taking range anxiety (home anxiety) to a new level.
    �
  • Jul 18, 2016
    Ulmo
  • Jul 18, 2016
    electracity
    Solar users aren't going to be leaving the grid post net metering, at least in the U.S. Paying a $30 monthly grid connection fee is a bargain. You can buy all the electricity you want when you need it, and sell back excess.

    The reason to live off grid is to build on inexpensive land that is priced low because of lack of grid access.
    �
  • Jul 18, 2016
    SageBrush
    I thought exactly this way too, until I called up my rural co-op to ask how much it costs to hook up a new house to grid. $6000 for access, and then all the cabling, electrician, boxes, and trough extra. THEN $35 a month access charge.
    �
  • Jul 18, 2016
    TheTalkingMule
    If you live in one of these wacky western states you can also pay an extra $39 random monthly fee for the privilege of getting paid wholesale midnight rates for your peak excess.

    The idea that this nonsense will last much longer is absurd.
    �
  • Jul 18, 2016
    SageBrush
    I agree. A Tesla 30 kWh battery bank is about break-even with my local grid offer today; in two years it is going to be a no-brainer.
    �
  • Jul 18, 2016
    Drivin
    Funny

    Originally he hoped to publish last week

    Prople expected that he would miss that!

    Did he not know there was a launch and did he not build that into his schedule? Lol.
    �
  • Jul 18, 2016
    Drivin
    CEO: I am doing my job by developing a plan for the future

    Media: Ohhh. Ahhhh. Ohhhh. Ahhhh. Yippee. Ohhhhhhhhh.

    Pathetic that this is the state of the media and company marketing. They deserve each other.
    �
  • Jul 18, 2016
    S?XY P100D
    With all the frequent tragedies lately, tweets from Elon and new development from his companies are some of the few things that should really excite everyone nowadays.

    The world is going through major changes right before our eyes - both good and bad. I'll welcome the good, thanks!
    �
  • Jul 19, 2016
    Drivin
    Not everyone is excited by materialistic things, particularly 100k+ cars ("oh no, a tragedy, let's go to the mall or a Tesla store to be happy!)
    Some people find more meaningful things to be excited about, particularly during "frequent tragedies"
    �
  • Jul 19, 2016
    Drivin
    To answer the OP:

    I think he should include a table of contents.

    Sounds like it is going to be huuuuge.
    �
  • Jul 19, 2016
    EinSV
    Since the "Secret Master Plan 2" may be a Master Product Plan, for the automotive side of the business it would be great to have some hints on a rough timeline for the Model Y (Model 3 SUVCUV version), the next generation, less expensive model after the Model 3 and the new Roadster. All of these have already been discussed by Elon and I expect that at least the design of the Model Y is pretty far along.

    Model Y will help Tesla jump from 500K vehicles per year to 1M, and building a CUV/SUV on the Model 3 platform should be reasonably straightforward.

    The next generation product beyond the Model 3 will truly be a game changer for the industry, and given the rapid reduction in Tesla's battery costs I expect it won't be too far in the future. Since BEV owners are roughly 10 times as likely to buy a solar system, the roadmap for the future BEV business also has major implications for Tesla Energy.
    �
  • Jul 19, 2016
    dakh
    Commend on thread title. Elon should do whatever he thinks he needs to do. We can guess what the'll publish, or we can make up our own.

    I expect this to be strongly related to SCTY merger and don't expect to see anything groundbreaking, like more details on the "city transit solution that is too early to talk to public about". If that happens that'd be a pleasant surprise to me. The one thing I'm a little bit hopeful for is to see where automated driving fits in the long term picture. On one hand it's probably difficult to have a longer term roadmap without it being on that map, on the other hand might be too early to release what the plans are.
    �
  • Jul 19, 2016
    SBenson
    Not too early at all.

    Elon hinted that they will release next gen hardware in about 6 months or so. Next gen hardware is supposed to be full autonomous capable, although software will probably come in incrementally.

    A masterplan which is meant to be a product roadmap for a decade or so will most certainly have it.
    �
  • Jul 19, 2016
    dakh
    That's true and that'd probably indicate extreme confidence that competition is so far behind that there's no point in keeping those details private.
    �
  • Jul 20, 2016
    Ulmo
    Elon Musk Verified account ?@elonmusk

    Post should go live on Tesla website around 5pm
    12:07 PM - 20 Jul 2016
    -------
    Elon Musk Verified account ?@elonmusk

    California time
    12:07 PM - 20 Jul 2016
    =======

    Ok, so now it is 5:46 PM California Time, and nothing I can find on Tesla.Com or IR.Tesla.Com, or Twitter. But, what I read in his messages are writings of a desperate man trying to claim upcoming achievement without the means to actually guarantee it. It's too bad, really, since he's in a situation where he has no one to fall back on to help him.

    I'm guessing after the right naps, breaks, and stuff, around 9PM today or 5PM tomorrow is realistic. The problem is if he delays, someone else's fangs could grab hold of it and wrest it from him, and by fangs, I mean lawyers. Let's see that mission critical thrust before the lawyers quelch it.
    �
  • Jul 20, 2016
    Ulmo
  • Jul 20, 2016
    Ulmo
    And, copy from that link ( Master Plan, Part Deux )

    Master Plan, Part Deux
    Elon Musk July 20, 2016
    The first master plan that I wrote 10 years ago is now in the final stages of completion. It wasn't all that complicated and basically consisted of:

    1. Create a low volume car, which would necessarily be expensive
    2. Use that money to develop a medium volume car at a lower price
    3. Use that money to create an affordable, high volume car
      And...
    4. Provide solar power. No kidding, this has literally been on our website for 10 years.
    The reason we had to start off with step 1 was that it was all I could afford to do with what I made from PayPal. I thought our chances of success were so low that I didn't want to risk anyone's funds in the beginning but my own. The list of successful car company startups is short. As of 2016, the number of American car companies that haven't gone bankrupt is a grand total of two: Ford and Tesla. Starting a car company is idiotic and an electric car company is idiocy squared.

    Also, a low volume car means a much smaller, simpler factory, albeit with most things done by hand. Without economies of scale, anything we built would be expensive, whether it was an economy sedan or a sports car. While at least some people would be prepared to pay a high price for a sports car, no one was going to pay $100k for an electric Honda Civic, no matter how cool it looked.

    Part of the reason I wrote the first master plan was to defend against the inevitable attacks Tesla would face accusing us of just caring about making cars for rich people, implying that we felt there was a shortage of sports car companies or some other bizarre rationale. Unfortunately, the blog didn't stop countless attack articles on exactly these grounds, so it pretty much completely failed that objective.

    However, the main reason was to explain how our actions fit into a larger picture, so that they would seem less random. The point of all this was, and remains, accelerating the advent of sustainable energy, so that we can imagine far into the future and life is still good. That's what "sustainable" means. It's not some silly, hippy thing -- it matters for everyone.

    By definition, we must at some point achieve a sustainable energy economy or we will run out of fossil fuels to burn and civilization will collapse. Given that we must get off fossil fuels anyway and that virtually all scientists agree that dramatically increasing atmospheric and oceanic carbon levels is insane, the faster we achieve sustainability, the better.

    Here is what we plan to do to make that day come sooner:

    Integrate Energy Generation and Storage
    Create a smoothly integrated and beautiful solar-roof-with-battery product that just works, empowering the individual as their own utility, and then scale that throughout the world. One ordering experience, one installation, one service contact, one phone app.

    We can't do this well if Tesla and SolarCity are different companies, which is why we need to combine and break down the barriers inherent to being separate companies. That they are separate at all, despite similar origins and pursuit of the same overarching goal of sustainable energy, is largely an accident of history. Now that Tesla is ready to scale Powerwall and SolarCity is ready to provide highly differentiated solar, the time has come to bring them together.

    Expand to Cover the Major Forms of Terrestrial Transport
    Today, Tesla addresses two relatively small segments of premium sedans and SUVs. With the Model 3, a future compact SUV and a new kind of pickup truck, we plan to address most of the consumer market. A lower cost vehicle than the Model 3 is unlikely to be necessary, because of the third part of the plan described below.

    What really matters to accelerate a sustainable future is being able to scale up production volume as quickly as possible. That is why Tesla engineering has transitioned to focus heavily on designing the machine that makes the machine -- turning the factory itself into a product. A first principles physics analysis of automotive production suggests that somewhere between a 5 to 10 fold improvement is achievable by version 3 on a roughly 2 year iteration cycle. The first Model 3 factory machine should be thought of as version 0.5, with version 1.0 probably in 2018.

    In addition to consumer vehicles, there are two other types of electric vehicle needed: heavy-duty trucks and high passenger-density urban transport. Both are in the early stages of development at Tesla and should be ready for unveiling next year. We believe the Tesla Semi will deliver a substantial reduction in the cost of cargo transport, while increasing safety and making it really fun to operate.

    With the advent of autonomy, it will probably make sense to shrink the size of buses and transition the role of bus driver to that of fleet manager. Traffic congestion would improve due to increased passenger areal density by eliminating the center aisle and putting seats where there are currently entryways, and matching acceleration and braking to other vehicles, thus avoiding the inertial impedance to smooth traffic flow of traditional heavy buses. It would also take people all the way to their destination. Fixed summon buttons at existing bus stops would serve those who don't have a phone. Design accommodates wheelchairs, strollers and bikes.

    Autonomy
    As the technology matures, all Tesla vehicles will have the hardware necessary to be fully self-driving with fail-operational capability, meaning that any given system in the car could break and your car will still drive itself safely. It is important to emphasize that refinement and validation of the software will take much longer than putting in place the cameras, radar, sonar and computing hardware.

    Even once the software is highly refined and far better than the average human driver, there will still be a significant time gap, varying widely by jurisdiction, before true self-driving is approved by regulators. We expect that worldwide regulatory approval will require something on the order of 6 billion miles (10 billion km). Current fleet learning is happening at just over 3 million miles (5 million km) per day.

    I should add a note here to explain why Tesla is deploying partial autonomy now, rather than waiting until some point in the future. The most important reason is that, when used correctly, it is already significantly safer than a person driving by themselves and it would therefore be morally reprehensible to delay release simply for fear of bad press or some mercantile calculation of legal liability.

    According to the recently released 2015 NHTSA report, automotive fatalities increased by 8% to one death every 89 million miles. Autopilot miles will soon exceed twice that number and the system gets better every day. It would no more make sense to disable Tesla's Autopilot, as some have called for, than it would to disable autopilot in aircraft, after which our system is named.

    It is also important to explain why we refer to Autopilot as "beta". This is not beta software in any normal sense of the word. Every release goes through extensive internal validation before it reaches any customers. It is called beta in order to decrease complacency and indicate that it will continue to improve (Autopilot is always off by default). Once we get to the point where Autopilot is approximately 10 times safer than the US vehicle average, the beta label will be removed.

    Sharing
    When true self-driving is approved by regulators, it will mean that you will be able to summon your Tesla from pretty much anywhere. Once it picks you up, you will be able to sleep, read or do anything else enroute to your destination.

    You will also be able to add your car to the Tesla shared fleet just by tapping a button on the Tesla phone app and have it generate income for you while you're at work or on vacation, significantly offsetting and at times potentially exceeding the monthly loan or lease cost. This dramatically lowers the true cost of ownership to the point where almost anyone could own a Tesla. Since most cars are only in use by their owner for 5% to 10% of the day, the fundamental economic utility of a true self-driving car is likely to be several times that of a car which is not.

    In cities where demand exceeds the supply of customer-owned cars, Tesla will operate its own fleet, ensuring you can always hail a ride from us no matter where you are.

    So, in short, Master Plan, Part Deux is:

    Create stunning solar roofs with seamlessly integrated battery storage
    Expand the electric vehicle product line to address all major segments
    Develop a self-driving capability that is 10X safer than manual via massive fleet learning
    Enable your car to make money for you when you aren't using it



    * * * * *

    FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS; ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

    Certain statements in this blog post, such as those about future products, services and features, are �forward-looking statements� that are subject to risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations. Various important factors could cause actual results to differ materially. Tesla disclaims any obligation to update this information.

    This communication is not an offer or a solicitation of an offer to purchase, sell or exchange securities or a solicitation of a proxy from any stockholder. Subject to future developments, additional documents regarding the proposed transaction may be filed with the SEC, which investors should read carefully if and when they become available because they contain important information. Investors may obtain a free copy of the documents filed by Tesla, when they are available, from the SEC�s website at www.sec.gov. Tesla, its directors and certain of its executive officers may be deemed to be participants in a solicitation of proxies for the proposed transaction. Information about the directors and executive officers of Tesla is set forth in its proxy statement for the 2016 annual meeting of stockholders, as filed with the SEC, and will be included in the relevant documents regarding the proposed transaction filed with the SEC.
    �
  • Jul 20, 2016
    Ulmo
    I'm going to start my discussion of it here. Moderators, sorry if you have to move it to a "post-release" discussion thread.

    I bolded some part of the quote and italicized another part. The bolded part I agree with. The italicized part then assumes this all has to be done worldwide, by one company. While I agree with most of the efforts, it seems like there's a skip of logic about who will achieve that, and the skip skips over the very question, does it need to be the same company? I'm sure he'll get to that later in the post, but I just wanted to point that out right off the start. This has been related to my main complaint of TSLA subsuming SCTY from the beginning. But, obviously, since he's responding to this (at least somewhat), I definitely will be reading on to see what I think.

    Continuing on: Repeating that above last sentence quoted (italics mine):
    Here, he claims that those two should be together. I have come to agree, if "Solar City" is placeholder for "Some Decent Solar Company" (read below for what I think of Solar City in specific). I came to it from a different angle, but I had to sleep on it a long time to see this. Here's my vision, and I can let you see this from other angles once I put it out there:

    He gets his Physics First principles density Model 3 factory flying at top speed, and Model 3's are coming out at a speed so fast that he has to get special dispensation from the State of California and the many Counties to have the Model 3's self-drive to their California customers between the hours of 3AM and 4AM every night, Tuesday-Friday (early mornings), and no human being is there to introduce the new car to the new customers. Then, they call the electrical installer for their charging station, and the solar panel installer, and the battery installer. This is basically an electrician and associated support and sales staff. That means the main person the buyer of the Tesla Model 3 car will speak to is some (well meaning) electrician, and not a Tesla store representative doing the walk-through of the car.

    Even if my silly balls-to-the-walls factory delivery self-driving option is not real, the idea that the representative to introduce the car is some local electrician who has been driving an ICE car his whole life is probably not the best front for the company is still true. It is this single source issue that becomes interesting to me in how Tesla as a car + energy company relates to its customers. This is what I wish Elon would have explained better when they announced the SCTY buyout option, because he has to know SCTY as an independent company has a legacy of financing and customer experience going on that is what most of us shareholders and the public that wants Tesla and its missions to succeed sees.

    ---

    Further down after more boilerplate:

    I have been expecting that for a long time. I was already thinking less of them for not being more forthcoming about this. Finally seeing it stated outright is saving a lot of grace.

    He goes into a bunch of obvious (to me) stuff related to that, to make certain everyone's on the same page, which is important, but I don't see the need to repeat here, since I personally find it redundant.

    Reading on ... bullets mine, bullet text from Elon post:
    Let me re-bullet those with numbers for my discussion:
    I agree with step 2, and have been shouting it from roof tops for a while.

    Steps 3 and 4 are future looking financial results, off of future efficiencies from automation. This will happen industry-wide. Probably Tesla has to do it. And probably it will work to make the Model 3 affordable to everyone in first world countries, and eventually everywhere that cars are used, but I still think that is a work of art for the competitive marketplace, in which Tesla is a part, and so I think Tesla has its part to play, so I'm all for step 3 & 4 as future thinking financial steps, so I support them as such. And to the point of whether they are relevant to the master plan, I do think they are relevant, because I think they will succeed, so this is fine to plan for.

    That only leaves my biggest current issue, step 1:

    Nothing new was stated with regard to step 1 in the message that I was able to discern except for my excerpt above and the new information I gleened from it in my own dreams (literally) over the last week or two regarding the single customer point. I'll recap my thoughts about SCTY + TSLA:

    Let's take out the legacy of financials and customer experiences Solar City brings with it to the table for a moment, and look at Tesla as a Solar + Battery + Car company:

    Solar + Battery + Car is a lot of money for a new car buyer to be putting down. Perhaps they could get all three on loan, using all three as their own collateral for that loan. That would defray some of the risks associated with that loan, and allow lower interest rates and greater amounts of financing for an individual that would only normally be able to afford one of those components alone on traditional and current financing models. Everything of this product lineup being under one roof would facilitate that type of financing. I haven't seen anything in writing saying Tesla would approach customer financial options from this angle, though. However, this is one case where the legacy of questionable financing operations at Solar City allows for this type of thinking moving forward with less questions from financial business analysts, and bringing in that type of dirty work actually has a positive side.

    Having one company provide all three (solar, solar storage, transportation (solar+battery+car)) makes a single point of contact for the product lineup. This would allow the customer experience to be devoid of the phone tag and confusion that comes with multiple providers. For instance, I just got off of the phone and email with two pharmacies and my Doctor's office for a single prescription medicine I use, and that's a simple pill. There are actually over half a dozen companies involved with that pill. I can hardly consider a more complicated scenereo than the multitude of companies a new Tesla Model 3 + Solar + Battery buyer would have to put up with if each came from different companies, including the charger installer, the electricians, the governments, and everything else involved. Making a single point of contact into one company that self-solves its own issues would fix all that. But, this has only been hinted at by Elon. However, hinting at it is better than not even mentioning it to me. I'd like to see concrete statements that once an issue is brought by a customer (or item that is requesting maintenance) to the single point of contact at Tesla, that Tesla then turns around and actually acts on this without any type of error message that has nothing to do with the customer (analogous to "We screwed up. Please click GO to have us try to fix this problem again. Yes, we just said that to you, our esteemed customer. Yes, try calling us again. Hahahahaha!" that we see every day from other companies).

    Finally, in terms of marketing, it is true that selling one turnkey package is a far easier thing to do for consumers of the Model 3 than a mismash of a concept that others will eventually do. Making it real for the buyer up front with one point of contact would go a long way toward sales claims, advertising, even and especially if it is only viral word of mouth advertising, and customer service. When the inevitable problems arise with "the Tesla stuff", they only have to call the Tesla contact number, and a Tesla service person will get back to them to walk through the details of whatever button, cord, gear, beam or plate didn't do its job as expected, and theoretically, this will eliminate or cut down a lot of phone/email/text tag, and just get it done. I think this is a make-or-break differentiation that while could be done with deep partnerships could also be done in-house.

    Now, getting back to my point of legacy SCTY financing and customer experiences, I think Elon wants us to eat the whole bowl of oatmeal, along with its yucky sugar, yucky butter, yummy raisins, and yucky cream, and not complain. While I might chuck afterwards because of the butter, I will at least understand that there's at least some oatmeal in there, and perhaps future bowls of oatmeal will exclude the butter, sugar, and cream, and just keep the raisins. For this reason, although I've never really agreed with the concept that it HAS to be Solar City, if Tesla does absorb the specific company Solar City into itself and does FIX ITS LEGACY FINANCING AND CUSTOMER EXPERIENCES (whether just not practicing bad stuff in the future, or actually going back and putting out some fires), if it doesn't go hog-wild with the pitfalls of Solar City and rights its ship in that regard, then the rest of the plan makes perfect sense. It's kind of like we get the whole package, including some of the riff raff that came along for the ride. And if that happens, I think Tesla can still succeed, and if executed properly, can do so very well.

    It does, however, make Tesla Motors Club far more interesting, since we have a lot more to complain about within Tesla, and there will be a lot more interesting work to make sure Tesla succeeds at its missions and to some extent its profitability.
    �
  • Jul 20, 2016
    dakh
    Heh, called all 3 of the pieces correctly. Solar+battery, more transport types, AP. Didn't expect it all to be out in plain sight like that though.
    �
  • Jul 20, 2016
    Ulmo
    Here's from his posting August 2, 2006, from The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (just between you and me)
    -------
    The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (just between you and me)
    Elon Musk, Co-Founder & CEO of Tesla Motors August 2, 2006
    Background: My day job is running a space transportation company called SpaceX, but on the side I am the chairman of Tesla Motors and help formulate the business and product strategy with Martin and the rest of the team. I have also been Tesla Motor's primary funding source from when the company was just three people and a business plan.

    As you know, the initial product of Tesla Motors is a high performance electric sports car called the Tesla Roadster. However, some readers may not be aware of the fact that our long term plan is to build a wide range of models, including affordably priced family cars. This is because the overarching purpose of Tesla Motors (and the reason I am funding the company) is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy, which I believe to be the primary, but not exclusive, sustainable solution.

    Critical to making that happen is an electric car without compromises, which is why the Tesla Roadster is designed to beat a gasoline sports car like a Porsche or Ferrari in a head to head showdown. Then, over and above that fact, it has twice the energy efficiency of a Prius. Even so, some may question whether this actually does any good for the world. Are we really in need of another high performance sports car? Will it actually make a difference to global carbon emissions?

    Well, the answers are no and not much. However, that misses the point, unless you understand the secret master plan alluded to above. Almost any new technology initially has high unit cost before it can be optimized and this is no less true for electric cars. The strategy of Tesla is to enter at the high end of the market, where customers are prepared to pay a premium, and then drive down market as fast as possible to higher unit volume and lower prices with each successive model.

    Without giving away too much, I can say that the second model will be a sporty four door family car at roughly half the $89k price point of the Tesla Roadster and the third model will be even more affordable. In keeping with a fast growing technology company, all free cash flow is plowed back into R&D to drive down the costs and bring the follow on products to market as fast as possible. When someone buys the Tesla Roadster sports car, they are actually helping pay for development of the low cost family car.

    Now I�d like to address two repeated arguments against electric vehicles � battery disposal and power plant emissions. The answer to the first is short and simple, the second requires a bit of math:

    Batteries that are not toxic to the environment!
    I wouldn�t recommend them as a dessert topping, but the Tesla Motors Lithium-Ion cells are not classified as hazardous and are landfill safe. However, dumping them in the trash would be throwing money away, since the battery pack can be sold to recycling companies (unsubsidized) at the end of its greater than 100,000-mile design life. Moreover, the battery isn�t dead at that point, it just has less range.

    Power Plant Emissions aka �The Long Tailpipe�
    (For a more detailed version of this argument, please see the white paper written by Martin and Marc.)

    A common rebuttal to electric vehicles as a solution to carbon emissions is that they simply transfer the CO2 emissions to the power plant. The obvious counter is that one can develop grid electric power from a variety of means, many of which, like hydro, wind, geothermal, nuclear, solar, etc. involve no CO2 emissions. However, let�s assume for the moment that the electricity is generated from a hydrocarbon source like natural gas, the most popular fuel for new US power plants in recent years.

    The H-System Combined Cycle Generator from General Electric is 60% efficient in turning natural gas into electricity. "Combined Cycle" is where the natural gas is burned to generate electricity and then the waste heat is used to create steam that powers a second generator. Natural gas recovery is 97.5% efficient, processing is also 97.5% efficient and then transmission efficiency over the electric grid is 92% on average. This gives us a well-to-electric-outlet efficiency of 97.5% x 97.5% x 60% x 92% = 52.5%.

    Despite a body shape, tires and gearing aimed at high performance rather than peak efficiency, the Tesla Roadster requires 0.4 MJ per kilometer or, stated another way, will travel 2.53 km per mega-joule of electricity. The full cycle charge and discharge efficiency of the Tesla Roadster is 86%, which means that for every 100 MJ of electricity used to charge the battery, about 86 MJ reaches the motor.

    Bringing the math together, we get the final figure of merit of 2.53 km/MJ x 86% x 52.5% = 1.14 km/MJ. Let�s compare that to the Prius and a few other options normally considered energy efficient.

    The fully considered well-to-wheel efficiency of a gasoline powered car is equal to the energy content of gasoline (34.3 MJ/liter) minus the refinement & transportation losses (18.3%), multiplied by the miles per gallon or km per liter. The Prius at an EPA rated 55 mpg therefore has an energy efficiency of 0.56 km/MJ. This is actually an excellent number compared with a �normal� car like the Toyota Camry at 0.28 km/MJ.

    Note the term hybrid as applied to cars currently on the road is a misnomer. They are really just gasoline powered cars with a little battery assistance and, unless you are one of the handful who have an aftermarket hack, the little battery has to be charged from the gasoline engine. Therefore, they can be considered simply as slightly more efficient gasoline powered cars. If the EPA certified mileage is 55 mpg, then it is indistinguishable from a non-hybrid that achieves 55 mpg. As a friend of mine says, a world 100% full of Prius drivers is still 100% addicted to oil.

    The CO2 content of any given source fuel is well understood. Natural gas is 14.4 grams of carbon per mega-joule and oil is 19.9 grams of carbon per mega-joule. Applying those carbon content levels to the vehicle efficiencies, including as a reference the Honda combusted natural gas and Honda fuel cell natural gas vehicles, the hands down winner is pure electric:

    Car Energy Source CO2 Content Efficiency CO2 Emissions
    Honda CNG Natural Gas 14.4 g/MJ 0.32 km/MJ 45.0 g/km
    Honda FCX Nat Gas-Fuel Cell 14.4 g/MJ 0.35 km/MJ 41.1 g/km
    Toyota Prius Oil 19.9 g/MJ 0.56 km/MJ 35.8 g/km
    Tesla Roadster Nat Gas-Electric 14.4 g/MJ 1.14 km/MJ 12.6 g/km


    The Tesla Roadster still wins by a hefty margin if you assume the average CO2 per joule of US power production. The higher CO2 content of coal compared to natural gas is offset by the negligible CO2 content of hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar, etc. The exact power production mixture varies from one part of the country to another and is changing over time, so natural gas is used here as a fixed yardstick.

    Becoming Energy Positive
    I should mention that Tesla Motors will be co-marketing sustainable energy products from other companies along with the car. For example, among other choices, we will be offering a modestly sized and priced solar panel from SolarCity, a photovoltaics company (where I am also the principal financier). This system can be installed on your roof in an out of the way location, because of its small size, or set up as a carport and will generate about 50 miles per day of electricity.

    If you travel less than 350 miles per week, you will therefore be �energy positive� with respect to your personal transportation. This is a step beyond conserving or even nullifying your use of energy for transport � you will actually be putting more energy back into the system than you consume in transportation! So, in short, the master plan is:

    1. Build sports car
    2. Use that money to build an affordable car
    3. Use that money to build an even more affordable car
    4. While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
    Don't tell anyone.
    �
  • Jul 20, 2016
    Ulmo
    So, here's what he wrote August 2, 2006:

    Here's what he wrote today (July 20, 2016):
    So, he did say he would offer a solar panel from Solar City ("among other choices"), 10 years ago. This part is true. It wasn't spelled out that Tesla would buy Solar City. But the solar panel part was. Also, it says right there he was "also the principal financier", so there might have been an implied pairing. I'm going to eat crow right now since I didn't know that text existed. But I'll at least point out that that was 10 years ago, and he can still be true to his word by doing deep partnerships instead, but obviously, that's not the path he wants to take now; he wants full integration, and I'm seeing now how that can make sense under one roof at this time. And, I agree, as far as future products are concerned.
    �
  • Jul 21, 2016
    Drivin
    Well, since the average new car price in the US is around 34k, they still haven't built an affordable car, so I am not sure why they are already moving to the next plan. Unless this is the typical "hype, don't deliver, but that is okay, here is even more hype" strategy.
    �
  • Jul 21, 2016
    Drivin
    Well, 10 years later there still is no option for that and buying SCTY gets rid of the consumer choice of "other choices" and it limits the competitive pressure for companies to compete for the Tesla customer if Tesla has a captive solution. This all seems very anti-silicon valley, anticompetitive.
    �
  • Jul 21, 2016
    Model 3
    You are correct that they have not yet produced/delivered this affordable mass-marked car. But you are not correct on that they are "moving" to the next plan. They do now see the end of the the first plan with Model 3 production only about 1 year away. And this is on high time to plan for - and communicate to the investors and customers - the future after this. But they will still fulfill the first plan. Investors and customers want to know "what's next?"

    ... whenever the content of the new plan - or more correct: the continuation of the first plan - is "hype, don't deliver, but that is okay, here is even more hype" or not is an another debate. But I do really believe they will deliver on all parts of the first plan.
    �
  • Jul 21, 2016
    dakh
    The new plan needed to be published because completion of the first one is within striking distance. Folks who work at Tesla/support Tesla need to know what the long term goals are. The master plan is not for Wall Street to make investment decisions by. It's Elon's job as a CEO to frame the company strategy. He might as well only publish it internally, but I guess his style is to be even more open and just keep the cards face up on the table.
    �
  • Jul 21, 2016
    neroden
    It's mostly excellent. I want to be clear on that because I'm about to be very negative about a couple of points.

    The problems I've identified with it (places where Musk is being dumb and I know more than he does):
    -- Musk just revealed that he doesn't understand mass transportation in urban areas or the *fundamental physics and geometry constraints on it* at all, and if he tries his plan regarding buses as stated it will be a spectacular belly-flop fail, because he hasn't done his research. I suppose he's been busy, but I hope he doesn't burn too much stockholder money on his moronic ideas about buses. He needs to talk to someone who actually understands the field -- there are thousands, and he's obviously never talked to a single one. He's pretty much advertising that he's ignorant here. Too much time living in the suburbs, maybe; everything about the paragraph *reeks* of suburban thinking. He could phone up Jarrett Walker if he wants someone who's become mildly prominent, but there are thousands of us who can tell him the same things that he's missing. I won't list them off here, since it's an entire lecture. If Musk is gently led through the problems one by one and fixes them, he'll eventually find he's designing a train. :p
    -- People won't lend out their cars to Tesla to rent as self-driving taxis until the insurance issues are settled, which will take way, way longer than he thinks, since he didn't even *mention* the insurance issues. Regulators are actually the easy step. Uber and Lyft haven't solved the insurance issues yet, and with them the person driving has the illusion of control -- handing your self-driving car over to a random person, the first thought is "what happens if it gets in a crash"? Satisfying people that they're protected from catastrophic exposure is hard. Tesla is not in a position to become an insurance company (it requires sitting on huge piles of cash). People lending their cars to Tesla for rental will happen *eventually*, but it would be a good bet to double his timeline. 6 years for the regulators? Maybe. It'll be at least another 6 years before insurance is available for renting out your self-driving car. Insurance companies move really slowly and are very conservative.
    -- True self-driving will never work on bad rural roads. I literally mean never. It's not going to happen, because the road environment is much too unpredictable, -- and the number of cars driving on those roads is low enough that they're not going to get enough miles driven on them to work out the corner cases. He is way too optimistic about this and has obviously not really thought about it, probably because there are so few rural roads in California. Even if it *did*, houses are too far apart to simply summon someone else's car and wait four hours for it to arrive -- everyone will need their own car. And most people in rural areas are now poor, so most of the cars will need to be cheaper than model 3. On the other hand, given that 80.7% of the US population (and *rising*) lives in urban areas, this is arguably not very important -- the 20% in the rural areas will probably buy used cars.
    �
  • Jul 21, 2016
    dakh
    Ugh. There's maybe 3 real cities in US, NYC, Chicago and Boston. Everything else is mostly suburbia with a bit of a downtown. Computer optimized transportation that doesn't have fixed "routes" and simply dispatches transport exactly where it's needed at the moment with real time route optimization is fundamentally different beast compared to anything else out there now. If anything, it's the opposite of a train.

    If cars are self driving with 10x+ lower accident rate, most of auto insurance companies would be in the beginning stages of going out of business. It's a non-issue. Insurance liability may be somewhat higher but payout probability is way lower.

    Humans can drive on rural roads. They have less sensors than a car. AI will be trained to do this just fine. It'll happen, for sure.
    �
  • Jul 21, 2016
    Drivin
    The Model 3 is only step 2.
    Step 3 is create "an even more affordable car".
    So the end of the first plan is much more than 1 year away.

    Striking distance? When is this "even more affordable car" coming out? 3 years? 4 years? And I mean in normal time, not "Tesla Time".

    I am sure employees would prefer to know when Elon will stop sleeping on a cot at the end of the production line and the support costs have been lowered and the delays in providing support is reduced by addressing the quality issues in the products rather than knowing what may happen in 4+ years in Tesla Time.
    �
  • Jul 21, 2016
    dakh
    You're shifted by 1 step it looks like. Roadster was step 1, S/X step 2, 3 is step 3. Like the latest secret plan says, there's no need for an even cheaper version since folks who want to pay even less can just ride-share. Within striking distance means they got it designed, they probably know pretty well by now what the cost is going to be, so yea that part just needs plain old execution. It's not inspiration anymore, it's just work to be done.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    Model 3
    No. Model 3 = Gen-III = step 3 of the master-plan #1. That is the car I have been waiting for since I read the master-plan about 10 years ago. If you don't believe me, just see the unveiling of Model 3 - there he lines up the master-plan step 1, 2 and 3 (he even mentions Model X as "step 2.5").
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    Drivin
    LOL
    Some people here think a 100k car is an "affordable car".

    And to follow that up with a 130k car that as @Model 3 mentions , Elon says is step 2.5.

    Yeah. 130k is even closer to an affordable car than the S (since it is 2.5)

    Yeah. That's the ticket. Lol.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    Krugerrand
    You're being purposely obtuse. It's in writing. All you have to do is scroll up.

    1. Roadster, expensive, low production volume vehicle
    2. Model S, less expensive, medium production volume vehicle
    3. Model 3, more affordable, high production volume vehicle

    So, no. Some people here do not believe a 100k car is an 'affordable' car in context.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    Model 3
    It was a 50k base price (after federal incentives / 40kWs battery) when they started to ship the car. And it is still under 100k base price, USD66k for a RWD TMS60. Maybe not very affordable, but more affordable then the Tesla Roadster.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    Drivin

    So we agree that they have yet to put out an affordable vehicle according to the original secret plan.

    The average new car is around 33k (and that includes whatever options are included, not just the "get you in the door with a low stripped down base price"). The average out the door price of a Model S is way higher than that.

    Tesla has always promoted the S as a premium vehicle, so maybe they meant "affordable for the 1 percent class" LOL.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    Drivin
    You are shifting the goal posts.
    All you need to do is look at the original plan. It's in writing. Scroll Up. It is there.
    Here, I will help you.
    1. Build sports car
    2. Use that money to build an affordable car
    3. Use that money to build an even more affordable car
    4. While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
    Don't tell anyone.

    So they still haven't gotten to the second step since we agree that 100k car is not an "affordable car".
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    anticitizen13.7
    This argument is very ignorant.

    Model S is not a "100k car". The base price for a Model S is around 60k after tax incentives. A Honda Civic sedan in top Touring trim costs around 27k including destination, but it would be inaccurate to paint the Honda Civic as a 27k car, when the baseline LX trim vehicle is around 19k.

    "Affordable" is also a relative term. I know people for whom a 19k Honda Civic is not even close to affordable.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    Drivin
    Funny you calling the argument ignorant.

    I don't know why you would say the baseline price of a car defines the pricing description of the car unless you think that is the average sale is for the baseline, no option model.

    The average sales price of a Model S is a lot closer to 100k than it is to 60k .
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    anticitizen13.7
    It is ignorant and your denial changes nothing.

    The average sale price is irrelevant, because because buyers aren't required to buy a vehicle at the average price. The Model S is available to someone with a 60-65k purchasing budget.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    dakh
    You're not making any sense, sorry I'll have to bow out of this conversation. Model 3 will be plenty affordable, about the average car sale price in US. For those that can't afford that one, there will be ride sharing. As far as solving the sustainable transportation problem, with whatever they are coming up for urban transit plus model 3, sustainable personal travel would be available to most. Factor in some more cost reductions on batteries as they get better, and it's definitely in the bag.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    Model 3
    No, but I hope we could agree that everything is relative. Compared to the base price of the Roadster the base price of the Model S is affordable. Compared to a Civic - or even my bank account it is not ;)

    The point of the MP#1 was not "build a car at the average car price, and then build an even cheaper car". It was all the way: start at the top price and move downwards. How far down was not mentioned in that plan.

    ... and by the way: the only reasonable price to look at is the base price, not the average. Just as @anticitizen13.7 wrote.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    SBenson
    Why no PowerPacks in SMP 2.0?

    Add: Asking about PowerPacks, not PowerWalls
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    jkk_
    Expected starting price in Finland is guessed to be around 40k EUR. Not exactly affordable by any measure. What a strange notion to suggest that if someone cannot pay 40k EUR in a car then they shouldn't have one but should use ridesharing.

    Edit: What I mean there are plenty of more affordable vehicles they are more likely to purchase. Unfortunately those vehicles are at this point ICEs.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    dakh
    With fuel prices in Europe I suspect that if we look at true cost to own and operate a cheap ICE car, it would be much more at par with Model 3. But yea, that's why they want to build factories in Europe and Asia -- importing cars from US is quite inefficient.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    dakh
    $140K two seater is a totally different beast than an $70K family hauler. You gotta consider what is the value proposition is, Model S is a hell of a lot of value for the money. Roadster, not so much. It is clearly more affordable, just look at sales figures. Master plan didn't say "cheap car". Affordable is a relative term. If you want a luxury sedan, Model S is very price competitive within that segment.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    Drivin
    So you believe that a car that is 2x the average price of a car and $11k more than the median U.S. household income is considered an "affordable car" even though the company markets it as a "premium" car.

    Well, okay. That is the silliest thing I heard today.

    The original plan said that Step 2 is an affordable car, if you think that getting all the way down to a $65k price for a stripped down model, fits the description of an "affordable" car, then you can say he accomplished Step 2.

    It said an "affordable car". It didn't say price competitive, it didn't say "cheaper than the Roadster".

    Remember everyone here was talking about the comparison of sales to the BMW 5 series, Mercedes S class and others - no one was comparing it to the "affordable" class of Camry, Accord, etc in terms of sales and price competitiveness. LOL.

    Affordable is relative, but a car that is relatively speaking 2x the price of the average new car (almost 3x if you look at the out the door, optioned price) is hardly a car that is the category of "affordable cars".

    With the 3, they will finally get close to the second step of the original secret master plan and deliver an affordable car.

    BTW, someone pointed out that Musk claimed the X was step 2.5. Which is midway between an affordable car and an even more affordable car. I missed the "fact" that the X was a lot cheaper than the S.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    dakh
    @Drivin my man why so many words for nothing? Do you not agree that the progress on the original master plan is such that it doesn't look 10 years into the future anymore?
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    anticitizen13.7
    Fail.

    Let's review what the original secret plan from 2006 actually said, rather than just the summary:

    The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (just between you and me)

    The fifth paragraph of the post states:

    "Without giving away too much, I can say that the second model will be a sporty four door family car at roughly half the $89k price point of the Tesla Roadster and the third model will be even more affordable."?

    The Roadster actually ended up costing $109,000 in 2010.

    But, if we first look at the original $89k cost, half of that would be $44.5k in 2006 dollars.

    Accounting for inflation, using The Inflation Calculator, that's $53,377.15 in 2015 dollars. Not even close to Honda Accord territory. The most highly optioned Honda Accord V6 Touring in 2016 starts at about 35.5k.

    Using the actual $109k Roadster base price in 2010, half of that is $54.5k, or $60,540.82 in 2015 dollars.

    Today, a Model S 60 kWh costs about 60-65k in base trim with minor options (like metallic paint, pano roof, cold weather pkg) after available tax credits.


    Your argument is not just poor -- it is completely indefensible given what Elon actually did say about the expected price of the 2nd generation car (Model S) vs. the Roadster.
    �
  • Jul 22, 2016
    anticitizen13.7
    The base Model S actually has a good amount of standard features for a mid-size premium/luxury sedan.

    Price out a new BMW 535i RWD sedan with comparable options to a base Model S RWD on BMW USA's website. Obviously, due to the differences in options packaging, its impossible to get a 100% direct comparison, but Model S is competitive on price right out the door, and the Bimmer will cost a lot more to fuel over the long haul.


    Much of the automotive and financial investment community is still in denial about what Tesla has accomplished. Some people just can't admit they are incorrect.

    For the record, 8 years ago, I didn't think Tesla would go anywhere, but as the facts on the ground change, so must the conclusions.
    �
  • Jul 23, 2016
    ecarfan
    In my opinion, SMP 2.0 is primarily written for individual consumers, not businesses. Obviously Elon has not suffered from an attack of amnesia and forgotten that Tesla Energy makes Powerwalls. In fact, Tesla has hinted that they are producing far more kilowatts of Powerwalls than Powerpacks.

    As to the statements by some in this thread that the Model 3 is not an "affordable" car for the typical middle class buyer in the developed world (e.g. North America, Western Europe, much of East Asia, Australia, etc.) I think it is affordable when lifetime cost of ownership is calculated, particularly in places like Europe where gasoline costs more than double what it costs in the US.
    �
  • Jul 24, 2016
    Crowded Mind
    Not to mention that "affordable" is an arbitrary qualification and debating it is an exercise in semantics. Was Model S more affordable than the Roadster? Yes. Is Model 3 more affordable than Model S? Yes. 400k have found Model 3 to be affordable so far.
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)