richardianseagraves has a point. There's no way to make the trip in 48 hours-unless you drive way over the speed limit. If you only charge when the batteries are very low, max charge rate is around 300mph. However, the rate drops off substantially after that so total optimal charging from a time perspective is about 10 hours. That leaves 38 hours to travel roughly 3000 miles which means an 80mph average. However, at that speed you'll be using more wh/mile so you'll need to add enough charge to compensate-which means charging at slower than the optimal rate.
I guess it's possible and the usage rate and charge times required between Superchargers can be calculated beforehand to verify what's needed to succeed.
Yeah except Tesla had zero ZEV credits in Q4 and aren't figuring on any this year.
Let's see if you can do the math: zero in Q4 hurts revenue by...how much?
I have to correct a serious error in your post: it's essentially one thousand percentage points, not hundreds. lol
The hubris is stunning-it's like a drunk driver who kills numerous people in multiple crashes saying he's a good driver because he didn't kill or injure anyone 99% of the days he drove...
Seems like it's a circle jerk of shorts-they make each other feel better. We've all much better off staying out of this self-serving clique.
Yes you said it. You also Tesla would/will fail. That there is no demand. Moreover, there has been zero benefit from your call on Blankenship. Or Tesla raising capital.
Scratch that. There has been a NEGATIVE benefit when considering any long investment decision in tsla and using your posts as any part of that consideration. So you were right. You won a minor skirmish but lost the World War.
Congratulations on your victory.
This guy has the highest mileage of any MS owner that I'm aware of. There are others with relatively high mileage but less than him. Their degradation is similar. Also, there is an ongoing survey by someone (a professor or industry person) that showed a fairly consistent distribution.
A pre-ordered replacement battery to be used after 8 years (if I'm not mistaken) is $14,000. I know of no owners who have had to pay for a replacement battery for any reason so have no idea what the cost is. Since Tesla's warranty covers everything except intentional damage, seems like it's a mute point don't you think?
It's a reasonable point but I agree if the degradation rates that the driver I referenced and others that have posted maintain their current trend, very few batteries are likely to be replaced. Besides, if the 7%/75,000 mile rate holds, at 300,000 miles you'd still be above the 70% threshold. Although I've read a discussion about potential battery replacement under warranty based on degradation, I don't recall the specifics or whether it's even covered. Also, others have posted that the rate of degradation is initially steeper then slows although I've seen nothing to confirm this. Another question would be whether a new, used or remanufactured battery would be used to replace a high mileage battery under warranty.
I agree that Gen 3 is unlikely to have an unlimited mile warranty. By that time a warranty equivalent to that of an ICE is more likely as the fears of something new ie EVs fades away.
7% decline after 75,000 miles. Ideal range is 278 miles, rated range 246. Per Tesla, their expectations were that the Model S would perform better than the Roadster which they projected 70% of initial range after 100,000 miles. The Tesla thread "BATTERY LONGEVITY @ 75 THOUSAND MILES" includes dashboard pics.
Yet another piece of propaganda conceived and propagated by some of the usual suspects here disproved. The "you'll need to replace your battery after a couple years", "batteries are easily bricked", "you'll have to spend $40,000 to replace your battery", Teslas are coal powered, the batteries will explode, etc. "claims" have been proven false. Then again, those who did their homework knew that and also knew not to trust anything these miscreants post.
I disagree with much of your post even while being a big fan of Elon, Tesla and EVs. One part I do agree on is that it's about the money to some extent. However, many of the "green" companies cannot survive without substantial government subsidies so if their funding gets cut their done. Oil and gas companies can not only get by without subsidies they contribute more to taxpayers BY FAR than they receive, completely the opposite of most green companies. In other words, for most of the "green" companies it IS about the money-taxpayer money.
I wonder if you know any Republicans or conservatives. When it comes to "green" or "clean", none that I know or have met are against being environmentally responsible. They are against dumping toxic anything anywhere it's not permitted. The difference is that environmentalists are nearly uniformly against ANYTHING that doesn't fit THEIR criteria and anyone who disagrees with them is whatevertheybelieve-phobic and a hater. Nuclear is clean but they were against it-somewhat less now since nuclear emits no ghg's. They're against fracking because it's "bad" even as it displaces coal for electricity and heating oil, significantly reducing pollution and ghg's (if that's important to you). Keystone pipeline? Against it, even though that oil will get to China one way or the other and since our environmental standards are far higher, it would be far better for the environment to allow U.S. refiners to process it rather than the Chinese.
BTW I'm a Republican and drive a Volt. Of my nearly completely liberal family members, only 1 other drives a Volt or similar PHEV-and he's a Republican. NONE of the others do. And of all of my friends and family, only 1 has solar installed. Just one-and he's a VERY right wing conservative, far, far too conservative for me and what others would rightly call a crazy conservative. Why does he have solar? 100% for the economics, 0% for the environment, just as I described (above).
What Elon, SpaceX and Tesla have each already accomplished individually are far more daunting when they were originally proposed than the task of building a charging network in China independent of the grid. In fact, that's already the longer term plan for the U.S. Supercharger network so it's not even a recent plan.
If U.S. sales are lower for reasons other than production being diverted overseas, I'll have to reevaluate.
"... then don't you feel that upping supply to 500K per year will also take billions in new capital?...
Good question and my opinion is-yes and no. I have yet to do an in-depth estimate but a few thoughts:
1. To get an idea of how much it'll cost to produce 500k/year, we'd need to know how much it has cost Tesla to get to where it is now. We can come up with some idea of what's been spent but the current factory utilization rate is unclear. I don't think anyone would disagree that's it not 100% and few would argue it's above 70% (roughly 2 shifts/day 7/days).
2. Tesla is cash flow positive. I expect most or all of the cash generated to be put right back into the company. Some will go to non-production uses but much will go back into equipment to increase production. In q4 alone, FCF was $40 million even after $90 million in capital expenditures. Even if these figures only modestly increase (not my belief. Also see #3 below) this makes a not insignificant dent in the equipment needed for 500k production.
3. Some capital has already been spent on MX equipment. It may be small but it's contributing zero to sales at this time. The point is that once the MX is in production, this equipment along with whatever is purchased from #2 above will further increase internal funds that can be used to invest in Gen 3 equipment.
4. As of the end of q4, Tesla had around $800+ million in cash which can be used to fund Gen 3.
5. Tesla isn't planning to produce 500,000 cars in 2017. I think that figure is more for 2020, when the gigafactory can support that level of demand so all of the sources mentioned above should be able to fund a good part of the expansion requirements over the next 5 years. An additional capital raise would fill any shortfall but isn't the primary source of funding-hence my "no" response to you.
Assume 18,000 U.S. sales (slight decline), 5000 in China, 2000 q1 in Norway. They need an additional 2500 each quarter to hit the target. Is 2500 EU sales really a stretch? Do you really think that U.S. sales will be below last year's? Hong Kong, Australia, Japan deliveries haven't even started yet.
My view at this time is that if Tesla misses it's target it's because of supply issues, not lack of demand.
Next you're going to say that Elon is going to start a rocket company from scratch. Even crazier, he'll try to compete with the long established aerospace companies and governments. And even crazier, he'll do all this and launch rockets at a far lower cost. And even more crazier than that, he'll invent a reusable rocket. And even more crazy crazier than that he'll have a working prototype before the others have one.
According to counttrarian, counttrarian can differentiate between hype and truth. Algos, longs, analysts-they cannot. However, if one can make these differentiations yet proclaim the other side to be fact, what would that make them? Opposite of honest. Hello kbodie.
1. Yes, U.S. growth rate is slowing. 500% 2013 over 2012. With 18,000 U.S. units in 2013, 2014 will not see 500% or even 250% growth in MS sales in the U.S. You are correct.
2. EU growth is slowing? Not yoy.
3. Recall? Call it what you want but actual Tesla owners, not mb posters, showed little to no concern about debris fires so bringing an MS in to have the modification done at one's leisure is not significant to owners or shareholders.
4. China deliveries began today.
5. There is a report that there are Chinese buyers upset about how long it's taking to get their MS. Sounds like more demand than supply, a positive.
6. News is out that Tesla has acquired, and is staffing, a large facility that's 50 miles from the Fremont plant. A sign of strong demand.
7. Rumor out on this thread that tsla is a candidate for the S&P.
8. Short covering after a big move.
9. The market in general has been up.
If you know it's going to move down by some corrupt process, aren't you therefore part of the corruption?
Seriously? Even for you, you have to admit that was a really dumb post. We all realize that you feel the need to always say something negative but still...
Yes, when the stock moves against you it's momo, algos, whatever, but when it goes your way it's reality setting in. Anything positive is overstated and manipulation, negative items are real!
You guys deserve each other. I'm guessing one of you is just trying to stir the pot, the other is too ignorant to realize it. The fact that someone might believe that Tesla would spend the time, money and suffer a major production disruption by moving their Fremont plant to China says a lot about them.
For everyone else, Tesla is not moving it's entire production to China. They may build a facility for Asian sales.