Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

781 - 800 of 918 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,609 Posts
My mum used to drill into us as kids "If you don't have anything constructive to contribute - keep quiet".

(Other manufacturers forums are available :D)
Yet a one sided discussion is a monologue.

In the context of discussing either TSLA (or the practice of shorting) surely hearing the rationale of the other side of the trade is constructive?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,609 Posts
That's been my tentative plan - keep the Model S for at least five years and then swap to a LR Model 3 which is a little smaller and more appropriate given most of the time it's just me in the car.
I think this is a very interesting dynamic in more general terms.

How many Model S owners will ultimately "downgrade" to a cheaper less profitable car?

Its a weird quirk of the Tesla ownership base being so broad (pulling in elements from various sales drivers : high milers fuel saving , BIK savers, green motivated and performance driven). Most premium brands want to see owners scale up at each replacement cycle, yet Tesla may see the opposite happen simply because the S was the only choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,772 Posts
I predict they will have to do a complete ground up design for a 21700 Model S/X
Doubt it.

For one thing I doubt they have the spare few billion available to create what would be in effect a new model that is going to increasingly become a halo model.

For another I expect it is well within the engineers' capability to design a 2170 pack that fits MS and MX well enough to avoid a full redesign.

Have a look at 64kWh Kona/Soul - the pack hangs an inch below the normal floor level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
I don't think that they will have trouble putting 21700 in S/X either - the MS/MX 18650 battery pack uses electrical connections on both ends of the battery cells. The model 3 connects both positive and negative at the top of the cell, so there are only bus bars on one side of the pack, reducing the overall height required. Overall the change in battery pack height would be less than 5mm which I'm fairly sure they'd manage to fit.

As for cell constraints.... Yes, that has been the case. However, bear in mind that (to a very close approximation) they can produce 3 model 3 SR+ with the same number of cells that would be required to produce 2 LR/P cars. In other words, if the production mix went to ALL SR+ then they could produce +50% number of vehicles with the existing cell supply. If we take the current figure that has been bandied about a bit of 24GWh then that could produce over 436000 Model 3 SR+ cars (assuming 55kWh per vehicle).

However, Tesla have also proven that they are able to identify and overcome bottlenecks quite effectively, so it would seem likely that they are actively working towards higher utilisation of the existing 35GWh nominal capacity. If we split the difference and say they get to 30GWh then that provides for 500000 model 3s at a 50/50 split between LR and SR+.

Chinese production model 3s won't take from this cell supply, so that leaves 500k vehicles worth to fremont. Once the Model Y becomes available then I think that the level of interest and ongoing sales of the model 3 will drop compared to peak. If the model Y has the same 75 and 55 battery packs as the 3 then they can share this - 300k Model Y and 200k Model 3 doesn't sound entirely unreasonable.

If they wanted to shift S/X refresh to 21700s then assuming existing run rate (100k Vehicles per year) with an average battery size on refresh of 100kWh (120kWh LR and 80kWh SR?) then that would need an additional 10GWh of capacity - ie a total of 40GWh. This doesn't seem unreasonably out of reach to me with continued investment and expansion of GF1. Given that the longer term goal is 105GWh @ GF1 then it doesn't seem unlikely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
549 Posts
Yet a one sided discussion is a monologue.

In the context of discussing either TSLA (or the practice of shorting) surely hearing the rationale of the other side of the trade is constructive?
Depends how balanced it is - if the only source of comments is negative opinion from #TSLAQ, then that IS a rather boring monologue.

Check out #TSLAQ if you want a stream of negative, one sided, misinformation and FUD (I do), but also balance this with the positive stuff. Truth will be somewhere in between, and I suspect a tad towards the positive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,092 Posts
Check out #TSLAQ if you want a stream of negative, one sided, misinformation and FUD (I do), but also balance this with the positive stuff. Truth will be somewhere in between, and I suspect a tad towards the positive.
Twitter #tslaq is a truly fascinating display of people who have lost all rationality.

There are plenty of shorts and fossil-fuel interests there, spreading lies, of course. But I also see a well-respected investor I've followed for over a decade (on fool.co.uk before twitter existed), always calm and rational, posting and retweeting outright lies.

Almost makes one warm to lyin' Elon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,609 Posts
Doubt it.

For one thing I doubt they have the spare few billion available to create what would be in effect a new model that is going to increasingly become a halo model.
Isn't that an inescapable fact of the auto industry. They simply can't sit still and cash-cow out product.

My view is the market is valuing it like a software business.. where once you get market share turn of the investment taps and money then flows in because you have zero marginal cost and/or guaranteed recurring revenues.

Miles away from the general car business where almost as soon as a car goes on sale billions are being poured into it's replacement, while all the time scrabbling around trying to new buyers for what is a durable good with long replacement cycles..


For another I expect it is well within the engineers' capability to design a 2170 pack that fits MS and MX well enough to avoid a full redesign.

Have a look at 64kWh Kona/Soul - the pack hangs an inch below the normal floor level.
It's not impossible, and I do think Tesla have some amazing talent. However the Model S in coil trim is already "beachable", it is fairly low slung with a long wheelbase. I suppose one thing that is possible is they lose the idea of easy battery swap.

I also suspect the Model S is now a project where no-one at Tesla really wants to work. All the best and brightest will want to be involved in "greenfield" projects, not fixing "legacy" product for a mid-life update.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,609 Posts
If they wanted to shift S/X refresh to 21700s then assuming existing run rate (100k Vehicles per year)
Try halving that number now the 3 is on sale. (Tesla Model S / X sales crash against anticipated upgrade, end of full US tax credit, Model 3 cannibalization - Electrek)

So maybe the question should be do Tesla bother refreshing the S past changing the interior and motors to match the 3. I'd expect a blip in sales, but fundamentally the Model 3, particularly in P trim is a better car than the now 7 year old platform the Model S is sat on.

Once the Y is on sale, what even is the demand for the S/X? How much is it going to cost to develop a large luxury saloon? Will it ever see a payback?

It is interesting Tesla have stopped splitting S/X sales out in their reports. Why this change? ( it's always for a reason when Tesla change their reporting metrics).

My suspicion is the S has cratered to the point the X is now outselling the S by a significant amount.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
In which case if we halve that number to 50k units per year then the additional battery cell requirement is 5GWh and brings down the total to 35GWh, or exactly where the current theoretical max of GF1 is.

Of course, more will be required for Semi and Pickup and Roadster, so further expansion is needed, but the point that I was making was that cell constraints aren't likely to prevent the move to 21700 for S/X should Tesla choose to do so.

I've no doubt that demand for the S/X is reduced at this point, and partly because of competition - Not necessarily because people believe that another car is better, but simply that people want a change. They've had an S for 3 years, now they're getting a Taycan or an I-pace just because it's a change. In 3 years time they'll get something else.

This is why it's important for Tesla to do an interior and exterior refresh. By all accounts the Raven update has significantly improved the ride comfort of the cars as well as improved efficiency and range, but if the car still looks the same many people will not revisit the car because they believe it's the same as it was before. Other automakers lump updates together into a facelift refresh so people expect a car to look different if there have been any other under-surface changes.

As for platform re-engineering... I would ask what for? What are the weaknesses of the current Raven iteration of the S/X? Safety? Suspension? Handling? Packaging? I don't think that any of these are true, so I'd argue that the platform is still capable enough to run on for another 4-5 years with an interior/exterior refresh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,609 Posts
@i-s I personally don't think Tesla will have capacity issues for the 18650 or 21700. Panasonic will make as many as Tesla can take. (In fact I think the supply agreements may even see Panasonic oversupply Tesla).

Fundamentally I think the issue for the S is one of packaging i.e. big luxury sedans are a dying segment, the Model S has sold well despite this because it was the cheapest way to get a full ICE replacement BEV. That honour now belongs to the more advanced Model 3.

The issue with the X has always been warranty and production cost for doors that add very little (and even put off some buyers). I'm sure a chunk of X owners are Model S owners who got to lease-end and couldn't stomach taking a near identical looking car.

Therefore I'd argue in the higher end segment something like an EQC / I-Pace / eTron replacing both the S and X, IMHO be a good move forward for Tesla (actually it would be more like a 3 row version of the above, but you get my point). It puts some clear air between the Model 3 and it's larger sibling while simplifying and streamlining production into one vehicle rather than two.

If they were going to do that I'd also expect them to rationalise their parts bin. Chargers, inverters, motors, steering wheels screens, switches, charge ports, swathes of mouldings, etc..... I found it really quite strange sat inside a Model 3, if you didn't know better you'd think the 3 and S were built by completely different companies. Every single "touch point" is different and the controls work differently.

Quite how that fits with the Model Y... who knows. That's the car Tesla should have built instead of the Model 3, so now they'll be back pedalling trying to get that rushed to market, and have no design bandwidth for the S/X work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,092 Posts
As for platform re-engineering... I would ask what for? What are the weaknesses of the current Raven iteration of the S/X? Safety? Suspension? Handling? Packaging?
It's falling quite badly behind the best ICE:

Charges slower (in mph) than a 3.
No HUD.
No intelligent headlights.
No carplay/android auto, and so the MCU apps falling further behind what other marques can give in cooperation with a modern smartphone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
Fair argument @Simon Mac

I think that any refresh will see the S/X come more into line with the Model 3 interior. The model 3 is the next step of evolution of the Tesla design language and UI. I don't think it's strange that it's as different as it is, because there's a good reason for it.

Other car manufacturers have been through similar step changes - for example, Volvo's move from the button heavy P3 cars to the Sensus Touch SPA cars. There's little to no overlap in interior design or UI between those two.

@zap fizzle - none of those are platform failings - it's easy to add a HUD (but tesla won't), active headlights etc to an existing platform car. You don't rebuild your house from the ground up in order to replace a light fitting. Charging would be addressed by a 21700 battery pack, and android auto/carplay would be a software change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,609 Posts
@i-s I don't disagree the 3 is the direction of travel. I like a lot of it, particularly the air vent system.

I can however see how it could be perceived as cheap for something in the upper luxury segment. The use of Mercedes stalks and switch gear was well judged in the S. The in-house ones in the Model 3 feel Fisher-Price by comparison.

The Volvo interior, is a great example of how minimalist can work, but the touch points all need to feel rock solid and the parts that are there need a feel of substance / weight when you are paying for a premium product. Using real knurled metallic parts not painted plastic for example. Otherwise minimalist can feel like "trying to hit a price point" (the 3 does feel a little like that, which is fine for a $35k car, not a $100k one).

I'd argue a HUD would be a must have (at least as an option) in a Model S replacement. I absolutely love it in my BMW, which has a complete dog's dinner of an infotainment system compared to my old Model S in all other regards.

I don't actually think it's that easy to add though, they need a special coating on the screen and the screen needs to be shaped such that reflection angles work given where the projector unit sits.

I also think dialing back some of the minimalism on the steering controls would be a very sensible thing to do. Even with the larger screen in the Model S it was simply more convenient to do a lot of things via the steering wheel buttons and stalks. Owners going from a current Model S to this new minimalist one are bound to push back (I have seen some complaints by owners of both a 3 and S/X saying they find it awkward going between cars and asking for the S/X style in preference).

I'm with @zap fizzle on the Android Auto / CarPlay stuff. I personally think it's Tesla being cheap and not paying Apple / Google for the licensing. Tesla have done naff all opening up the system to 3rd party devs (a promise Elon made back when I was on the UK Model S waiting list), I can't see what will change their minds now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
I have the HUD in my Lexus GS (want to talk about "dog's dinner" infotainment UI?!) and like it, but also don't think that I'll miss it in my 3. I do find both the GS and my Leaf are irritating in having a "double image" refraction in the windscreen (and something that I know many people have complained about in the Model X). Hoping that the 3 won't have that (and not seen any reports of it). HUD can be done with a separate glass, like the Kona, so it's not insurmountable and again I don't think it's reliant upon the car's platform.

I'm not going to argue against the inclusion of android auto or apple carplay - My point was that they are not down to the platform of the car.

As for the minimalism... matter of taste I suppose. I love it. There's very sensible things, like getting rid of stuff that you almost never use (eg mirror controls, steering column controls - these are things that I set and forget, especially with a driver profile system). It's not perfect, and I think they got the wiper control methodology wrong. The change of design/material that I would make to the model 3 is I'd swap out all of the gloss black centre console plastic for either a higher quality matte plastic material, or a wood to match the strip across the dash (akin to the matte wood options on the volvo SPA cars) - with options for a matte carbon fibre finish and a spun metal finish for those that prefer those asthetics.

I'm not closed to the fact that going between vehicles can be confusing - My first two cars were mitsubishis and they had the indicator stalk on the correct side, which was great but also rather difficult to deal with when driving other vehicles where it was on the wrong side (some jazz about "european standard", whilst ignoring that the european standard is also Left Hand Drive). Come to a junction and put the wipers on full pelt... That situation has been resolved now with all new RHD vehicles having it on the wrong side.
 

·
Chartered Engineer
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
I think this is a very interesting dynamic in more general terms.

How many Model S owners will ultimately "downgrade" to a cheaper less profitable car?

Its a weird quirk of the Tesla ownership base being so broad (pulling in elements from various sales drivers : high milers fuel saving , BIK savers, green motivated and performance driven). Most premium brands want to see owners scale up at each replacement cycle, yet Tesla may see the opposite happen simply because the S was the only choice.
my motivation for buying my Model S was indeed the fact it was the only BEV available that could meet my needs due to its range. It is easily twice as much as I've ever spent on a car before and was quite a step for me. My plan has always been to run it for several years and then move onto something more reasonably priced with the Model 3 being an obvious candidate, so I fit your suggested ownership base. However, I really like the Model S and the size has proved to be a non issue in pretty much all cases, on the odd occasions when I need to carry a lot of "stuff" it swallows loads with ease. The back seats could be more comfortable, but I don't drive from the back. The ride could be better, but is OK most of the time and the handling is superb. Oh and the wipers are noisy!. Apart from those it's damn close to perfect!, however more range is tempting because it opens up more options when travelling distance (rather than being a really big issue) and a more comfortable ride is tempting. It's not enough to make me switch now, but will be a factor when I do so. The running cost of my car has been very low which offsets the high purchase price so I would consider paying a lot more for a BEV than a conventional car a second time round - it's not all about the economics for me, I spend a lot of time sitting in my car and value the comfort!

..........It's not impossible, and I do think Tesla have some amazing talent. However the Model S in coil trim is already "beachable", it is fairly low slung with a long wheelbase. I suppose one thing that is possible is they lose the idea of easy battery swap.

I also suspect the Model S is now a project where no-one at Tesla really wants to work. All the best and brightest will want to be involved in "greenfield" projects, not fixing "legacy" product for a mid-life update.
My Model S is in coil trim and it's one thing I wish I'd gone for. I drove a 70 version on coils and that was fine, but the extra weight of the 90 battery and the D coupled (I suspect) with a suspension change makes my car less composed. It's not a deal breaker but could be better. It does occasionally ground on vicious speed humps and I've had very occasional problems in car parks but I guess that's part of the reason for the strips running the length of the car.

Also the Model S is still a superb car and while there is an attraction in working on completely new vehicles I don't think that would put engineers of working on a new Model S version or even a facelift.

I do think people fixate on the fact it must be dated because it was released in 2012 with only an external facelift in 2016 but I fell that's because we've been brainwashed by the marketing to expect something new and different every two or three years to make people buy another new vehicle. That's the environment we're living in but logically makes little sense. Barring revolutionary introductions the car pretty much has to perform the same function so totally changing the design makes no real sense. That particularly irritates me with interiors because apart from new features (autopilot for example), if you have a good easy to use, logical human/machine interface then there isn't any need to change it at all and doing so is either an indication you got it wrong, or that you have lots of designers and engineers sitting around with nothing better to do. As I've mentioned before, take the iteration of the Prius interior, first one was reasonable, second pretty good and then it started going downhill and the latest one is truly awful (IMHO of course).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,609 Posts
My thinking on the engineering talen side really is more a reflection of the talent pool Tesla are fishing in.

For right or wrong the Silicon Valley way is the best and brightest favour short tenures jumping between new exciting projects for maximum CV boosting impact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
While the exact number is a nice surprise, it's not a surprise to me that production and deliveries are sharply up. While the Bloomberg tracker has now been retired and got the last quarter badly wrong, the underlying upward trend was obvious. Also the idea that most or even a large minority of people who would buy the model 3 pre-ordered before they had seen one (the lack of demand notion) was clearly ridiculous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,838 Posts
Next will be the prediction of doom: "Following the incremental reduction of the tax credit demand will collapse, the Quarter 2 demand was only driven by the rush to meet the June deadline!"

They will never make these numbers again yada yada yada...

Would be nice to see them break 6 figures in Q3 to stump that narrative.
 
781 - 800 of 918 Posts
Top