7 ms·

Tesla could realistically hit 500,000 cars next year, almost 10% of total cars sold in America. The electric revolution is here and it’s finally profitable! Bud

Tesla could realistically hit 500,000 cars next year, almost 10% of total cars sold in America. The electric revolution is here and it’s finally profitable! Budget EVs with solid range are coming next year too with the 2019 leaf! Convince congress to extend the federal tax rebate (no real increase in spending just keeping what’s already there) by like 2 years which is just maybe $1-2B more and electric will be the way to go for good!

antisthenes 8y ago
What's just as amazing is that this whole revolution is done off the back of the Li-Ion 18650/21700 battery cell. Time will tell how good of a choice it is.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  I recall reading many HN posters commenting that this cylindrical form factor was a terrible choice for cars. Now several other carmakers have adopted it.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    The Edison (E26/7, circa-1900) base isn't the best choice for light bulbs. But it is good enough. And now we're plugging high-powered LED bulbs into them. Technology finds a way. Be first!
  - sliken 8y ago
    From an engineering perspective it's suboptimal since they have small surface area relative to volume. That's probably why Telsa went with the 2170 instead of the 26650, which has a larger diameter. Despite this disadvantage the Telsa battery cost, power density, cost per kwh, peak power, and longevity are unmatched. Especially as measure by real people driving real cars on real roads. So sure in theory batteries with more surface area would have greater package efficiencies. So far nobody has managed to.
    - akira2501 8y ago
      > So sure in theory batteries with more surface area would have greater package efficiencies. There's way more to a battery than just density; however, one of the things that needs to be managed is the heat generated during charging. There might be a case to be made for slightly suboptimal packaging strategies if it makes cooling all those cells that much easier.
      - rconti 8y ago
        Yeah, this really strikes me as a forest for the trees kind of situation. Sometimes it pays to engineer things to death, other times you need to step back and see the whole picture; how important is packaging for efficiency vs cooling vs manufacturing speed, etc. Automakers putting battery packs in the trunk of their cars are complaining about battery size. Is anyone complaining the floor on a Tesla is too thick and compromises interior space? Of course not. The packaging probably DOES add a not-insignificant amount to the total weight of the pack vs an ideal battery of some custom design. But again, you have to weigh (ha!) all of the factors.
      - Gibbon1 8y ago
        I read an article that made the case that lithium of batteries are sensitive to the direction of the heat gradient. Tried looking, can't find it. But the upshot was you want the gradient parallel to the electrode layers not perpendicular. Which means you want to remove the heat from the ends of the cell.
        ecpottinger 8y ago
        I can't find it either, but I remember reading it. However, http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/163/9/A1846.full http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/163/9/A1846.full points out some of the details.
        Gibbon1 8y ago
        That actually I think is what I was looking for. Money quote: For automotive applications where 80% capacity is considered end-of-life, using tab cooling rather than surface cooling would therefore be equivalent to extending the lifetime of a pack by 3 times, or reducing the lifetime cost by 66%. Meaning battery packs that last not 150,000 miles, but 450,000 miles.
  - gruturo 8y ago
    It's only a terrible choice if you do not think about cooling the batteries, and having some physical protection against runaway thermal effects. If you do, suddenly that empty space becomes precious. The fact that other carmakers started using it is a good sign.
- marricks 8y ago
  Is that comment anything but FUD? They are able to make the cheapest batteries for cars and have seemed to be pretty successful...
  - dannyw 8y ago
    The comment is a precise and accurate definition of the technology, I don’t see why you jump to “FUD”? Not everyone is trying to influence the stock price.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Panasonic makes the battery cells...Tesla just assembles them together and integrates the cooling system.
- simonebrunozzi 8y ago
  Right! Lots more details here (and good comparison of the two): https://www.dnkpower.com/teslas-mass-production-21700-battery/ https://www.dnkpower.com/teslas-mass-production-21700-batter...
- aphextron 8y ago
  >What's just as amazing is that this whole revolution is done off the back of the Li-Ion 18650/21700 battery cell. 18650 is the cell form factor, not a specific anode/cathode/electrolyte combo. There have been leaps and bounds in cell chemistry over the last 10 years which have made it possible to build high-end expensive cars, but we still need about double the performance of current tech to achieve true low cost mass adoption. A $45,000 car with 300 miles range is just barely enough to convince well off people to buy a new toy. The first $20,000 EV with 300 miles range will change the world.
smogcutter 8y ago
If the electric revolution requires a federal subsidy to compete then it has not, in fact, arrived.
- ZeroGravitas 8y ago
  By that logic the gasoline engine has not yet arrived either.
  - kazinator 8y ago
    Not to mention the pneumatic tire on asphalt road.
  - morsma 8y ago
    Does gasoline engines receive subsidies? I just bought a brand new ICE vehicle, and I'd sure like to know when my check arrives...
    - bjelkeman-again 8y ago
      Not the cars, but the fuel. “America spends over $20bn per year on fossil fuel subsidies. Abolish them” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/30/america-spends-over-20bn-per-year-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-abolish-them https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - nightski 8y ago
        If EV wins and they can no longer collect all that juicy tax revenue from gas - how are they going to afford to maintain infrastructure? They collect far more than 20bn in revenue from fuel taxes.
        zie 8y ago
bsder 8y ago
> Tesla could realistically hit 500,000 cars next year, almost 10% of total cars sold in America. Is that really feasible? That's roughly BMW and Mercedes combined in the US. It's really easy to forget on the West Coast of the US that BWM, Mercedes and the like are actually rare in the rest of the country.
- xienze 8y ago
  What? Define “rare”. If you’re in any reasonably-sized metro I’d be quite shocked if a day goes by where the average person doesn’t see a BMW or Mercedes.
kllrnohj 8y ago
> Tesla could realistically hit 500,000 cars next year, almost 10% of total cars sold in America. US consumer auto sales per year are in the 16-17 million range. I personally wouldn't consider 3% to be "almost 10%", do you? But I don't think they realistically can hit 500,000 cars next year, either. They moved 70k cars in Q3. There's no reason to believe they can double that in 6 months or so particularly as the Model S & X sales have been fairly stable. So that means the Model 3 needs to somehow grow to around 400k/year in order to get to 500k cars next year. They state production of Model 3 was up to 5,300 per week and that the production system had stabilized with gradual monthly improvements. So currently Tesla can only even build 275k Model 3's a year. I don't think doubling that in such a short time frame meshes with Tesla's comments of "gradual monthly improvements." 350,000 cars in 2019 seems much more likely assuming Model 3 demand holds strong.
- adventured 8y ago
  > US consumer auto sales per year are in the 16-17 million range. I personally wouldn't consider 3% to be "almost 10%", do you? The parent comment said "cars." You switched that to consumer auto sales. 6.3 million passenger cars were sold in the US in 2017. With passenger car sales declining and generally losing popularity in the US (dropping from 7.9m in 2014), it's plausible that 500,000 will in fact be "almost" 10% of total cars sold in the US in 2019.
  - ProfessorLayton 8y ago
    I suppose if US passenger car sales, a segment the Model 3 & S belong to, decline by 1/3 in 2019 that statement could ring true.
    - burger_moon 8y ago
      Ford killed off their entire car line up except the mustang so there will be a fairly significant drop from that alone.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    In common parlance, an SUV counts in "all cars sold", so it's misleading, even if technically correct.
madengr 8y ago
They’d have to extend it for Tesla and Nissan, as they are almost at the cap. That puts other manufacturers at a disadvantage who have not met the cap. Would be good in general, but shitty as well for those who are playing catch-up.
hikari-boulders 8y ago
I don't understand how "just maybe $1-2B more" is "no real increase in spending".

antisthenes 8y ago

What's just as amazing is that this whole revolution is done off the back of the Li-Ion 18650/21700 battery cell. Time will tell how good of a choice it is.

greglindahl 8y ago
I recall reading many HN posters commenting that this cylindrical form factor was a terrible choice for cars. Now several other carmakers have adopted it.
- ethbro 8y ago
  The Edison (E26/7, circa-1900) base isn't the best choice for light bulbs. But it is good enough. And now we're plugging high-powered LED bulbs into them. Technology finds a way. Be first!
- sliken 8y ago
  From an engineering perspective it's suboptimal since they have small surface area relative to volume. That's probably why Telsa went with the 2170 instead of the 26650, which has a larger diameter. Despite this disadvantage the Telsa battery cost, power density, cost per kwh, peak power, and longevity are unmatched. Especially as measure by real people driving real cars on real roads. So sure in theory batteries with more surface area would have greater package efficiencies. So far nobody has managed to.
  - akira2501 8y ago
    > So sure in theory batteries with more surface area would have greater package efficiencies. There's way more to a battery than just density; however, one of the things that needs to be managed is the heat generated during charging. There might be a case to be made for slightly suboptimal packaging strategies if it makes cooling all those cells that much easier.
    - rconti 8y ago
      Yeah, this really strikes me as a forest for the trees kind of situation. Sometimes it pays to engineer things to death, other times you need to step back and see the whole picture; how important is packaging for efficiency vs cooling vs manufacturing speed, etc. Automakers putting battery packs in the trunk of their cars are complaining about battery size. Is anyone complaining the floor on a Tesla is too thick and compromises interior space? Of course not. The packaging probably DOES add a not-insignificant amount to the total weight of the pack vs an ideal battery of some custom design. But again, you have to weigh (ha!) all of the factors.
    - Gibbon1 8y ago
      I read an article that made the case that lithium of batteries are sensitive to the direction of the heat gradient. Tried looking, can't find it. But the upshot was you want the gradient parallel to the electrode layers not perpendicular. Which means you want to remove the heat from the ends of the cell.
      - ecpottinger 8y ago
        I can't find it either, but I remember reading it. However, http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/163/9/A1846.full http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/163/9/A1846.full points out some of the details.
        Gibbon1 8y ago
        That actually I think is what I was looking for. Money quote: For automotive applications where 80% capacity is considered end-of-life, using tab cooling rather than surface cooling would therefore be equivalent to extending the lifetime of a pack by 3 times, or reducing the lifetime cost by 66%. Meaning battery packs that last not 150,000 miles, but 450,000 miles.
- gruturo 8y ago
  It's only a terrible choice if you do not think about cooling the batteries, and having some physical protection against runaway thermal effects. If you do, suddenly that empty space becomes precious. The fact that other carmakers started using it is a good sign.
marricks 8y ago
Is that comment anything but FUD? They are able to make the cheapest batteries for cars and have seemed to be pretty successful...
- dannyw 8y ago
  The comment is a precise and accurate definition of the technology, I don’t see why you jump to “FUD”? Not everyone is trying to influence the stock price.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Panasonic makes the battery cells...Tesla just assembles them together and integrates the cooling system.
simonebrunozzi 8y ago
Right! Lots more details here (and good comparison of the two): https://www.dnkpower.com/teslas-mass-production-21700-battery/ https://www.dnkpower.com/teslas-mass-production-21700-batter...
aphextron 8y ago
>What's just as amazing is that this whole revolution is done off the back of the Li-Ion 18650/21700 battery cell. 18650 is the cell form factor, not a specific anode/cathode/electrolyte combo. There have been leaps and bounds in cell chemistry over the last 10 years which have made it possible to build high-end expensive cars, but we still need about double the performance of current tech to achieve true low cost mass adoption. A $45,000 car with 300 miles range is just barely enough to convince well off people to buy a new toy. The first $20,000 EV with 300 miles range will change the world.

smogcutter 8y ago

If the electric revolution requires a federal subsidy to compete then it has not, in fact, arrived.

ZeroGravitas 8y ago
By that logic the gasoline engine has not yet arrived either.
- kazinator 8y ago
  Not to mention the pneumatic tire on asphalt road.
- morsma 8y ago
  Does gasoline engines receive subsidies? I just bought a brand new ICE vehicle, and I'd sure like to know when my check arrives...
  - bjelkeman-again 8y ago
    Not the cars, but the fuel. “America spends over $20bn per year on fossil fuel subsidies. Abolish them” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/30/america-spends-over-20bn-per-year-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-abolish-them https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - nightski 8y ago
      If EV wins and they can no longer collect all that juicy tax revenue from gas - how are they going to afford to maintain infrastructure? They collect far more than 20bn in revenue from fuel taxes.
      - zie 8y ago

bsder 8y ago

> Tesla could realistically hit 500,000 cars next year, almost 10% of total cars sold in America. Is that really feasible? That's roughly BMW and Mercedes combined in the US. It's really easy to forget on the West Coast of the US that BWM, Mercedes and the like are actually rare in the rest of the country.

xienze 8y ago
What? Define “rare”. If you’re in any reasonably-sized metro I’d be quite shocked if a day goes by where the average person doesn’t see a BMW or Mercedes.

kllrnohj 8y ago

> Tesla could realistically hit 500,000 cars next year, almost 10% of total cars sold in America. US consumer auto sales per year are in the 16-17 million range. I personally wouldn't consider 3% to be "almost 10%", do you? But I don't think they realistically can hit 500,000 cars next year, either. They moved 70k cars in Q3. There's no reason to believe they can double that in 6 months or so particularly as the Model S & X sales have been fairly stable. So that means the Model 3 needs to somehow grow to around 400k/year in order to get to 500k cars next year. They state production of Model 3 was up to 5,300 per week and that the production system had stabilized with gradual monthly improvements. So currently Tesla can only even build 275k Model 3's a year. I don't think doubling that in such a short time frame meshes with Tesla's comments of "gradual monthly improvements." 350,000 cars in 2019 seems much more likely assuming Model 3 demand holds strong.

adventured 8y ago
> US consumer auto sales per year are in the 16-17 million range. I personally wouldn't consider 3% to be "almost 10%", do you? The parent comment said "cars." You switched that to consumer auto sales. 6.3 million passenger cars were sold in the US in 2017. With passenger car sales declining and generally losing popularity in the US (dropping from 7.9m in 2014), it's plausible that 500,000 will in fact be "almost" 10% of total cars sold in the US in 2019.
- ProfessorLayton 8y ago
  I suppose if US passenger car sales, a segment the Model 3 & S belong to, decline by 1/3 in 2019 that statement could ring true.
  - burger_moon 8y ago
    Ford killed off their entire car line up except the mustang so there will be a fairly significant drop from that alone.
- SilasX 8y ago
  In common parlance, an SUV counts in "all cars sold", so it's misleading, even if technically correct.

madengr 8y ago

They’d have to extend it for Tesla and Nissan, as they are almost at the cap. That puts other manufacturers at a disadvantage who have not met the cap. Would be good in general, but shitty as well for those who are playing catch-up.

hikari-boulders 8y ago

I don't understand how "just maybe $1-2B more" is "no real increase in spending".