Tesla and Uber Unlikely to Survive...
Discussion
Burwood said:
It's not a sale of anything. It's a transfer of equipment, cash, people and know how to a Joint Venture. There is no question. The two companies are setting up a Tesla/pan esque venture. It's all good for battery price decline of 15%/yr
Wait transferring 51 percent of something for cash isn't a sale?? RobDickinson said:
Burwood said:
It's not a sale of anything. It's a transfer of equipment, cash, people and know how to a Joint Venture. There is no question. The two companies are setting up a Tesla/pan esque venture. It's all good for battery price decline of 15%/yr
Wait transferring 51 percent of something for cash isn't a sale?? There's no talk of numbers yet but of course there will be.
Toyota find themselves in s
t going for forward with too much invested in hydrogen, taking about full bev by 2030, they know that's bullst so throw container ships of cash at Panasonic because they've been too slow to get on the LG Chem bandwagon.
Toyota find themselves in s
t going for forward with too much invested in hydrogen, taking about full bev by 2030, they know that's bullst so throw container ships of cash at Panasonic because they've been too slow to get on the LG Chem bandwagon. RobDickinson said:
There's no talk of numbers yet but of course there will be.
Toyota find themselves in st going for forward with too much invested in hydrogen, taking about full bev by 2030, they know that's bullst so throw container ships of cash at Panasonic because they've been too slow to get on the LG Chem bandwagon.
It's a J.V. 51/49%, call it equal. Sharing everything in a nut shell. 3500 staff. Whatever the operation costs will be shared 51/49. Toyota find themselves in s
t going for forward with too much invested in hydrogen, taking about full bev by 2030, they know that's bullst so throw container ships of cash at Panasonic because they've been too slow to get on the LG Chem bandwagon. samsock said:
Presumingly, Tesla 'chose' panasonic at some point to partner with for G1. And tesla are doing the same with g3. I don't see the difference.
Edited by samsock on Tuesday 22 January 17:46
DonkeyApple said:
samsock said:
Presumingly, Tesla 'chose' panasonic at some point to partner with for G1. And tesla are doing the same with g3. I don't see the difference.
Edited by samsock on Tuesday 22 January 17:46
but yeah totally not an advantage.
DonkeyApple said:
There isn’t. That’s the point! It’s the right move as far as I’m concerned. And it seems that you also agree. The point being made is that it flies in the face of what was been argued as Tesla’s big competitive advantage that never was. This is not complex stuff.
I don't agree actually. Your point, if I understand correctly, is that Musk was wrong to try to control battery production so tightly under the same roof, and that it would be best for Tesla if he took more traditional approaches to supply chain management and bought batteries externally by tender. My reply is that there is nothing in that article (which Musk just rubbished on twitter) to suggest they are changing the original plan for end to end manufacture. And of course nothing in the article to suggest any of it at all was even slightly true.
Yet you are happy to share the article as it firmly 'puts to bed' any debate on Tesla having a competitive advantage in batteries, and enlightened us dim Tesla fans that can't see the truth that is oh so clear to thou.
That you were so quick to jump on such a hacky, click bait article as evidence in support of your position, just shows us more clearly, how flimsy your position really is. Yet you stand here and lecture everyone on the truth! Boils my piss you Tesla hating loon. And your other defense, equally pitiful. Musk always lies! Ironic given the article you shared had zero authenticity (at the time you read it). So it's not like the media b
ks you are basing your 'truth' on is any fking better Edited by samsock on Tuesday 22 January 22:06
RobDickinson said:
DonkeyApple said:
samsock said:
Presumingly, Tesla 'chose' panasonic at some point to partner with for G1. And tesla are doing the same with g3. I don't see the difference.
Edited by samsock on Tuesday 22 January 17:46
but yeah totally not an advantage.
Interesting times
IMo that article was likely conservative at the moment
Tesla have scale and own the IP and will be costing them far less in terms of profits compared to buying from LG chem who are snowed under in orders and have actually raised prices recently.
Tesla should be under $100 per kwh cells and approaching $100 at a pack level as soon as they have the SR pack design finished.
The closest competitor we know about (afik) was GM at $145 for cells.
Tesla have scale and own the IP and will be costing them far less in terms of profits compared to buying from LG chem who are snowed under in orders and have actually raised prices recently.
Tesla should be under $100 per kwh cells and approaching $100 at a pack level as soon as they have the SR pack design finished.
The closest competitor we know about (afik) was GM at $145 for cells.
Chevrolet claim they pay 145 for the Bolt battery. Audi claim 114 for the e-tron battery.
Could be BS. It’s moot with Tesla as they are fighting overall costs. As all car makers do. This is why the big players use shared platforms and massive scale. It’s a frightening business to get right.
Could be BS. It’s moot with Tesla as they are fighting overall costs. As all car makers do. This is why the big players use shared platforms and massive scale. It’s a frightening business to get right.
samsock said:
I don't agree actually. Your point, if I understand correctly, is that Musk was wrong to try to control battery production so tightly under the same roof, and that it would be best for Tesla if he took more traditional approaches to supply chain management.
My reply is that there is nothing in that article (which Musk just rubbished on twitter) to suggest they are changing the original plan for end to end manufacture.
It's such a minor point I can only assume it's a straw man that you attack it.
Certainly doesn't warrant your boasts that you have finally put to bed any debate on Tesla having a competitive advantage in batteries, and enlightened us dim Tesla fans that can't see the truth that is oh so clear to thou.
That you were so quick to jump on such a hacky, click bait article as evidence in support of your position, that was firmly denied shortly after, just shows how flimsy your position really is. Yet you stand here and lecture everyone on the truth! Boils my piss you Tesla hating loon. No doubt your defense will be something like Musk always lies! Well it's not like the media bks you are basing your 'truth' on is any fking better
It’s a rework from a Reuters release. You’ve missed the point. And you’ve gone ranting early. All very low rent and terribly over emotional. My reply is that there is nothing in that article (which Musk just rubbished on twitter) to suggest they are changing the original plan for end to end manufacture.
It's such a minor point I can only assume it's a straw man that you attack it.
Certainly doesn't warrant your boasts that you have finally put to bed any debate on Tesla having a competitive advantage in batteries, and enlightened us dim Tesla fans that can't see the truth that is oh so clear to thou.
That you were so quick to jump on such a hacky, click bait article as evidence in support of your position, that was firmly denied shortly after, just shows how flimsy your position really is. Yet you stand here and lecture everyone on the truth! Boils my piss you Tesla hating loon. No doubt your defense will be something like Musk always lies! Well it's not like the media b
ks you are basing your 'truth' on is any fking betterEdited by samsock on Tuesday 22 January 21:51
Try thinking this through. Musk announced last year he would be aiming to secure battery supply locally. What does that say regarding the value of the supposed 20% product efficiency of the US made Panasonic cells in relation to overseas expansion? This just is not difficult stuff to think through.
It’s the footballist simple thinking that makes the brand fanatic think that anyone who dares point out something negative must be a hater. It is indeed just very low rent. Even more so when someone becomes so clearly distressed.
Burwood said:
It was pointed out many times (by others) that Tesla's Golden Arrow was Panasonic, in that they were ahead of the curve on production costs. And the competition had a 20% cost penalty on the battery pack. .
If this were true it wouldn't be Tesla's golden arrow, it would be panasonic's golden arrow. Yet panasonic stock is down 40% YoY, and Tesla's is broadly flat in a falling market.RobDickinson said:
The IP behind the tesla cells is jointly held, the machines that make the tesla batteries, owned by panasonic, are made by a company tesla owns. They have a 20% advantage on cost and the cells themselves are higher energy density, lower cobalt than the competition and made in vast quantities in comparison. Panasonic are happy with the GF1 deal, and its ahead of schedule and producing ~35GWh of cells pa at the moment.
but yeah totally not an advantage.
If the IP is jointly held how can that advantage be put to use in a secondary venture with a third party? but yeah totally not an advantage.
Panasonic are not happy with the GF1 deal. They have publicly stated their disappointment at the lack of volume. And it is exactly what has driven them to need to deal with Toyota out of fear of losing out in the huge race by the battery suppliers to secure deals with the automotive industry.
DonkeyApple said:
If the IP is jointly held how can that advantage be put to use in a secondary venture with a third party?
Panasonic are not happy with the GF1 deal. They have publicly stated their disappointment at the lack of volume. And it is exactly what has driven them to need to deal with Toyota out of fear of losing out in the huge race by the battery suppliers to secure deals with the automotive industry.
Can you provide links to the volume disapointment quotes?Panasonic are not happy with the GF1 deal. They have publicly stated their disappointment at the lack of volume. And it is exactly what has driven them to need to deal with Toyota out of fear of losing out in the huge race by the battery suppliers to secure deals with the automotive industry.
DonkeyApple said:
Panasonic are not happy with the GF1 deal
citation? Why have they recently put in 2 new production lines and are planning more investment then? They apologized recently for not keeping up, but have publicly stated they are happy about the whole deal. DonkeyApple said:
If the IP is jointly held how can that advantage be put to use in a secondary venture with a third party?
Nothing says they have to use the current tesla/Panasonic cell chemistry, tesla have their own battery research, also at the moment nothing says it wont be panasonic in the china GF3.samsock said:
DonkeyApple said:
If the IP is jointly held how can that advantage be put to use in a secondary venture with a third party?
Panasonic are not happy with the GF1 deal. They have publicly stated their disappointment at the lack of volume. And it is exactly what has driven them to need to deal with Toyota out of fear of losing out in the huge race by the battery suppliers to secure deals with the automotive industry.
Can you provide links to the volume disapointment quotes?Panasonic are not happy with the GF1 deal. They have publicly stated their disappointment at the lack of volume. And it is exactly what has driven them to need to deal with Toyota out of fear of losing out in the huge race by the battery suppliers to secure deals with the automotive industry.
samsock said:
DonkeyApple said:
It’s from Panasonic’s FY2018 accounts and statement!!!!!
Help me out here. Find and replace didn't work for me. What was the bit you are thinking of.Honestly not seeing anything other than they plan increasing investment.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff