OK, $35K, 115,000 pre-orders, delivery early 2018. (Yeah, he said "next year", and then the projection said "late next year", and then he waffled, so 2018 is realistic.)
Tesla's current production rate is about 70,000 units a year. Yes, the NUMMI plant once produced 500K vehicles a year on that site, but that just means Tesla has lots of empty building shell into which they can expand.
The real problem is profitability. Bloomberg is skeptical.[1] Tesla isn't profitable, and they have a high price point now. Cutting the price means they have to produce at a far lower cost while expanding factory capacity. That will be very tough. Jason Wheeler, Tesla's CFO, is going to have to come up with some creative financial strategies. But with near-zero interest rates, and lots of pre-orders, they can probably borrow heavily for plant at very low cost.
On a per-unit sold basis, Tesla Model S is wildly profitable, with a gross margin north of 30% [1]. However, they are obviously still in startup mode, so they reinvest all of those earnings along with investor capital into improving the business.
>Cutting the price means they have to produce at a far lower cost while expanding factory capacity.
Corporate finance is a little more nuanced than that. The price of expanding factory capacity is not an interesting number by itself; what matters is whether that investment will yield a profit over its useful life. Or, in more technical jargon, over the useful life of this investment, will marginal revenue per unit made possible by this investment exceed average total cost of producing units with this investment. Moreover, a dramatic expansion of capacity, executed competently, will reduce production costs across all product lines due to economies of scale, economies of scope, and improved negotiating power.
>But with near-zero interest rates, and lots of pre-orders, they can probably borrow heavily for plant at very low cost.
Tesla's credit rating is in junk bond territory [2] and their weighted average cost of capital is almost 9% (which includes interest free loans from pre-order reservation payments). So there isn't a lot of financial magic here - they need to produce units profitably to be successful.
> On a per-unit sold basis, Tesla Model S is wildly profitable, with a gross margin north of 30% [1].
I didn't read the article, but it's from 2012. Gross margins hace declined from 27.6% in 2014 to 22.8%. In fact in the fourth quarter the gross margin was just 18%, below Toyota, Daimler, BMW, Nissan, Renault, Hyunday, Kia (all in the range 18.9-20.1%) and Honda (22.9%). To be fair it was 19.2% for Tesla's automotive division. And after excluding a number of nasty thing the company can get to a better looking 25%. But I'm not sure this qualifies as "wildly profitable".
Maybe it's worldbeating in the class of companies that are building sizable hardware factories, setting up near-global sales channels and still haven't launched five products. And maybe it isn't; I can't think of many such companies, can you?
On a per-unit sold basis, Tesla Model S is wildly profitable, with a gross margin north of 30%
OK, I searched for "30%" in your link and nothing came up. So I scanned and saw nothing that claimed a gross margin of 30%. Where's it hiding?
I assume by gross margin you mean, "revenue - COGS". This of course ignores all the fixed costs, so it doesn't mean much. Even if they weren't investing in future growth, their fix costs could easily drag that 30% (still don't know where that came from) down into negative territory.
> This of course ignores all the fixed costs, so it doesn't mean much.
Au contraire, my friend. In business finance there are roughly 2 methods to calculate costs per unit: direct costing (DC) and absorption costing (AC) and they both have their benefits/disadvantages.
DC is where you leave out fixed costs to estimate if you will ever reach economics of scale. If a growth in production doesn't lead to diminishing marginal costs under the DC method, then you can never reach profitability under AC.
As long as DC leads to gross margin profits, there's hope of economies of scale and "all" you need to do is to increase production to make it work.
Of course this distinction doesn't apply for accounting and your P&L (however there are ways to get 'creative' with costs and depreciation there as well) so this is purely about decision making: should I build product/factory or not?
While I agree fixed costs shouldn't be ignored, isn't it true that they are called fixed costs for a reason? As in, as Tesla scales up production and is selling way more cars, their fixed cost per unit sold will go down with economies of scale. I think gross margin is much more meaningful here, but definitely correct me if I'm wrong.
Fixed costs aren't totally fixed, it's just that they won't change for every unit produced. But it may be the case that they will change when you produce say an additional 100 units (or 1,000 or 10,000 units).
So if you ramp up production and you need for example an additional factory, that means your fixed costs will go up.
They don't "go away", they get divided amongst a greater number of cars as production ramps up.
It's not even just Tesla cars, as other electric cars come to market, the prices for components they need in common (battery being the big one) will fall with scale too.
The battery is about half the cost of an electric car and battery prices have been dropping steadily, between 2007 and 2014 it halved (if you look a the whole market) or reduced by 2/3rds (if you look at leading manufacturers like Tesla) and are projected to continue to decline by 8-10% per year.
>On a per-unit sold basis, Tesla Model S is wildly profitable, with a gross margin north of 30%
SeekingAlpha is basically a collection of blogs to which anyone can contribute. If you spend any time there, you'd know "articles" are all over the map. I'm not sure that constitutes a good source.
> On a per-unit sold basis, Tesla Model S is wildly profitable, with a gross margin north of 30% [1]. However, they are obviously still in startup mode, so they reinvest all of those earnings along with investor capital into improving the business.
They would still report a profit under this scenario.
>But with near-zero interest rates, and lots of pre-orders, they can probably borrow heavily for plant at very low cost.
This is essentially the entire reason Tesla even exists. Nearly a decade of near zero interest rates have resulted in massive amounts of capital are available to be thrown at huge projects like this.
For quite some time, they've said "late 2017" which means 2 or 3 VIPs.. or, at best, a few low-VIN# Roadster/Model S owners, which means deliveries won't even BEGIN ramping until this time 2018
... which means, given Tesla's previous model delays, what, another year on top of that?
We put money down today, but as non-VIPs, the earliest possible theoretical delivery is 2 years from today, and more realistically it's like 3 years.
But the "late 2017" number has been consistent. That doesn't mean you should believe they'll hit it, just that it's been very consistent for some time now.
So they will have to spend what, nearly a billion, to buy that much production capability? For a car that will likely undercut sales of the S? I assume he will get the money for the factory equipment then comes the training of the people to build the car.
Production time should be easy to estimate once activity is seen at the factory. That is a lot of equipment that will need to be delivered and installed and it should be easy to estimate from what types of equipment and how much of it there is as to when production can reasonably start
Also, I made a reservation at the Fremont factory today. Took around 15 mins including line, but I went in around 10:30-11am. I'd estimate there were around 600 people before me in the morning. Fairly certain they will hit 100k before the stream starts.
The scope of the game has gotten very big with how much money they've raised, which means it's taking longer to develop that originally planned. Some people aren't thrilled with that.
As far as the Derek Smart guy that somebody linked, he's a nutter who likes the attention from his doomsday predictions of Star Citizen falling apart (it's the only reason anyone's every heard of him). Most famous for claiming last October [1] that Cloud Imperium Games would run out of money and collapse within 90 days.
Obviously it's been longer than that and development is still moving along. Alpha doesn't have a huge amount to do in the universe yet, but it's very playable. For example: the most recently flyable ship (Khartu-al) [2], and the much larger Starfarer [3] which is mostly done on the art side but not yet flying.
They've said Squadron 42 (single player campaign) will be out this year, with the multiplayer universe following sometime after.
> (it's the only reason anyone's every heard of him)
Derek Smart was an internet celebrity in the 90's. He was well known for his bombastic statements and engaging in flame wars about his own game, Battle Cruiser 3000AD.
Hm, I must have been on the wrong parts of the internet back then. I've seen his more recent projects (Line of Defense), but I had a Mac at the time so my selection of games was ... slightly limited.
That guy is easily the biggest tool in the industry. Just because he doesn't have what it takes to make even half decent games, he criticizes people with higher ambitions and skills.
The car looks comparable to a Honda CRZ or a Toyota Prius (or a Subaru BRZ). They should have gone with the small-sedan form factor, but I think they believe it will cannibalize Model S sales.
A Honda CR-Z is a compact 2-seater in the United States.
A Toyota Prius is an economy sedan with a surprisingly large back seat.
A Subaru BRZ is a small 4-seat sport coupe.
Your comparison can't possibly be valid because it's all over the map. From what I've seen, it IS a small sedan in the vein of a 3-series of A4 (larger than a Civic, smaller than an Accord).
Some nitpicks:
The CR-Z is a subcompact 2-seat hybrid hatchback.
The Prius is a compact hybrid hatchback (NOT sedan).
The BRZ is a 2+2 sport coupe (the back seat is nearly unusable).
I was focusing on the number of doors in pointing out how the parent's post didn't make sense. Thanks for the clarification, I don't know the exact vehicle classes obviously.
I disagree, bmw 3 series and basic Lexus are not "luxury" cars, they are called "Premium" cars. Luxury cars are Porshes, Maseratti, Bentley, bmw 6 series, mercedes CLS etc... Honda Fit and Ford Focus are small budget cars, Nissan maxima and accord are regular sedans.
If you call bmw 3 series a luxury car - then what would you call a porshe than?
Edit: Mercedec CLA is considered a luxury vehicle in a different class (just like you mentioned SUVs and trucks), it's a compact car, compact cars have a different starting price compared to the class we were talking about, thus it's considered luxury in that class.
I'm sorry, but luxury is relative to class. If you think a 6 series is luxury, but a 3 series is not, .... what is your definition, exactly? A 3 series is luxury because its compared to smaller generic cars, where a 6 series is ALSO luxury because it's compared to larger generic cars.
I'd never call a Porsche a luxury car because I consider them sports cars, even though many of their model lines are not particularly sporty anymore. Bentley/Rolls/etc are in a whole entirely different splashy show-off league where even many billionaires wouldn't buy one, simply because they're too ostentatious.
What's hilarious here is that you call the CLA (which is a bargain basement car) luxury, while a 3 series is not. Seriously, compare them. The 3er is a larger car and it's nicer. IF you're saying a CLA is luxury "in that class", then so is a 3 series.
But my Golf is nicer than a CLA. Of course, it's not considered a luxury car either, which is part of the appeal :)
> What's hilarious here is that you call the CLA luxury
I never called it luxury, I was referring to a link from wikipedia where it says it is a "luxury compact car".
My original point was in response to a comment (that is now edited) that model 3 does not look luxury for what it costs. My point was that none of the cars in that price range look luxury if you compare them to a higher priced cars.
"Luxury car", and "luxury car in a specific class" have different meanings in my opinion. You can't blame model 3 for not looking luxury, if other cars in that price range look the same and have almost the same set of features.
The actual specs haven't come out, but based on the video, it looks like the Model 3 size is somewhere on the order of Ford Focus / BMW 3-series / Mercedes CLA size. (I do realize that's a pretty big range of cars, but I'm being vague on purpose because its hard to get accurate measurements from a youtube reveal)
The Model 3's trunk AND frunk are abnormally short, kinda reminds me of the Honda Fit in some ways: save on costs by cutting back on the trunk and front of the vehicle... but put emphasis on the cabin space so that things feel comfortable from inside.
I'm willing to bet that the car feels larger on the inside than it looks... but from the outside... comparisons to the Mercedes CLA / BMW 3-series seem appropriate. I'll have to wait for the damn thing to come out to know for sure of course.
But in any case, that means that the Model 3 should probably still be considered a luxury vehicle. Compact-size at $35,000 starting? Yeah, that's luxury-class cost.
The Mercedes Benz CLA starts at $32k. Its considered a luxury vehicle by everyone I know, including Wikipedia.
Argue with someone else, like whoever wrote the Wikipedia article. A "luxury vehicle" is anything basically any sedan above $30k. There are a ton of vehicles below $20k, and plenty between $20k and $30k.
Vans and Trucks are a bit different, because they provide extra utility and often cost $30k+. Luxury SUVs, Vans, and Trucks are closer to $40k to $50k.
Most people I know don't even have new cars for crying out loud, and "new" is basically a luxury.
It's just a marketing thing, what "entry-level luxury" or "luxury" or "exotic" means is defined mostly buy the companies selling the cars, and the media industry talking about those cars.
"In economics, a luxury good is a good for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises, and is a contrast to a "necessity good", for which demand increases proportionally less than income. Luxury goods are often synonymous with superior goods and veblen goods"
You can buy serviceable vehicles for $15-20k that are reliable, last for a decade, and meet the critical needs in the US for a car [commute, almost all shopping trips, etc].
Adding what is effectively the price of another car ($15-20k) onto that is a luxury. Pretty much paying double the price you need to pay is something I'd consider a luxury regardless of the class of good.
Source: I paid $12k for a 2 year old car.
Honda Fit, etc as well are in that price range new:
I rather like his presentation style. For some reason it strikes me as genuine, like he's someone I can relate with and look up to. He doesn't need to be a flashy salesman because his projects will sell themselves.
"For some reason it strikes me as genuine, like he's someone I can relate with and look up to."
That's typical of salespeople at the higher levels. The smooth-talking types are down at the midmarket dealerships.
For the other extreme, see Shai Agassi, who ran an electric car company, Better Place. This is his 2009 TED talk.[1] I heard him speak once. He's really good looking, he sounds very convincing, and his business plan was total bullshit.
("E-miles follow Moore's Law.") But he convinced people to invest $900 million, met with many national leaders, and got massive press coverage. Better Place delivered a only a few hundred cars, built by Renault, before it went bust.
Does he appear a snake oil salesman in light of the facts you know now? Or you're saying you would have thought the same thing back in 2009? Do you have any specifics on why you feel that way?
Genuinely curious, as a person who likes to analyze public speaking events.
When I heard him speak at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, I though "I'm listening to a con man". He was talking about expanding his company 10x every year for years to come. Few companies have done that successfully, especially in a bricks-and-mortar business, which building battery-swap stations is. And the whole battery leasing model sounded like a financial gimmick. I used to go to VC events where people pitched, so I've heard lots of pitches.
I also thought, he's betting against battery technology. If somebody comes up with a battery that gives enough range and a fast charging system (which is what happened; visit your Tesla dealer) his whole battery-swap scheme is obsolete.
I also thought, if this is so great, and you're operating in countries from Israel to Denmark, why aren't there more of your cars on the road yet?
I agree, if someone was claiming they could grow a business 10x/year, that sounds suspicious. However, I didn't hear him speak at the Commonwealth Club, so I can only go off his TED talk. He says the EV industry will grow 100x between 2011 and 2016.
In that talk, he sounds more reasonable to me. There's a lot of overlap between his ideas and Elon's and he's very upfront about what he is and is not trying to do. He states that he's not trying to change the battery industry (like Elon with the Gigafactory); he's treating the industry as an input. His whole e-Miles concept seems like a different take on making the TCO, of an electric car, more appealing to the mass-market. I'm not saying I agree, I haven't run the numbers, but it doesn't sound unreasonable. In fact, Elon hedged himself by touting a battery swapping station.
My feeling is based off his TED talk alone, and I'm just not understanding where the snake-oil salesman vibe is coming from. It's very pleasurable to watch him present. Of course, if I had seen what you did at the Commonwealth, then my impression would be different.
Exactly, I can pay attentions to what Elon Musk is saying. Wheres others usually try to sugarcoat it. Says the same thing over and over again, and it gets really frustrating.
But Elon Musk jumps right to the point, and doesn't beat around the bush.
He is always like this. I think his words are generally quite precise and economical even if his delivery seems all over the place. I like it. It seems genuine. And I tend to drift off when things are too smooth and scripted.
He might have some sort of speech impediment and it would be a shit of a world if he were judged on that instead of his achievements.
He's a good reminder that it's not necessary to be the best speaker to be an amazing and inspiring leader. You could imagine another universe where Elon interviews at a tech company and doesn't get hired, just based on his presentation style.
He's usually like that. It kind of of makes you appreciate the Steve Jobs product unveils a bit more. Can't remember the last "product" that was hyped this much.
I think they could improve things by controlling the audience more. The presentation wasn't helped by people yelling and interrupting (yes, they were enthusiastic).
Apple handles this a lot better, they get applause and cheers, but it always seems to be at the right time. Is it because their audience is apple employees highly trained to give feedback on cue?
The cheering makes sense to me. There was a pretty reasonable fear that the 3 might be too compromised to be good. See the first generation Volt for example: reasonable sized car, supposedly well built and pretty cool, but only seats four. I strongly considered buying one until I discovered that tidbit.
Considering that the $1,000 is fully refundable with no fuss, I don't think there's much need for rationalization.
The difference is that Apple events are strictly invitation only, so the audience tends to be full of journalists and other press people. It's serious to the point where people who make Apple unhappy won't be extended an invite (like the iPhone prototype scandal a few years back).
This audience seems to be anyone who'd pre-ordered the model 3, so the general (Bay Area?) public. As a result it sounds like a terrible mix between an American stand-up show, a rock concert and a cheesy sitcom where everyone applauds when the main character coughs. Hence also everyone videoing the event on their phones - it's not even like a gig where you'd have to pay for the video...
(They also do this at Apple, but people seem to be a lot more covert about recording.)
This event was invite-only too, Tesla just invites a different set of people. Apple only invites journalists, while Tesla invited a bunch of current owners, mostly chosen by lottery.
It's even more likely that the people cheering the earliest and loudest were employees that were asked to do so, it's an easy way to hype up the crowd.
It doesn't matter though, the Model 3 would still be just as promising with or without the audience participation.
He is just like you and me (nerds) doing the best he can at a role he isn't very suited for (public speaking). When you consider this and he still doesn't try and palm this stuff off I think he is doing great.
He sounds genuine, and he probably is, but he chose to keep it that way, he is not a poor nerd crumbling under pressure.
Think of it: he has over 20 year experience as an entrepreneur. Actually his whole career after school was being a business man, with the majority of it in high level position and with considerable success. During his career he had and still has to talk and negotiate with Heads of States, Nasa Scientists and Astronauts, Banks, other CEO of the most important companies in the world ( his peers ), ...
He chose to do the unveiling, he has the confidence to do that. If he thought he was not up to it or that his style was letting him down, he could have chosen any other unveiling strategy.
I think it's because he knows the presentation in and of itself is unimportant vs the takeaways delivered, so he doesn't bother wasting time on it specifically since it has low ROI given his speaking capabilities. And I suspect he dislikes acting/faking, so he wouldn't use precise scripts anyway.
Edit - wow that is a better looking car than I expected. You can be as awkward serving as you like if that's the main course!
I mean, I'll reserve judgement until I see some more photos, but when he revealed the car it felt like a huge let down in the room. And I think we all know the car will be a success, but I got the impression that the people in the room were let down a bit by the design. I was surprised Elon didn't showcase the design at all.
I actually thought they seemed more bummed with the range. 210 miles is pretty vanilla, for a Tesla. It would have been nice to see it in the low 300s as a starting point.
Not that this stopped me from putting down my deposit.
I know. I was hoping they would have had the entry level range higher to really stretch consumer expectations when the established luxury brands start competing properly with Tesla in the next few years.
Pretty smart looking car. Doesn't ape the Model S' look too much, clearly looks a little more compact, and the roofline makes it look both roomy and a little space-agey. From the front it almost has a Porsche Panamera look going on... Nice looking car. I wish Tesla good luck, though I don't think they'll need it.
They announced during the livestream that they already have 115k preorders. Pretty crazy considering that they were all made site-unseen (I guess barring Tesla employees that placed their preorder and knew what the car looked like).
True. But based on previous models which are all pretty smart-looking, I'd say it was a safe enough bet that this model would be as well.
It's funny too, I never thought about the price point they're actually selling it for. I can afford one, and might just get one for my wife (my car is still new-ish, and efficient enough).
The panamera is a very awkward car, I agree. But I get where the parent is coming from. I expected the 3 to look like a scaled down S, and a Tesla employee friend said to expect something between an S and an X (yes, he had seen it.. and no, comparison to the X is not a compliment).
I was pleasantly surprised to see the video footage of it, though I don't think it translates well to the stills/screen grabs we've seen.
The headlights-above-the-beltline look reminds me of the Roadster and the Panamera and maybe a touch like the Dodge Razor concept. it's very much not an S, while somehow being attractive in many of the ways the S is (and ugly in none of the ways that the X is). Overall I'm quite pleased with the looks.
Can't stand the front. Looks more like a Toyota than like a "premium car". But I don't like the Porsche Panamera too. I don't think we have the same taste in cars.
That's just a plastic part, so it's easy to change without a huge expense. As opposed to a metal stamping, where the dies are super expensive to make. Most manufacturers change the look of the bumpers during their mid-model refresh, just to make an older car look attractive again.
What I found interesting was how smooth all the panels are. Obviously for aerodynamics, but I suspect it also lowers their costs, as lots of ridges and dips mean more chance for a panel to be stamped wrong, or to not align with an adjacent panel. Same with the interior - no gauge cluster means a cleaner look and lower costs. Not sure what the DOT and NHTSA is going to say about it...
Wow, I don't really know how bmw or mercedes are going to compete with model 3. Tesla does not look worse than 3 series and C class, is faster and is almost free to run. And the base bmw 3 series starts at $33,200 and it is almost empty inside...It will be an interesting couple years for auto industry for sure.
1.) Design is subjective. I for one think while the Model S looks great, the X and 3 do not look that attractive.
2.) I really don't think "faster" really means much when are you talking about the majority of the mainstream automobile market. Top speed is low on the list of priorities for the average consumer.
3.) Cheaper is not free. I would save about $70 (based on today's gas prices in Ontario, Canada) per month in gasoline costs, but it would still cost me about $60 a month in electricity costs to do an average of 20,000 km a year.
4.) Production capability, supply chain and support network can not be overlooked. Tesla struggled to get 50,000 cars out last year. BMW sold north of 2 million cars in 2015. I recognize Tesla is growing day by day, but 50,000 to 2 million is a big jump.
To be fair, acceleration speed is most important, and zero-to-sixty in 6 seconds is competitive against $30k cars. (The fastest cars in this price range... like Ford Focus RS... is zero-to-sixty in 4.7 seconds. $35,900 for the RS.)
Everyone appreciates a speedy acceleration, when merging into highways or getting out of the way. Its far more important to be quick on acceleration than to have a top-speed.
6 seconds is fast for a luxury sedan, but there are plenty of cars for less than $30k that will do zero-to-sixty in under 6 seconds. The Subaru WRX does 0-60 in under 5 seconds and costs ~$26k. That's the only 4 door car I can think of that's quite that quick, but there are plenty of performance oriented cars in that price range that are very quick.
Yeah, this is more about what I was getting towards.
Tesla Model 3 isn't breaking any records. I can think of plenty of cars in the price range that is that fast actually (and as you noted, the WRX definitely undercuts the Tesla significantly in price).
But in my experience, zero-to-sixty in 6 seconds is a good speed. Its not "slow", and should be fast enough to feel somewhat luxurious.
The Subaru WRX, and Ford Focus RS are performance-oriented cars after all. They happen to also be good daily drivers. Performance-oriented drivers will stick with Subaru WRX / Focus RS because the real time performance people care about is the Laguna Seca lap-time (or other lap times on famous tracks)... a combination of cornering speed, handling, acceleration, AND braking to test all aspects of the car.
Zero-to-sixty in 6-seconds isn't amazing, and the M3 likely won't do Leguna Seca very well (Model S overheats for example and is forced to slow down. Its probably something to do with electric motors)
And there's the Subaru WRX, beating out the Model S on Leguna Seca by a few seconds, let alone the Model 3. So yeah, people who care about overall performance aren't going to be getting any of the Teslas any time soon.
----------
So the real selling point is the electric car value. The question is if the Model 3 can actually deliver. Its still a concept-car, a lot of things are going to change between now and "late 2017", probably 2018 when the cars actually come out for most people.
The GM Bolt is launching this year. BMW is launching their electrics soon. Tesla has a leg up inside of the electric market IMO, but I'm curious to see if the M3 actually gets widespread adoption.
And no, I don't think a refundable $1000 deposit really counts as a real sale.
The other thing to remember is the Model 3 will still have that "100% torque from a full stop" feel that gives the Model S it's kick. I suspect it will feel much faster than an ICE with the same 0-60 speed.
I doubt it'd be much better than any manual car reving up to 4000 RPM and then dropping the clutch. You can squeal the wheels of even low-power engines with that technique.
Frankly, zero-to-sixty in 6 seconds WITHOUT shifting and with 100% standing torque is kind of... awful actually. I suspect the opposite, when a ICE engine hits 4000 to 6000 RPM and the torque kicks in, you'll be accelerating far stronger than the smooth acceleration a Model 3 will give you.
Consider a jerky zero-to-sixty with three gear shifts on your typical manual car (say... Ford Focus ST or RS), in contrast to the smooth acceleration from like a Nissan or a Subaru WRX. You definitely feel more G forces from the Focus, while the WRX only beats the other car because the CVT engine never has to "stop" for the gearshift.
Similarly, I'd expect the smooth acceleration on the Model 3 to have less peak G-forces than a manual car. It will happen to be a smooth and constant acceleration, but there's a HUGE difference in Model 3 vs Model S acceleration. And I hope people aren't getting their hopes up.
I'd go the opposite direction. As the owner of a Golf R (which competes with the STI and Focus RS), the 1-second-slower-to-60 Model 3 (this is the very base model, mind you.. no talk of dual engines or performance models yet) will certainly have less peak torque, but I think it will feel faster due to the linear nature of it. Having driven and ridden in a number of different-spec RWD Model S, the impression of acceleration is exaggerated by the off-the-line torque and lack of jerky shifts (remember, power has to let up in order for a shift to subsequently jerky).
Car and Driver just released a review of the STI vs Golf R vs Focus RS. Both the R and the RS had 1-second-slower 5-60 runs vs 0-60. Why? Because they don't have clutch-dropping launches. The STI was vastly worse -- 2 seconds slower 5-60 vs 0-60. That's right -- 5-60 was ~6.8 seconds vs ~4.8 seconds 0-60.
Remove the ICE drivetrain dump launch and suddenly ICEs don't feel so quick. A Model 3 that can do 6 seconds 0-60 might sound slow, but is faster than it sounds, and likely feels so. It laughs at 5-60 because, in the electric world, that's 5 fewer mph it has to accelerate through. In the ICE world, we're talking about a lot of revs we need to pound through before the exhaust gasses spin up the turbo enough to create adequate boost to force air into the engine to create powerful enough explosions to try to create enough power in the itty bitty engine. That's, quite simply, a huge amount of time lost.
Even in my R, I can mash my foot to the floor and wait a second or two before acceleration is truly impressive.
Which is crap compared to the naturally-aspirated 3.2L I6 in my BMW. Which is crap compared to the same engine with individual throttle bodies where there's less distance between the outside air and the valve controlling the intake. Which is crap compared to a much larger engine, like a big V8. All of which are crap compared to a properly-tuned electric motor. (yes, in the interest of efficiency, you may find that many electric motors are programmed to have really laggy throttle response; even so, BMW brags that the i3 is quicker 0-30 than their own M3, even though I found it to be horribly laggy in throttle and deceleration response)
Would you recommend the Golf R as daily driver - for someone who likes to drive? I currently have a 3.2 A3, its nice to have 6 cylinders, but I'm tentative about turbo 4 in the R. I gotta have a hatch.:) With that said, I have tested the Tesla S and the linear torque is different sensation compared to ICE. Totally agree with you on that, its the smooth power that feels faster. So, I ended up reserving the Model 3 because its closer my price range.
I love, love, love the Golf. I'm not the kind of person who always needs a new car -- my other car I've had for 10 years, a Z3 M Coupe. But despite not having owned a ton of other cars, I've driven quite a few (and especially the ST/WRX/STI/etc), and the R is head and shoulders above the rest. The number one thing is it oozes quality -- just such a nice car, it would feel premium even if it wore a BMW badge; it's not just "nice for a VW".
Performance is great, torque everywhere, handles great, great grip. Love it.
Meh. In my opinion, manual transmissions are a waste and appeal to people's vroom vroom instincts. Which is not utilitarian. My electric fiat feels super powerful from a stop and I really appreciate it for merging or other uses. I don't want to drop any clutches or have my car sound like a revving chainsaw just to speed up quickly.
My previous car was a Honda civic, and I appreciate the considerable improved acceleration and smooth everything of an electric car. I'll never again get an ICE if I can help it, and it looks like the model 3 will be waiting for me when I'm ready.
Even the Volvo XC90 managed to slide under the bar at exactly 6 seconds. You really have to work hard to move downmarket enough to still be over 6. Sorry Kia owners.
The comment he replied to said nothing about Tesla competing with BMW on all models, the original comment was referring to model 3 vs bmw 3 series and C class Merc
His point was that the supply chain is there and working well. Tesla has a non-trivial amount of work to do to be able to catch up to those sorts of production numbers.
Legit question: How much does a Tesla cost to recharge?
I mean assuming you do it in your home and not at a free charging station. Are we talking $1/charge? $5? 50c? I just want a frame of reference. I'm talking raw electricity only (and obviously based on some average rate).
The average battery size for the Model S is probably 85kWh (they sell them from 70 - 90), and average residential power rates in the US are ~$0.15/kWh. So the easy answer is, a Model S will cost ~$12.75 to "fill up". However, some places have residential rates closer to $0.08/kWh, or $7/tank. That's for 300mi range.
They do sell lower capacity battery versions and the entry level Model 3 will likely have a 50kWh battery for a 215mi range, so that would cost $7.50 to fill.
Most areas have night-time plans from the utilities to level demand where they charge a lot less for power, the Supercharging stations are free to use for Tesla owners, so the average cost will probably be quite a bit lower.
Does the Tesla come with charge management settings to specify how much and when it charges? Some residents have power plans with reduced or free electricity during off peak. Mine is free on weekends for example and I usually only drive 150 miles/week. I could theoretically charge for free and always have a least a hundred miles range during the week. It would be nice if I didn't have manually schedule this.
Power rates vary widely in the US. In Southern California, I am above $0.30/kWh. I haven't done the math recently, but I don't think it's very cost competitive with today's gasoline prices for an ICE.
The average electric price in the US is 10-15 cents per kWh for most regions. A 60 kWh battery would cost $6 to $9 to fully charge, then. With gas at just ~$2 per gallon, it's only a ~50% discount compared to the fuel a gas car with decent MPG would need for the same distance travelled. The economics were better when gas cost twice as much.
Still a great savings at that vehicle class. Especially compelling is home charging with solar. Why not close the circle with a Tesla PowerWall and some Solar City panels? =P
It depends (d'oh) on how much charge you need to fill in and how much you pay for electricity (at time of charging). In my case I carge at work, so $0. Literally.
However, my daily commute is about 50 mi. My avg. W/mi is 340, so 17 kWh @ $0.13/ kWh (PG&E, EV-rate), so $2.21 but increase by ? 10% for various efficiency losses.
The Model S comes with a standard 60 kwH battery, which at an average rate of $0.20/kwH for electricity in the US, that's about $12.00 to fill it up for 250 miles range.
I find peoples' car aesthetics opinions totally incomprehensible. Ask 10 people what they like and you'll basically get 10 mutually incompatible answers.
Personally, I like futuristic looking stuff (I think it goes back to the Lamborgini Countach when I was growing up). Other people hate that, hate the Prius, etc. I'm always shocked how many people think a car has to have a traditional shape or it's ugly. Some people love Ferraris, I think they look like a woman's shoe. It's just a mess.
I think luxury cars look totally silly. I actually think the Toyota Previa is a gorgeous car and I'd have way more fun in that than in a Mercedes, which would make me feel totally ridiculous. I doubt there's another person on the planet who feels the same. I don't know why car aesthetics are so personal. I guess clothing is the same, only no one expects clothes to be one size fits all.
Yeah this is really funny. Somewhere in this thread somebody said that he finds the 3s design superior to the Model S and that he really likes the Porsche Panamera. My taste in cars is completely the opposite.
But I don't care too much about asthetics in cars, I value practical considerations much higher.
The C Class you've linked starts at 40,000$ and featurewise it's empty inside, you will need to add an extra $10K to get all the features basic model 3 has.
"they provide a more luxurious experience at the same price point."
A much, much, much more luxurious experience.
The highest end, max-optioned Model S you can buy does not have as nice an interior as a decent 3 series or C class mercedes. It doesn't even beat out their low end.
Never mind the cars in its price range (A8/S class/7series). They're not even remotely comparable in terms of interior or luxury appointment.
I find it odd, actually ... of all the things you have to do to make a car, sourcing some decent highly adjustable seats and some nice leather appointments, etc., has to be the easiest. Further, you can just add a "luxury package" and option it at $9950 and call it a day ... and lots of people would buy it.
There is a pretty big difference between the German luxury aesthetic and the Detroit luxury aesthetic. It's clear why they're not imitating Cadillac, but why not take some cues from Audi or BMW?
The very fast 0-60 times that you see in electric cars are a function not of their massive engines or super tuned turbos, but of their instantaneous torque (as they are electric).
Given that this is an electric car, and that its size and weight are commensurable to the (presumably) smaller electric motor, I would expect it to have similar 0-60 times.
I just assumed that whenever this car was released it would have <4 second times ... why wouldn't it ?
Which brings up the question of whether it's not already time existing cars (starting at the performance end, and then trickling down to consumer market), should not already be replacing:
ICE---[constant rot. speed & constant torque]-->dynamo--->battery-->fully electric motor(s) drive train.
That would give most of the performance benefits/efficiency of electric motors, with the range of ICE-based vehicles. Since operating at essentially constant torque / speed, the ICE could then itself be made more compact and simplified to reduce the vehicle's weight.
I'm sure the above is already being done or worked on, and maybe someone could point to examples of it.
It uses the battery to get going, and then gradually revvs up the ICE engine, which only has a single speed, as you go faster. You get the growl and power of an engine in its sweet spot with the instant torque of an electric and a dramatically simpler drivetrain, less weight, etc.
Supposedly it's amazing to drive, if you have a million dollars.
You're trying to compare the cheapest Model 3 with the most expensive Model S, which explains the discrepancy. Only the P85D/P90D get from 0-60 in less than 4 seconds, and I'm sure the top end Model 3 will be similar.
>Given that this is an electric car, and that its size and weight are commensurable to the (presumably) smaller electric motor, I would expect it to have similar 0-60 times.
To get sub-4 seconds you need to add a second motor (and larger motors for the "P" versions), which Tesla made optional to keep the base price down.
Also peak battery power limits the 0-60. Again to keep the base price down the cheapest Model 3 has a smaller battery than the S, which tends to reduce peak power and therefore acceleration. That explains the performance drop from 5.4s to <6s.
> The very fast 0-60 times that you see in electric cars are a function not of their massive engines or super tuned turbos, but of their instantaneous torque (as they are electric).
No, not quite. 0-60 times in an electric car are determined by power. You're right that motors don't have to change too much to be more powerful, but _delivering_ that much power becomes difficult.
First off, batteries can only deliver so much power, in proportion to their size. So, a 90kWh battery will be able to deliver more power than a 60kWh one. Then you have to change the DC power of the battery to AC for the motor: the more you want to handle the more inverter you need and the more costs rise. And all the ancillary things around the drivetrain need to scale up: cooling, copper wire gauge, etc.
It's easier to go fast in an EV, but you still don't get it for free. I'd actually prefer an 8-second 0-60 if they could put that money somewhere else. That's plenty fast for me.
The $35,000 model will go 0-60 in less than 6 seconds, which is pretty respectable. They will definitely sell models that are faster, but to balance range and battery life with performance requires that you don't put ludicrous mode in the model with a 215 mile range battery pack.
Customers would complain if they only got <100 miles range because they were doing burnouts at every stop light.
I wonder if this is to prevent it from stealing sales from the higher priced models - would as many BMW M3s get sold if the base 3 series was as quick?
> I just assumed that whenever this car was released it would have <4 second times ... why wouldn't it ?
I believe it's simply so that they can get people to pay for upgrades. I don't think there's much of a difference in motor cost/size/weight so they _could_ have a larger motor in the base model, but then you'd need other incentives for people to buy a more expensive package.
Because you can make more money by charging extra for performance. For an extreme example, the Model S P90D has a $10,000 Ludicrous Mode option which just flips a software switch.
Ludicrous requires a new contactor and fuse, yes. But what they didn't say and few people know (including, I assume, all the people who downvoted my original comment) is that all P90Ds have this hardware. There is at least one P90D test drive car which has been upgraded to Ludicrous in software by its service center, so it definitely doesn't require any hardware beyond what a P90D already has.
That's very interesting. I found a relevant thread on TMC[0] which seems to show that the two packs have the same part number. However, it didn't have a direct report of a software upgrade in a service center. Do you have a source?
It was on TMC somewhere. I couldn't locate the original message about the test drive car, although there are some mentions of that message. I did dig this up:
That's a report of a P90D owner in the UAE who got theirs upgraded to Ludicrous using just a laptop and an underline for the badge on the car. According to that, early P90Ds weren't this way, but newer ones are.
It is definitely weird. You'd think this hardware costs a lot of money. Maybe inconel contactors and pyrotechnic fuses are cheaper than I think.
Hm. Interesting. I can see a couple of other possibilities:
1) The upgraded hardware was required to support the current draw in the regular P90D, and the decision to offer the Ludicrous upgrade was an economic one.
2) The upgraded hardware was required to support the current draw in the regular P90D, but given their battery and drivetrain warranty they limited the max current to avoid excessive wear on the parts. The price of the Ludicrous mode upgrade is intended to offset increased maintenance costs while under warranty.
Those are both good possibilities. Another one that comes to mind is that the upgraded hardware isn't necessary and isn't particularly cheap, but isn't too expensive, and the ability to offer an easy post-purchase upgrade offsets it. For example, if the hardware costs $1,000 but 15% of P90D owners later upgrade their cars for $10,000, that's a win.
Pretty solid specs for the base model. I'm very interested to see how much those numbers go up (or down, in the case of 0-60) as the options are revealed.
Some of the press pics and video from inside the car is really interesting. There is no instrument panel and the only screen is the center tablet. That would seem to be somewhat inconvenient to view things like speed. I wonder if that is hinting at a future with expanded autopilot were the driver can pay less attention to the instruments.
I can understand wanting to use a screen rather than physical instruments (which are more complex, expensive, and have moving parts that break), but I hope they place it in front of the driver, not off to the right in the final version. Or at least have a smaller screen in front with things like speed and battery level.
Usually you'd drive on cruise control, I reckon. Wouldn't be surprised if Tesla has or adds a semi-auto cruise control that either matches speed with other traffic, or with the speed limits on that stretch of road already.
I don't think it needs one. Speed is displayed on the driver's side of the center screen. There are lots of cars out there already with the instrument cluster in the center of the dashboard rather than behind the steering wheel, such as the Prius.
That's buried into the dash though. So... 35 degree viewing angle maybe? No way the floating near the cup holders tablet can be final. It's have to be like a 55 degree viewing angle? It would have the most distracting, just plain bad ergonomics of any car ever produced (that I can think of).
Think of glancing at your center-dash Nav. Now imagine it on a pedestal pushing it another 5 or 6 inches off the dash straight back. It'd be downright dangerous IMO.
But where are the cup holders? The pictures look like blanks. The a/c vents? The running gear controls? A gear selector? Surely that's not on the steering wheel or tablet?
I'd bet this is a reveal of a chassis and power train. Not the car's interior. I would expect major changes ahead.
The eventual goal is to have the car be able to open your garage door, exit, close your garage door, then drive to your location, stopping to charge itself at supercharger stations along the way.
The NYC to LA tweet implies the car would need fully autonomous driving capabilities to do so.
I wouldn't expect the autonomy package to have a huge impact on range. It takes a lot of energy to figure out where you are and navigate when you're looking at it from the context of a quad copter or what you can carry in your pocket but it's probably going to be pretty small compared to a Tesla's beastly 60+kWh battery. Even on the rolling cabinet I worked on[1] the motors took more power than the autonomy kit did.
I don't mean the range so much as it sounds like he could be hinting that the car will be capable of being fully autonomous. Considering the price point for the entry level version is ~35k, could we be about to see the first mass market self driving car?
I think it's very clear the Model 3 will be fully autonomous.
It has no cluster - no gauges of any kind in front of the driver, and only a tiny speed readout on the big screen in the center of the dash. In the Verge video a Tesla designer says that's production ready (not just alpha).
I won't be shocked if it doesn't have a steering wheel or pedals, or at least downplays them a lot.
I think part of the issue was that the audio was poorly mixed. This type of stuff happens at all kinds of events, but they typically isolate audio from the speaker only via lapel mic.
You always mix in SOME crowd noise otherwise they don't seem to cheer. But it is a pretty dynamic operation with an operator raising the gain and lowering it as needed to get the desired effect.
In this case the crowd noise was as loud as the speaker and as a result they seemed to shout over him.
> If you buy a conventional car, your interaction with the people who made it has ended. With Tesla, that interaction has only just begun.
There's something unnerving about this. Your car has access to so much information about you. Where you go, where you work, what stores you like to shop at, and what restaurants you like. To me, a car is a tool. When I purchase a car, I'm purchasing The engine, the wheels, and the right to use the software running behind the scenes. I couldn't care less about forging a one sided, Orwellian relationship with a large company. Even if that company is freakishly awesome.
I'm with you. I don't want a relationship with company.
Conventional modern vechicles might not track your movements, but they keep you tied to the mothership/dealership after purchase.
These conventional modern vechicles are complicated. They are loaded with propriatiatry features, unbelievably complicated emmission devices, and computers I can't access--even if I spend 5 grand on the right scanner. (If they will sell to an owner?)
That vechicle in the movie Vacation comes to mind. These modern vechicles, not Elan's, are just a time bomb waiting to break down. Good luck finding an independent shop that knows how to efficiently repair these modern masterpieces. Most people are going to have a relationship with a dealership, at dealership prices.
I just got smogged a '87 Toyota yesterday. What I spent on parts/my labor was rediculious. Yea--it passed, but it's rediculious how stringent CARB has gotten. My little car is not a threat to the enviornment. Plus, how much carbon did I spare the enviornment by not buying a new vechicle every few years?
This rant is Not about Tesla. I understand why they need access to most of the vechicle's electronics.
It's about these conventional vechicles you people are buying. I want a vechicle that I can keep for a long time.
If things don't change, I forsee throwaway vechicles.
Essentially a bunch of bricks.
Maybe that's what they want. "Oh they will just by the newer version? They loved the voice assisted gps?
I'm driving around my old vechicle that's running a stoichiometric number of 14.7:1. Meaning it's running well. I'm throwing out 20 ppm's of HC. 02 was .1 percent. My CO was .04 at idle. My N0 was 0 due to a $300 catalytic converter.
In California, my little 4 banger is a horrid high emitter?
Good luck smogging these newer vechicles when that warranty runs out. Good luck repairing these overly modernized vechicles. They will break down.
Tesla vehicles are almost solid state devices, with relatively few moving parts compared to an ICE equipped vehicle.
I have an electric leaf blower, that never requires maintenance, lubrication, oil changes, etc. My next door neighbor has an ICE powered leaf blower and has to change the oil and lubricate it every season.
I'm not sure how you can argue that an ICE equipped vehicle will be easier to maintain than a fully electric one.
Smog? There is no smog on an EV - it's zero emissions.
I believe most modern cars you buy today (even low-end ones) have a GSM modem connected to a phone carrier which is probably active regardless of your payment for the "connected" features, so not much better unless you figure out a way to pull its power.
You could remove the SIM card I suppose. On some cars this is super easy (it just pops right out of the dash), on the Model S unfortunately its a lot harder to access (but still doable). And while most cars seem designed to do just fine when you pop out the SIM, nothing prevents Tesla from making the car inoperable without the SIM (I have no idea what the current behavior is, just speculating).
I did not look hard, but didn't find an obvious location to remove the SIM from my Mercedes. It is certainly undocumented in the owner's manual.
Note that [depending on the modem], simply removing the SIM might not be enough to turn the radio off. It might still try connecting to the network and naturally send your IMEI to the carrier. For instance, handsets are usually configured so you can call emergency numbers without SIM cards. They need to reach out to a network to do so. You might still be tracked. It's better to make sure it is not powered.
I agree that Tesla probably takes the Orwellian issues to a whole new level, but I'm not sure this sort of lockdown would be limited to EVs for long.
If your car has any "Telematics" system (OnStar, mBrace, ConnectedDrive, Car-Net, etc.) it definitely uses a SIM card to phone home. It varies based on the car, but I know as of ~MY2012, every single GM car comes standard with the OnStar functionality. I wouldn't be surprised if other manufacturers are the same.
Maybe, but I am coming to believe more and more that battling climate change will require a fundamental reexamination of core principles, up to and including privacy.
If you want to build truly autonomous cars, data capture and analysis of the data that is gathered will be mandatory. Provided Tesla performs a reasonable job of anonymizing the data and not storing personally identifiable information, I'm fine with it.
If it gives us self driving cars a couple years earlier than we would have otherwise, I think it's worth the tradeoff.
Something isn't right there. The cockpit doesn't seem to be finished. Compared to Model S and Model X cockpits, this one isn't on par. Where are screens behind the wheel, what about the middle console, AC, wheel controls?
http://cdn2.autoexpress.co.uk/sites/autoexpressuk/files/styl..., seriously?
I agree, to a point. The interior does look a bit spartan, however is this just a pre-release model? Will the final car look exactly like this? I can see certain things being tweaked over the next year and the dash is one of them.
I suspect it could have a HUD (Head up display) to show the driver basic information (speed, navigation etc). Everything else can be on the center console.
Felt more like they're just not ready yet (not a good sign IMO). When the final version of the Model X got a stage reveal, Musk presented a great deal more info (interior, new features like BioHazard mode, etc...)
The BioHazard Mode was a work of genius. Not in terms of the actual feature, but in marketing terms, everyone was talking about it and it was a unique thing that only Tesla had.
Essentially they re-branded "full" on the AC dial.
When the final version of the Model X got a stage reveal, they capped off the night by delivering cars to their first six customers. It's not a reasonable comparison with the Model 3 target release being a year and a half out.
The presentation definitely felt short. I wanted to understand more of the specifications, get to know the car a little bit. Especially if 115K people just pre-ordered something they know so little about.
I was surprised too. They left SO many questions completely unanswered. At minimum I thought they'd give us an internal tour, show someone sitting in it, even if it was via cheezy video.
Hopefully some vehicle reviewers will test drive it and we'll learn more going forward. Or when Tesla's site comes online.
I'm actually going to reduce my reservation to one car now. Pretty disappointed at the design, it looks like a Prius.
For the price point, I would obviously still buy one... but the hatchback style is not as appealing for a mid level luxury car that may compete with a MB C-class or BMW 3-series.
They could have made it look like an Audi A4 sedan, with an available hatchback, but I think that would cannibalize Model S sales to some extent.
Tesla also announced they are going to increase Model S prices starting this month. This could be part of their strategy to increase Model S sales now, before they release revisions in the future.
What's also interesting is that Tesla cleared all CPO inventory at the beginning of the year. On their Pre-Owned site, they had used Model S going for less than 50k. They cleared it all out early in the year and now only offer recent models as inventory for lease/purchase.
True. Some design elements still seem strange to me, but perhaps it was optimized for efficiency?. There is no front grille for instance. While there is no need for one on an electric car, the Tesla still has an indent for one.
I think part of the front end design was shaped by laws requiring a human safe zone in the front of the car. My understanding is that every car on the road must not push a human under the car but up and over the hood. Maybe that's why the front end has that indent.
The optimum subsonic shape is a hemisperhical nose with a long tail tapering to a point ( like an ice-cream cornette on its side, with the dome of ice-cream heading into the wind ).
The K-tail is an abbreviation of that impractical-for-cars long tail which gives most of the effect for much less effort.
The Tatra T77 was an attempt to implement the optimum form though even then the tail was somewhat abbreviated:
Almost all the pictures in that set are renderings, not actual cars. Personally, I don't much like the way it looks from the "real car" pictures taken at the show - the windows seem too large and the whole thing just looks misproportioned.
Hatchback? It's neither technically a hatchback, nor does it look like a hatchback.
When you open the trunk on the Model 3, none of the rear window glass opens up, the trunk hinges behind the glass. So technically, it's a sedan.
Looks wise, it's a fastback.
So to someone with typical American sensibilities, it's got the worst of both worlds: the looks of a fastback, but without the cavernous rear opening you get with a fastback or a hatchback.
Luckily, I've got more European sensibilities and much prefer the looks of hatchbacks, fastbacks and wagons to boring sedans.
Okay, I'll say it. I don't like the hatchback-esque look. I would have much preferred a normal sedan design.
Yes the car is amazing in a ton of other ways, and yes the look will probably grow on me over time, but I don't want to "learn to love it". I want to innately find it beautiful at first glance. And my initial, instinctual reaction to the unveil was...a feeling of slight letdown.
Hatchbacks give you more headroom than sedans. So if they're primarily concerned with its back seat roominess then going hatchback makes a lot of sense.
Hatchbacks are simply more practical vehicles unfortunately. They don't even have that much worse MPG than a sedan, and they give you a little more space to work with. It is a pragmatic choice.
Hatchbacks are also hugely popular in Europe. Maybe it will grow on Americans as well - something like the Model 3 could be watershed car that creates a new design fashion.
To keep size (and thus weight) down, but still seat 5, I'm not sure you have a lot of choice. That said, it might be possible they'll release a coupe variant, or a sporty wagon variant. I wouldn't mind if it was more wagon-esque, and that's probably the easier of the options as it wouldn't require reconfiguring rear seat size at all.
I don't see why anybody likes dull sedans. They all look like Camrys to me. Even some of the best-looking cars that LOOK like sedans (like the Model S and Mazda6) were liftback/hatchback designs.
I'm on car number 7 now and hope to never own a sedan in my life. Wagon/hatchback for life.
More like game over for some auto makers. You have to think for $35,000 would most people rather get a Tesla, a BMW, a Lexus, a Mercedes, or an Audi? Tesla is going to grab many of these guys customers. I for one, can't wait for my lease to be over.
The last time I looked at a reasonably loaded Honda Odyssey it was over $40k. $35k is not really a high end price point any longer. Also for those who care about such things, $35k buys you more social status with a Tesla than with one of those other ICE cars.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Even I could go put $1k down for a Model 3 and then renege when they start shipping. But the Nissan Leaf sales are buying a whole car.
Well, they need to deliver them. Right now, 170K car is also 3 years of production for Tesla. Also it means if you want you Tesla Model 3 you have to wait until 2021 (time for Tesla to deliver the 115K one already booked) which is a long time to wait, 1 full leasing cycle.
Of course, we basically have no details currently. The spec of the car, and the delivery capacity of Tesla will change until the actual release day but it is way too early to compare to actual existing cars.
Tesla is claiming they'll be able to produce 500,000 cars a year by the end of 2017 when the cars are finally available.
This is a very agressive goal, and I'm not sure they can meet it, but I'm fairly certain their production capacity will be higher than it is today, especially given the unused capacity in the gigafactory that will come online over the next 1.5 years.
Hopefully. That is IMO what's taking them so long to get the Model 3 out, pretty sure it would be on the market today if not for their production capacity.
You can do alright as a brand with limited availability of luxury car like the Model S, but in the premium category you really need to be able to produce some number.
In Europe in particular, the big customer of that car segment is corporate leasing, unfortunately they need somewhat short lead time. For example, most of my friends in continental Europe have company car, but they only have 2 to 3 months to order and pick their car ( they also have a limited set of brands and models, but I'm sure Tesla will make the shortlist ), so that means until they can get a Tesla that fast, they will stay stuck with BMW/Mercedes for another 4 years cycle.
> Both cars will start at $30,000 or less after federal tax credits of $7,500 are applied. And both go at least 200 miles on a fully charged battery. The Bolt is a five-passenger hatchback that boasts cargo space and more legroom for rear passengers—front-seat backs are an inch thinner than in most cars.
Looks almost identical specs-wise to Chevy Bolt, which will be available at the end of 2016 rather than 2017.
The Tesla is a bit cheaper. I don't think the Bolt has any Autopilot-like options. Far more importantly, the Bolt has no real fast charging infrastructure, either existing or planned. If you like to drive to places more than 200 miles away, there's still only one company with an EV that can reasonably do that.
Supercharging network should be irrelevant in my mind. If you need to drive more than 200 miles away, you need ICE. Assuming you could get a 100% full charge in 30 minutes at a supercharger, and 210 miles of range at 60mph, you are driving 3.5 hours and standing around for 30 minutes. Meanwhile, ICE can get you 400 miles, or 6.5 hours of driving at 60mph, on a 15 minute gas fill up. Electrics are great for a lot of reasons, but long road trips in a Model 3 is going to be a lot of time staring at clouds.
I own a Model S and have clocked 23k miles on it over the last year, most of which on long roadtrips.
I love it. The car mostly drives itself between superchargers, and the SCs are usually next to coffee shops or restaurants. I don't mind getting up and stretching / having a drink every few hours.
But if minimizing recharging/refueling is your main priority, yeah, you can't beat ICE.
As a high performance driving enthusiast, I am very receptive to electric cars. I've hammered on the Roadster and Model S pretty hard on close courses, and instruct others. I put money down on a Model 3 today.
That said, "15 minutes to refuel" an ICE is way overstated; it's more like 5 tops, including a piss break and cleaning the windshield. I don't disagree that the supercharger setup is great (I have a friend who does deployments), and it would come in handy for my regular bay area<->san diego roadtrips. That said, Tejon Ranch to San Diego is kind of pushing it on a slightly lower range S, and 2x 30min stops is non-trival for most people. I just finished a 4000mi southwest roadtrip (incidentally, a piss break in BFE Utah had me at an unexpected supercharger station), and we're a ways from where I'm comfortable doing such a trip on electricity. But that's fine -- that's my hangup, not a technical problem, and not something that can't be solved relatively soon. If electric adoption continues to ramp up as quickly as it has, finding a station won't be an issue, it'll just be a minor inconvenience to spend 25 mins more charging up -- which, again, is probably a worthwhile tradeoff for lower operating costs, and considering that 98% of customer miles involve regular end-of-day recharges.
Incidentally, my quickest roadtrip was down the west coast at an average speed of 75mph; 900 miles in about 11h with only a single fuel stop. By stopping in Oregon, where the clerk fills your car for you, I was able to receive a full tank of fuel, a piss break, and a gas station hotdog and soda in approximately 2 minutes' time. YMMV :)
I love how every time I bring this up, somebody feels the need to mansplain to me how impractical it is in reality, as if I'm not speaking from experience.
I've driven my Model S on several long trips, including DC to Florida and back this winter. I'm planning a trip to Montreal this summer. At no point in this do I wish I had an ICE car for the trip, let alone "need" one. In fact, there's no other car (except maybe a Model X) I'd rather do this sort of trip in.
If you're the sort of person who grabs a sandwich while gassing up and eats it behind the wheel, like the commenter down below, then yes, the need to charge is going to really mess with you. But if you're the sort of person who still sits down for your meals during road trips and takes reasonable bathroom/stretch breaks, it hardly makes a difference.
Does the need to charge slow you down? Yes. Does it slow you down a lot? No. Does it mean you "need ICE" for any long trip? Absolutely not. In my experience, it slows you down by something like 10-15%. In exchange, you get a smooth, quiet ride that doesn't leave you tired at the end of the day's driving.
I'm not trying to "mansplain" to you at all, whatever that means, but it is always a joy to have your comments dismissed through meaningless terms by a Tesla owner. Being dismissive of others for having a differing opinion is just unproductive to turning people towards Tesla.
I am just trying to point out that to some people, standing and pointing at superchargers as some viable way to make it cross country is really dreadful, and yet people still try to sell them as though they are the most amazing thing. I have also recently driven from DC to FL. In all, it was about 1000 miles one-way. I had to stop for gas twice, filled up when I got there, and filled up twice on the way back. Let's say that adds 30 minutes each way to a 14 hour trip (and yes, you can certainly fill up, use the rest room, and sit down to eat in 15 minutes - it's not a 5 course meal, it's a roadtrip). If I compare that to having to stop every 200 miles - again assuming that you could get a 100% charge in 30 minutes, which AFAIK you don't, you get to 80% or so - you would need to stop 4 times on the way for 30 minutes each. You have now arrived 1.5 hours later than I did.
And honestly, what do you do for 30 minutes at each of these stops? If you left at 9am, you would stop for lunch at noon, second lunch at 3pm, dinner at 6, and second dinner at 9 in a Tesla. And then you're saying "you get a smooth, quiet ride that doesn't leave you tired at the end of the day's driving", but honestly, just buy a nicer car. What are we comparing, a $75000 Tesla and a $15000 Kia? There are so many wonderfully comfortable ICE cruisers out there, test drive an Acura TLX, quiet and comfortable, same price as a Tesla 3 with double the range.
I feel like we are in the early days where people really try to downplay and apologize for the charging issues on electric cars, but it's not the way it has to be. Musk showed that very amazing 'drive up battery replacement' thing awhile back, and then it just died. How awesome would it have been if that became reality, rather than just plunking down superchargers every couple hundred miles?
Sorry I don't mean to rant, it's just incredibly awkward trying to point things out when Tesla owners/fanboys are so excited and dismissive of anybody who prefers to drive with an ICE.
It's fine if you want to express a differing opinion. Where we have a problem is when you say stuff like "you need ICE." That's not a differing opinion, that's you making a blanket statement that includes me and is clearly wrong. Having a differing opinion is fine, trying to force that opinion on people who aren't you is a problem. Had you said, "It's not for me, I don't like stopping that often" then I wouldn't have even felt a need to reply. You talk about Tesla owners dismissive of anybody who prefers to drive an ICE, but I didn't do that. In fact, I explicitly called out a set of drivers who would have good reason not to like road trips in a Tesla. You're the one dismissing people who disagree, not me.
And then here you go, telling me about hypothetical numbers you've run for an actual trip I did. You want to know what mansplaining means? That's a perfect example. You're explaining something to me that I already know and that you know I know, and acting like you know it better than I do. You conclude that whole thing with "You have now arrived 1.5 hours later than I did" as if this is some sort of interesting new fact. I already said in my comment that charging slows you down by 10-15%. So what's even the point of restating that?
You actually stop more often for somewhat less time, because you charge faster at the lower end of the battery. Ideally, you arrive at 0% and charge just enough to get to the next charger. In reality you want a margin, but typical stops are more like arriving at 10-20% and leaving with 70%. I believe we stopped to charge 7 times on the way down, and 9 times on the way back (one extra was because we detoured to Orlando, and one was unnecessary but we stopped at the Costco in Woodbridge, VA and decided to take advantage).
What do you do at each stop? Well on the way down, at Richmond we bought a Christmas present. That stop was definitely just lost time. At Rocky Mount, we had lunch. At Lumberton, we used the bathroom and bought some snacks. At Santee we had dinner. At Savannah we didn't have much to do. The next day, we stopped at Kingsland, used the bathroom, and waited. At Port Orange, we had lunch. At West Palm Beach, we waited.
Is it ideal? Obviously not. Is it perfectly fine for many people? Yep. You mention Tesla's battery swap program. Do you know why it died? Because it's just not very popular among owners. Superchargers are good enough. They actually built a swap station along the busy LA-SF corridor, and it just doesn't get enough use to justify expansion.
Now, if you take a look at my description of the stops and say, ouch, that's not what I'd want to do, then that's totally fine. Just don't try to tell me what I need. If you find it "incredibly awkward" to point out to Tesla owners that this sort of thing isn't good enough for everybody, maybe it's because you're saying that it isn't good enough for anybody. If that's not what you intended to say, then you need to work on how you're saying it.
As if to suggest people wouldn't be willing to wait a year to get the 3 instead of the Bolt. Do you really think these two products have equivalent level of appeal?
I'm sorry, I may be missing something re: specs, but can you point to where it says that the Bolt will go 0-60 in <6s?
Also, does the Bolt have a nationwide supercharging network? Does it have autopilot? Does it have an astounding, unparalleled safety rating?
Sure. Planned 0-60 in under 7 seconds for the Bolt [1] with similar fast charging capability at suitable chargers. If we're going to split hairs over being a second faster off the line when it's already not even as fast as significantly cheaper cars, then I'm not sure what to say. The lack of a supercharger network is definitely a downside for Chevy, but for your average commuter that shouldn't be a major issue. Please also keep in mind that autopilot is not free for the Model 3 (or Model S) - it's a $3,000 upgrade.
Is the Bolt actually a better car? No, but I think it's evidence that if automakers actually get serious about electric they can put together something competitive and bring it to market far faster than Tesla.
I think the lack of a supercharger network is going to be huge. Yes, for your average commuter it shouldn't be a major issue, but it will be just the same. How to take road trips is the number one question/concern people have when I show them my Model S. There are many arguments to make about how it shouldn't matter, because long road trips are rare, you can take a different car, or rent a car, etc. But people just don't care. They don't want to spend a bunch of money or a car they can't drive to Grandma's house for Christmas, never mind that this is only an issue once a year and can be worked around.
Tiny nitpick: autopilot for the S and X (we'll see for the 3) is a $2,500 upgrade if you order it with the car. It's $3,000 if you activate it later. Incidentally, $2,500 is about how much more expensive the Bolt is than the Model 3.
Fair point. However I don't think there's anything preventing Chevy from dropping the Bolt MSRP in late 2017 or 2018 to be more price competitive. By then it will have been out for more than a year.
> similar fast charging capability at suitable chargers
All the DC quick chargers in the US have CHAdeMO plugs, while the Bolt will use the SAE Combo plug. Right now there's no US network of fast chargers the Bolt can use at all. The Nissan Leaf is the only non-Tesla EV on the road in meaningful numbers, and it uses CHAdeMO, which is why that's all anyone built.
Anyone who didn't preorder right after the announcement is going to be waiting longer than a year, probably more like three years from when the Chevy Volt is available to when they get their Model 3 if they were to preorder the 3 right now.
Correction: the bolt only seats 4 adults. Specs aren't everything - you can bet the Chevy will have cheap plastic parts, and resale value will be atrocious due to poor build quality. From what I've seen, Tesla vehicles have better resale value than almost any other car.
The $7,500 is in effect for the first 200,000 sold by the manufacturer. I don't think many of the people who preordered will have their car in time to take advantage of the tax credit.
I was hoping he was referring to something other than the snacks that were served to the people camping overnight outside stores to order the Model 3 with this tweet:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/715566236822671360
"Incredibly inspired by the interest in Model 3. You won't be disappointed. Also, small token of appreciation coming for those who lined up."
115k reservations in 24 hours. $115m. That is an excellent first day. Assuming there aren't many cancelations, ~$4B+ total by 4Q 2016. Very nice. However, I don't think the hype matched the presentation.
Q42018... Sales won't start until the end of 2017 (if things stay on schedule) and production will likely ramp up, I'd be surprised if they sell 100k Model 3s in the first year. Still, the average revenue to Tesla will probably be on the higher end, $45-$50k since they'll likely prioritize the performance versions as they've done for the S and the X so far, so 100k x $45k still gets you to $4.5B.
re: the commercial barrage, How the hell much to they pay postal carriers in Rural Minnesota? I'm definitely in the wrong business and live in the wrong place.
Not sure if the commercials are geo-targetted but if you get the Australian guy his name is Simon Hackett. He founded an Internet business here.
An interesting thing is Hackett is executive chairman of a company called Redflow which claims its Zinc Bromine home storage solution is better than Li-ion ones like Tesla Powerwall (though it seems to be a fair bit more expensive).
I was curious too, but it looks like the USPS reimbursement rates [1] for rural personal vehicles are decent, and are no doubt geared toward gas cars that have much higher operating and maintenance costs. Depending on how far a mail carrier drives, it could plausibly cover the cost of the Model S. Not a bad gig.
In the video, the postal carrier mentions the Tesla being better than spending $30 on gas per day. At $2.50/gallon, that's 12 gallons of gas. Assuming 20mpg (all of the stop and go), that's about 250 miles per day, or ~5000 miles per month assuming five-day delivery.
73.5 cents per mile, if he's doing 250 miles per day then that's about $180/day reimbursed, and about $10 for electricity. If he does this six days a week, that's something like $4,000/month just in mileage reimbursement. That'll cover the monthly payment on any Model S you care to configure, at least twice. You'll wear the car out a lot faster, but even so, sounds like a pretty good gig.
Yep. The player on the event screen (after you fill in information) has no timeshifting controls either. Stuck watching the whole thing with no fast-forward or rewind. Just tried to do so but got bored after 10 minutes of Model S commercials.
I may have misunderstood. I thought the event had already occurred and that this was a recording. I didn't check the event start time. The event hasn't started yet? I'm on the East Coast so I guess it just seems late.
It would've been helpful if there was some visual indication that the event hadn't started yet, like a countdown.
It's exciting to see the model 3 take more hatchback proportions. I hope it brings the hatch functionality to a more mainstream US audience. It also solidifies the global nature of Tesla. Hatchbacks and wagons are commonplace in Europe – oftentimes preferred over an SUV or sedan.
Aha! He was being cagey about the name of this company so they must be getting closer. He lost a lot of respect after being on the NBN board but this might go a long way to restoring it.
Most cars have grills because they need the ventilation to cool the engine. I think they're mostly something we've gotten used to. When electric cars become more common those gas car grills will probably start looking clunky.
I actually think the model 3 looks fine. I've seen several model x driving around and their nose is really hideous. The model s has just like a black section that looks normal and fine. The model 3 has done completely away with the black look and it looks fine. The model x just sort of is somewhere in the middle and it looks really, really awkward.
Only because you're used to a grill(e?); the Tesla doesn't need it, and if they added one for aesthetic purposes, it'd just be bad for aerodynamics and harder to clean.
The low price especially concerns me since that means they're targeting high volume sales. A great question is what will become of the millions of batteries 5, 10, 15 years from now.
Goes in to some detail but basically states, we have some good ideas, but our fallback is the land fill since these batteries etc are considered non toxic. Still: sourcing, building, recycling, and disposing of these batteries seems like a giant problem that is hard to believe is environmentally sound
I can see a good opportunity to start designing an after market replacement nose..... Looks a little uninspired, where as the rest of the design looks amazing.
As long as there is a metal roof option in a couple decades when I can finally afford to buy one third-hand used.
Glass roof anywhere in the southwestern or southeastern usa is the worst idea I've ever seen. Not only the sun but stuff constantly being thrown on or at it on the highways.
Never had a windshield last more than a decade without a crack, imagine what it costs to replace a piece of glass the size of a car.
Seats five is interesting... but I'm not quite seeing the perspective. Its hard to tell the size difference.
From my eyes, it looks like its roughly the size of a Scion, maybe only a little bit larger than a Honda Fit. Which seats 5... technically... but its not too comfortable. Its more of a 4-seater with a 5th seat that may be used if you care about it.
Because of the lack of combustion engine, gear box and drive train the interior of the Model S is huge compared to other similar sized conventional cars.
I imagine the model 3 has the same benefits and the interior is a lot larger than it looks.
I may be that paranoid, but the glass roof feels as thrilling as scary. What happens if something drops on it ? if the car ends up tumbling ? the roll cage is probably as sturdy as anything Tesla did before but that seems like a too large open spot ..
It'd probably just shatter; should be laminated glass so it wouldn't explode into your eyes much. Regular cars are just as scary when you think about it, imagine the roof collapsing on top of you.
He mentioned it has autopilot hardware standard (like the current Model S), which makes me suspect you have to pay a few thousand dollars more to unlock it in software.
He said autopilot safety features will be standard, which means the convenience features (lane keeping, automatic parking, etc.) will cost extra. Just like the S and X.
Right to both points -- that's how I read it too. You could call it "crippleware", though autopilot hardware (albeit on a 2018 car, though on the other hand in 35k of 2018 dollars) ain't exactly cheap. It's probably more economical for Tesla to build the cars with the same h/w and then upcharge for the s/w. And it's nice to have the opportunity to do a software update for it if you later want it, even though I know some don't like the crippleware "feel". And yes, I also heard them saying the safety stuff will be standard. Again, makes sense. Nobody wants the bad PR of installing safety hardware, but some poor family got killed by their Unsafe Tesla Car (TM) because of a software feature that was disabled by Evilon Musk.
Elon Musk has been working to build not only the best electric vehicle, but the best vehicle in the world. The Tesla Model S was that vehicle in many ways, though it came at a high price point. Musk's first goal was to build this luxury Model S in order to build up a reputation, research EV technology, perfect the production line, acquire funding and gain a loyal following. However, this was just a preliminary step necessary to achieve his primary goal of bringing a mass-market electric vehicle into the world. This is where the Model 3 comes into play. It is an affordable, EV car built by Tesla for the general public. Elon and many people hope that bringing a mass-market, performance EV to the world will enact a shift away from combustion engine cars and therefore help dampen the damage humans are causing to the environment.
Is Tesla desperate for leads and sales? This tells me Tesla is hurting for numbers or they're worried about GM Bolt and others. So they want to spam the interested parties or keep them from committing to other brands for the next year or so until Model 3 is available.
They had lines around the block at stores all over the world today, with people reserving a car they haven't even seen yet, and putting down $1,000 for the privilege. I don't think they're hurting for numbers.
If this thing looks even remotely like a bolt I'll be mashing the refund button. I'm expecting something more like a Nissan Maxima (S) -> Nissan Altima (3) not Cadillac -> Golf Cart.
I just got excited because apparently I've been living under a rock and never heard of the Bolt. The Model 3 looks slick, but if GM can deliver, this car might be a bigger deal for the future of EVs.
> Bolt? That's a car for girls(at least by design).
I totally get that you don't like the Bolt's design, and that's perfectly fine.
But, seriously, it is 2016 can we put the "that is for girls" "that is for guys" nonsense to bed? It is sexist against both genders. The whole implication is that "girly = bad" which is sexist, and then you have guys who are going to be emasculated if they enjoy a "girly" thing which is also sexist.
Essentially it victimizes everyone. Let's leave that phase in the past along with gendered toy isles and pink/blue.
> The whole implication is that "girly = bad" which is sexist, and then you have guys who are going to be emasculated if they enjoy a "girly" thing which is also sexist.
Cars are designed with specific genders in mind.[0][1][2]
I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it is. The linked articles come to some conclusions as to why.
Also please note that no one made the 'girly=bad' assertion but you.
> Also please note that no one made the 'girly=bad' assertion but you.
It was implicitly made. They dislike the Bolt's look so described it as "girly" (using the term as a negative). So unless you're claiming that they meant "girly" as a compliment, my point stands.
If they didn't mean "girly=bad" then their entire statement makes no sense. It only makes sense if they meant it negatively.
Tesla's current production rate is about 70,000 units a year. Yes, the NUMMI plant once produced 500K vehicles a year on that site, but that just means Tesla has lots of empty building shell into which they can expand.
The real problem is profitability. Bloomberg is skeptical.[1] Tesla isn't profitable, and they have a high price point now. Cutting the price means they have to produce at a far lower cost while expanding factory capacity. That will be very tough. Jason Wheeler, Tesla's CFO, is going to have to come up with some creative financial strategies. But with near-zero interest rates, and lots of pre-orders, they can probably borrow heavily for plant at very low cost.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-03-31/tesla-double...