TomT
Well-known member
I'd certainly want him negotiating on MY side for anything!
SSS said:IMHO, Musk arranged some amazing State incentives.
SSS said:IMHO, Musk arranged some amazing State incentives.
if you were talking about an ICE car the 2k would be like prepaying your fuel costs. sorry to say that while some of your objections might be valid, this one is weak at bestkeydiver said:I don't remember any mention of $2000 to access the Supercharger network. The datasheet just said "NO ACCESS" for the base model. And, the datasheet even indicated that Supercharger access for the 85 Kwh model was in question. I
TomT said:I'd certainly want him negotiating on MY side for anything!
SSS said:IMHO, Musk arranged some amazing State incentives.
The US "Advanced Manufacturing Portal" cites a study by two economists that finds:
http://manufacturing.gov/mfg_in_context.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"On average, one new manufacturing creates 1.6 additional jobs in local service businesses. Jobs in high-tech manufacturing industries, which require workers with high skill levels and pay above-average wages, generate five local service jobs."
So even though Nevada is waiving certain taxes for Tesla, it's not waiving taxes on Tesla's employees nor on the businesses or employees of those other multiplier-effect jobs.
evnow said:TomT said:I'd certainly want him negotiating on MY side for anything!
SSS said:IMHO, Musk arranged some amazing State incentives.
At 6000 employment it works out to be over 200k per job.
There is a thread on whether this is worth 100B to Nevada on TMC.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/35492-How-does-the-Gigafactory-equate-to-100B-of-economic-impact-to-Neveda" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here is an interesting link from the thread - 5 local jobs created per one high tech job is a multiplier I had not seen before.
The US "Advanced Manufacturing Portal" cites a study by two economists that finds:
http://manufacturing.gov/mfg_in_context.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"On average, one new manufacturing creates 1.6 additional jobs in local service businesses. Jobs in high-tech manufacturing industries, which require workers with high skill levels and pay above-average wages, generate five local service jobs."
So even though Nevada is waiving certain taxes for Tesla, it's not waiving taxes on Tesla's employees nor on the businesses or employees of those other multiplier-effect jobs.
Perhaps most startling, Anderman writes that the planned lower-cost Tesla Model 3 car targeted to launch in late 2017 will have to be priced far, far above Musk's stated goal of $35,000.
In the most likely scenario, Anderman writes, “the price of the 2017 new model will be in the range of $50-80K.”
="evnow"]Here is the official Tesla Model 3 thread.
I'll keep track of Tesla pronouncements about Model 3 in this post...
KJD said:How long until we can test drive both LEAF 2.0 and the Model 3 ?
Which one will give the most bang for the buck ?
KJD said:How long until we can test drive both LEAF 2.0 and the Model 3 ?
Which one will give the most bang for the buck ?
Just a bit premature to be asking, don't you think, since neither car is available (or even fully designed AFAWK), we don't have a firm price, features list, or any reviews. You might as well be asking whether Space X or Boeing will give you the most bang for the buck for a trip to Mars - any answer would be as accurate.KJD said:How long until we can test drive both LEAF 2.0 and the Model 3 ?
Which one will give the most bang for the buck ?
KJD said:How long until we can test drive both LEAF 2.0 and the Model 3 ?
Which one will give the most bang for the buck ?
Yes, it depends on how one defines "bang for the buck". If it's just range and the Gen 2 LEAF is cheaper, I suppose that one could make the argument for the LEAF. But I disagree with that view. If the Model III isn't hugely more expensive, being Supercharger capable changes everything. A 150-200 mile LEAF is of little additional utility to me versus my current 70 mile LEAF. A Supercharger capable Model III has vastly greater utility and is of much greater interest.Zythryn said:Varies widely from person to person depending upon their needs...KJD said:How long until we can test drive both LEAF 2.0 and the Model 3 ?
Which one will give the most bang for the buck ?
I don't buy this. While I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla does start off with expensive "Signature" models to pad margins, I don't think the Model III has to cost $50K, never mind $80K. Even if you use battery prices well above optimistic numbers being thrown around ($167/kWh), is it so hard to assume that a price well below $50K can be achieved?evnow said:http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094442_tesla-battery-cost-new-report-suggests-model-3-to-cost-50k-or-more
Perhaps most startling, Anderman writes that the planned lower-cost Tesla Model 3 car targeted to launch in late 2017 will have to be priced far, far above Musk's stated goal of $35,000.
In the most likely scenario, Anderman writes, “the price of the 2017 new model will be in the range of $50-80K.”
Boy, that puts a whole different complexion on things. So, you're saying that Elon lives in the Dark Tower? :shock: I'm having some difficulty picturing Fremont as Mordor (although it's indistinguishable from any number of nondescript SoCal stripmall suburbs, so YMMV), and Mt. Hamilton looks absolutely nothing like Orodruin. There just aren't that many 'dark, Satanic Mills' around when you need them these days. Although I wouldn't be surprised if there are Tesla owners who call their cars "My Precioussss" while fondling them. :lol:dgpcolorado said:Yes, it depends on how one defines "bang for the buck". If it's just range and the gen2 LEAF is cheaper, I suppose that one could make the argument for the LEAF. But I disagree with that view. If the Model III isn't hugely more expensive, being Supercharger capable changes everything. A 150-200 mile LEAF is of little additional utility to me versus my current 70 mile LEAF. A Supercharger capable Model III has vastly greater utility and is of much greater interest.Zythryn said:Varies widely from person to person depending upon their needs...
So, what does one want? A commuter car that can handle double the range of current commuter EVs (LEAF gen 2)? Or "One Car to Rule Them All" that can handle long interstate trips (Model III). Assuming that the cars do show up with the ranges that we have been speculating about, the decision then comes down to price. Will the Model III be affordable compared to the Gen 2 LEAF? If the prices are close, it is no contest. (For me, at least.)
Yeah, Anderman's numbers don't make sense. $50k for a loaded version I could see, but how in hell is a car that's smaller and lighter and can use a somewhat smaller battery (I'm assuming the same or slightly higher Cd, but lower A) going to cost more than a Model S 60 of the same range, even if it used the current battery?dgpcolorado said:I don't buy this. While I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla does start off with expensive "Signature" models to pad margins, I don't think the Model III has to cost $50K, never mind $80K. Even if you use battery prices well above optimistic numbers being thrown around ($167/kWh), is it so hard to assume that a price well below $50K can be achieved?evnow said:http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094442_tesla-battery-cost-new-report-suggests-model-3-to-cost-50k-or-more
Perhaps most startling, Anderman writes that the planned lower-cost Tesla Model 3 car targeted to launch in late 2017 will have to be priced far, far above Musk's stated goal of $35,000.
In the most likely scenario, Anderman writes, “the price of the 2017 new model will be in the range of $50-80K.”
If the Model III is 80% the size of the Model S, the weight and CdA will be similarly lower. So, I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume a battery pack that is 90% of the Model S pack size to get a 200 mile range. That would be 54 kWh. At $200/kWh the pack would cost $10,800. Would the car have to cost $50K or more with a $10,800 battery pack? Or with a $250/kWh pack for $13,500?
I just don't buy the notion that the battery has to get down to $167/kWh, or lower, for the Model III to be less than $50K.
S starts at $72k. What Anderman is saying is that 3 will start at $50k.GRA said:Yeah, Anderman's numbers don't make sense. $50k for a loaded version I could see, but how in hell is a car that's smaller and lighter and can use a somewhat smaller battery (I'm assuming the same or slightly higher Cd, but lower A) going to cost more than a Model S 60 of the same range, even if it used the current battery?
Hah! Really enjoyed that GRA.GRA said:Boy, that puts a whole different complexion on things. So, you're saying that Elon lives in the Dark Tower? :shock: I'm having some difficulty picturing Fremont as Mordor (although it's indistinguishable from any number of nondescript SoCal stripmall suburbs, so YMMV), and Mt. Hamilton looks absolutely nothing like Orodruin. There just aren't that many 'dark, Satanic Mills' around when you need them these days. Although I wouldn't be surprised if there are Tesla owners who call their cars "My Precioussss" while fondling them. :lol:
I'm almost ashamed to admit I can recite this from memory:
Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatuluk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul!
(Still able to read the Feanorian script on title pages, but slower than I used to)
Enter your email address to join: