Official Tesla Model S thread

[lorenfb]

A few days ago Tesla announced a record quarter in terms of deliveries.

Not really! Their guidance (forecast) for 2015 is 55K units. Thus the Q1 should have hit about 13-14K
units and not 10K units. Now for the balance of 2015 they need to do 45K or 15K for each of the next
three quarters. Most likely they achieved that 10K for Q1 with some left over product from 2014,
i.e. China failed deliveries. To achieve a 50% growth in deliveries for Q2 over Q1 won't be easy!

 

[EdmondLeaf]

Won't happen, different markets.
The Tesla is all about replacing the cars with more luxury items in them.
The Leaf is the more efficient economy version.

That is exactly my point. Luxury market is very demanding and probably not that big, sort of status symbol. Is so sad to see people trying to sell their T for the price they bought 2 years ago, I guess they do not understand how luxury market works.

 

[TomT]

Tesla resale, though, is holding up better than just about any other luxury car in its price range...

Is so sad to see people trying to sell their T for the price they bought 2 years ago, I guess they do not understand how luxury market works.

 

[redLEAF]

Tesla has announced a new 70D model.
Looks like the 60 is being discontinued.

The Base 60 started at $71k.
The new, Base 70D starts at $75k and comes standard with AWD, Parking Sensors, Emergency Brake assist, Navigation w live traffic routing, 8 year unlimited mileage drivetrain and battery warranty, and Supercharger access.

The 60 would have been more expensive with those options, so I take this as an indication they have been able to lower some costs, most likely batteries.

Anyone want to take over my Leaf lease ;-)

Adding a few more details ...

But the added features at the low end of the Model S lineup will come with about a 7 percent price increase, to $75,000 for those buying the cars. The base lease price will rise to $838 per month from $796. As of Wednesday, Tesla will stop selling the old base Model S called the 60. The $70,000 rear-drive car with a 380-horsepower motor could go 208 miles on a single charge and from zero to 60 mph in 5.9 seconds. The new all-wheel-drive model, called the 70-D, can go a government-certified 240 miles per charge, has 514 horsepower and can go from zero to 60 in 5.2 seconds. Buyers also get free access to Tesla's network of quick-charging stations. CEO Elon Musk says with a $7,500 federal tax credit that takes the price to $67,500, plus tax credits in some states, the new version is price-competitive with BMW's midsize 5-Series, or the Mercedes E-Class when you add in savings from not buying gasoline. BMW's 5 Series starts around $50,000, while the E-Class starts at close to $52,000.

So basically, if you had bought a Base 60 model + paid $2k for the Supercharger access; this new 70D is 'only' another $3K now with AWD, quicker and more HP; not a bad upgrade at all ... it seems they want to keep interest up on their existing model with new and improved features (saw another quote that says simply because 'they can'); it's still great car only better --- and just when IL EPA dropped their $4K rebate, darn!

 

[dgpcolorado]

To me, it looks like they are streamlining their production, as well as giving themselves a bit of a gap between the upcoming 200 mile EVs and the base Model S.

My initial impression was that they are making space in the lineup for the Model III. Which, of course, is one of the upcoming 200 mile EVs you mention. The move makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[asimba2]

While $65,000 after rebates is still more than I want to spend, a $45,000 Model III with AWD and 380-400 hp would sure be compelling against something like an AWD 3-series BMW.

I am VIOLENTLY opposed to lack of manual transmissions in new cars, but a 300+ hp all wheel drive EV with no transmission might make me forget about the lack of a clutch pedal. Since my future cars will likely all be EVs, I won't have to cry myself to sleep about those awful CVTs and 8 and 9 speed transmissions.

 

[JeremyW]

So basically, if you had bought a Base 60 model + paid $2k for the Supercharger access; this new 70D is 'only' another $3K now with AWD, quicker and more HP; not a bad upgrade at all ... it seems they want to keep interest up on their existing model with new and improved features (saw another quote that says simply because 'they can'); it's still great car only better --- and just when IL EPA dropped their $4K rebate, darn!

Actually I'd argue that in the past you "needed" the ~$4k tech package which is mostly integrated now. I'd say the price is even cheaper than you describe, at least in my case when I was window shopping the design studio.

Back when the D came out, there was briefly a 60D, I was quite excited for that model. It's like my wish for it to be brought back was granted, with even bigger battery capacity and lower price! :shock:

Sadly, my future work situation is a little uncertain enough that I can't justify the tesla long term. So the current plan remains: lease a Spark EV when my leaf lease is up.

 

[edatoakrun]

To me, it looks like they are streamlining their production, as well as giving themselves a bit of a gap between the upcoming 200 mile EVs and the base Model S.

My initial impression was that they are making space in the lineup for the Model III. Which, of course, is one of the upcoming 200 mile EVs you mention. The move makes a lot of sense to me.

Well, with what, ~99%? of worldwide car sales priced below the $75,000 Tesla S base model, it looks like there will be plenty of space in that gap for the model III, when and if it hits the market...

In all seriousness, I think you have to consider this a price cut, though not as large in terms of the percentage of total vehicle price as those most other BEV/PHEV manufacturers have made in the last few years.

Of course, Tesla is in a unique position of financial vulnerability to rapid depreciation of the S, since it has promised to repurchase a large proportion of its S sales at a set price, so it's options to cut S prices to maintain future sales may be limited.

Worldwide car prices are stable or deflating slightly, and battery prices have experienced a much faster decline than most expected.

Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles
...industry-wide cost estimates declined by approximately 14% annually between 2007 and 2014, from above US$1,000 per kWh to around US$410 per kWh, and that the cost of battery packs used by market-leading BEV manufacturers are even lower, at US$300 per kWh, and has declined by 8% annually. Learning rate, the cost reduction following a cumulative doubling of production, is found to be between 6 and 9%, in line with earlier studies on vehicle battery technology2. We reveal that the costs of Li-ion battery packs continue to decline and that the costs among market leaders are much lower than previously reported...

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate2564.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Considering how much cheaper batteries are today, I'm glad I only bought ~24 kWh of them back in 2011.

 

[dgpcolorado]

My initial impression was that they are making space in the lineup for the Model III. Which, of course, is one of the upcoming 200 mile EVs you mention. The move makes a lot of sense to me.

Well, with what, ~99%? of worldwide car sales priced below the $75,000 Tesla S base model, it looks like there will be plenty of space in that gap for the model III, when and if it hits the market...

Pricing aside, my guess is that Tesla is building a performance gap between the Model S/X and the Model III. Now they can introduce the Model III with a 200 mile range and the base model S will have a 240 mile range. Otherwise it would have been the S-60 with a 208 mile range and the III with a ~200 mile range. Now the S/X will be upscale cars with greater range than the "affordable" Model III.

This was my first thought when I saw the news about the new S-70D. Seems like an excellent move to me.

 

[Zythryn]

A few days ago Tesla announced a record quarter in terms of deliveries.

Not really! Their guidance (forecast) for 2015 is 55K units. Thus the Q1 should have hit about 13-14K
units and not 10K units. Now for the balance of 2015 they need to do 45K or 15K for each of the next
three quarters. Most likely they achieved that 10K for Q1 with some left over product from 2014,
i.e. China failed deliveries. To achieve a 50% growth in deliveries for Q2 over Q1 won't be easy!

Yes really!
Tesla's first quarter guidance was fir 9500, so they not only set a record, they beat their guidance.
A chunk of the numbers are due to come from the X, late in the year and a general ramping up of production speed.

You continue to twist anything you can to make good news look bad.
I'm frankly surprised that anyone that supports EVs would go to such lengths to dismiss success.

 

[lorenfb]

A chunk of the numbers are due to come from the X, late in the year and a general ramping up of production speed.

And you know this as really, right? Even the hyping analysts, e.g. Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley who
helped to float the $2B convertibles which Panasonic has failed to match in dollars for Giga, aren't so
sure of X's timing. Could it be that Tesla is just able to 'tweak' the Model S over time? How disappointing
for many would that be?

 

[Zythryn]

A chunk of the numbers are due to come from the X, late in the year and a general ramping up of production speed.

And you know this as really, right? Even the hyping analysts, e.g. Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley who
helped to float the $2B convertibles which Panasonic has failed to match in dollars for Giga, aren't so
sure of X's timing. Could it be that Tesla is just able to 'tweak' the Model S over time? How disappointing
for many would that be?

I know this as it is what Tesla is saying.
Could something happen to mess it up, sure it could.
Tesla gave guidance for 9500 deliveries in the first quarter AND for 55,000 deliveries for 2015.

They made, and surpassed 1st quarter guidance. How you make that into "bad news" is rather interesting, that is all.

 

[DeeAgeaux]

A chunk of the numbers are due to come from the X, late in the year and a general ramping up of production speed.

And you know this as really, right? Even the hyping analysts, e.g. Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley who
helped to float the $2B convertibles which Panasonic has failed to match in dollars for Giga, aren't so
sure of X's timing. Could it be that Tesla is just able to 'tweak' the Model S over time? How disappointing for many would that be?

How retarded.

1) Tesla has reiterated Q3 2015 for Model X launch as recently as a month ago.

2) Pictures have been taken of Beta Model X in Northern and Southern California doing testing on public roads. Elon even stated engineering on the Falcon Wing doors is done.

3) AWD drivetrains have been introduced that will later be used in Model X.

4)In all likelihood 70 kWh battery packs are being rolled out in anticipation of Model X. 60 kWh packs would not reach the required 200 mile range in Model X and manufacturing three different battery packs is inefficient.

Panasonic has signed contracts with Tesla to invest $2B over five installments.

The first module of the GF is being built as we speak.

The only disappointment will be from Tesla Bears/Shorts and sour grapers that can't afford a Tesla but privately desperately wish they could drive one.

 

[garsh]

4)In all likelihood 70 kWh battery packs are being rolled out in anticipation of Model X. 60 kWh packs would not reach the required 200 mile range in Model X and manufacturing three different battery packs is inefficient.

This is the best reasoning I've heard to explain the change to the Model S lineup.

 

[ydnas7]

14 / 16 x 83kWh = 72.6kWh

my vote is that the new 70D is filled with 14 modules from the "85" kWh models.

the roll out of AWD across the Tesla model S lineup makes all their vehicles more compelling versus petrol/diesel competitors.

also, as Tesla Supercharger roll-out now slows down (matures), yet vehicles produced increases, Tesla's SC cost per new vehicle reduces, so folding the SC back into the new vehicle price makes sense, as it now costs less.

 

[lorenfb]

Tesla gave guidance for 9500 deliveries in the first quarter AND for 55,000 deliveries for 2015.

They made, and surpassed 1st quarter guidance. How you make that into "bad news" is rather interesting, that is all.

In Q4 of 2014 Tesla did 9800 units. So doing 10K and exceeding their guidance by 500 units for Q1 of 2015
is hardly significant given a 2015 target of 55k units.

 

[lorenfb]

"1) Tesla has reiterated Q3 2015 for Model X launch as recently as a month ago."

So, Tesla has stated in the past other target dates which have slipped.

"2) Pictures have been taken of Beta Model X in Northern and Southern California doing testing on public roads. Elon even stated engineering on the Falcon Wing doors is done."

A Beta version hardly is indicative of a deliverable vehicle three months from now.

"3) AWD drivetrains have been introduced that will later be used in Model X."

They were available in 2014.

"4)In all likelihood 70 kWh battery packs are being rolled out in anticipation of Model X. 60 kWh packs would not reach the required 200 mile range in Model X and manufacturing three different battery packs is inefficient."

That's your logic!

"Panasonic has signed contracts with Tesla to invest $2B over five installments."

They've only provided $200M and that was last year. So when is the balance coming?

"The first module of the GF is being built as we speak."

Right, "being built"! When is production (output) is the key question.

 

[edatoakrun]

WAPO reports on the S's 70D it's not a discount discount and the current market outlook:

...Even with the added features, the 70D will have trouble competing with Mercedes and BMW solely on price, said Tom Libby, an analyst with IHS Automotive in Southfield, Mich.

Extreme competition between BMW, Mercedes and Audi is driving luxury lease prices down, Libby said. For instance, an all-wheel-drive BMW 5-Series can be leased for around $600 per month. “He has to compete against that,” Libby said of Musk. “He has to emphasize the benefits of the Model S versus the traditional luxury cars” which include using no gas, performance, safety and handling, Libby said.

Tesla requires about $6,500 due at signing for its 12,000-mile lease, while BMW requires just over $4,300.

Musk said he has no plans to spend more on marketing to match Mercedes and BMW even though he’s going after more mass-market customers. The company will continue to host events for customers but “there are no plans yet to do advertising or endorsements or any discounting,” Musk said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/tesla-boosts-range-power-and-price-of-low-end-model-s/2015/04/08/d65457c6-ddde-11e4-b6d7-b9bc8acf16f7_story.html?tid=hpModule_a2e19bf4-86a3-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In retrospect, it looks like Tesla really lucked out on the timing of the S's market introduction.

The Central banks' response to the financial panic of '08, their reduction of real interest rates to below 0% in order to artificially inflate asset prices, resulted in the most rapid redistribution of wealth in world history-from the world's poor to the wealthy, from ~2009 to the present.

The high-end of the auto market was temporarily short of production capacity, and Tesla has been able to supply this market gap for those who found their newly-acquired wealth (or just extremely easy credit) burning holes in their pockets.

The question IMO is, how low will Tesla's competitors go in discounting prices for future sales/leases, and how will Tesla increase it's sales dramatically, without further (it's not) discounting.

 

[eloder]

Tesla gave guidance for 9500 deliveries in the first quarter AND for 55,000 deliveries for 2015.

They made, and surpassed 1st quarter guidance. How you make that into "bad news" is rather interesting, that is all.

In Q4 of 2014 Tesla did 9800 units. So doing 10K and exceeding their guidance by 500 units for Q1 of 2015
is hardly significant given a 2015 target of 55k units.

I suggest you look at 2014 production.

Q1 2014 production was just as low as Q1 2015 production, relative to the goal.

Tesla has stated multiple times in the guidances that the majority of the deliveries will be happening in Q3-Q4 2015.

You can short Tesla if you want, but historically, the shorts have only been correct about Tesla for two earnings reports to date.

 

[lorenfb]

You can short Tesla if you want, but historically, the shorts have only been correct about Tesla for two earnings reports to date.

One should only short stocks whose owners behave rationally to basic financial fundamentals,
which is not the case for Tesla stock.