Official Tesla Model 3 thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
LeftieBiker said:
I'm not trying to discredit Tesla, affect stock prices, or even just take pot shots at them. I really wanted them to succeed. But if one of the main points of their mission statement turns out to be hogwash (and yes, it DOES matter if they produce an affordable Tesla soon, since that has been one of their selling points to investors, the government, the public...) then their image loses some of its sheen. I'm not satisfied with choosing to believe that someday, maybe far in the future, they will make affordable mass market cars.

I think we're more or less on the same page here. I agree that if they renege on their mission of producing an affordable EV themselves, that they have failed, and have "sold out".

I don't think they promised an affordable car to investors on a particular schedule though. On the contrary, investors should be pleased that they are taking a relatively fiscally mature approach of building up to the affordable model, rather than releasing the car before it's time and at a loss which might be devastating to the company's financials (I define investors as LONG investors, of course!) The only way the delay would be unattractive to investors is if there was reasonable competition in the $35K price range. And there really isn't (although as I said, the Kona EV might actually be such a car).

And they definitely didn't promise the government anything, unless I'm missing something (you'll have to expound on what you mean here).

The public? Maybe. Certainly those that put a deposit down expecting a $35K car by this time. Personally, I didn't expect a $45K car by this time. I had timed my wife's lease to end around the time I expected ANY Model 3 to be delivered to me (much less the base model), and "unfortunately" they far exceeded that, switching up my plans. Sure, Elon did make set some bold goals, which unsurprisingly were not met (Elon time, after all). I do feel for those who honestly thought they would see a $35K car by now.
 
I seem to recall, during the Obama era, Tesla getting massive sensibilities, while Musk was talking about their ultimate goal being a car line that anyone could afford - at least at the low end. My memory has gotten too fuzzy to remember more than that, though. Maybe they never put it in writing. :)
 
SageBrush said:
Other leaked news/rumor this week was that Tesla has decided on a non-upgraded interior. If true then a less expensive Tesla will show up soon, although one cannot be sure whether it will be the $35k model. I'll guess under $40k for sure.

Yes, and I wondered the same. De-cost the car in ways other than batteries. Cloth seats. Fewer USB plugs, and so on. Then remove batteries. Tesla might be trying to get close to $35k. Tesla doesn't need to make money on the $35k version, as long as Tesla can sell enough higher priced and profitable versions. So the profit margin goes as well. Number sold would be limited, of course.

This wouldn't be the end of Tesla trying to move down market, of course.
 
LeftieBiker said:
I seem to recall, during the Obama era, Tesla getting massive sensibilities, while Musk was talking about their ultimate goal being a car line that anyone could afford - at least at the low end. My memory has gotten too fuzzy to remember more than that, though. Maybe they never put it in writing. :)

Tesla's government subsidies and financial packages included government loans (which all the automakers got), which were paid back in full early; and even though it doesn't go to Tesla directly (although it does benefit them), the $7500 US federal tax credit; and various tax credits from states like Nevada in exchange for building their Gigafactory there, for which Nevada has seen a generous return on investment in the form of jobs created, which is the whole point of such tax incentives (even though I am not really a fan of that kind of incentive). Other than the EV tax credit "subsidy", I think all other government packages were really about jobs, not creating an EV per se.
 
WetEV said:
SageBrush said:
Other leaked news/rumor this week was that Tesla has decided on a non-upgraded interior. If true then a less expensive Tesla will show up soon, although one cannot be sure whether it will be the $35k model. I'll guess under $40k for sure.

Yes, and I wondered the same. De-cost the car in ways other than batteries. Cloth seats. Fewer USB plugs, and so on. Then remove batteries. Tesla might be trying to get close to $35k. Tesla doesn't need to make money on the $35k version, as long as Tesla can sell enough higher priced and profitable versions. So the profit margin goes as well. Number sold would be limited, of course.

This wouldn't be the end of Tesla trying to move down market, of course.

Well yes, a good portion of the cost savings involved in getting to that base model is to eliminate the $5K PUP package. Deleting batteries will help of course, but with the price of batteries naturally dropping each year, it wouldn't surprise me that eventually they wouldn't even need to necessarily delete batteries.

If the MR model is at $42,900 today, being able to build the non-PUP version for $5K less gets us to $37,900. And even though I don't necessarily think it's fair to play this game, I will point out that $35,000 in 2016 dollars is $36,706 in 2019 dollars. So if they can pull off eliminating the PUP, they should be able to get darn close to an inflation adjusted $35K just by deleting $1200 worth of cells (about 12kWh). That would probably just about get them to 220 miles of range, so they still have the additional $1,706 to achieve the true $35K price point, which is why they're not quite there yet.
 
lpickup said:
I don't think they promised an affordable car to investors on a particular schedule though.
...
The public? Maybe. Certainly those that put a deposit down expecting a $35K car by this time. Personally, I didn't expect a $45K car by this time.
Investors? Well, at least to the public there's this:
http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=545205#p545205, skip to ~17:10 to hear the price of $35,000, which Elon said in 2016.
http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=545201#p545201 said November 2017 for the $35K car. There's a lot more in that FAQ that I pointed to.

For investors. here's an example: http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/967ca2fa-9f4c-415c-856d-ee19c184331b which was the Q2 2017 update
The standard Model 3, starting at $35,000 with 220 miles of range and a 0-60 mph time of 5.6 seconds, should be available in the U.S. in November
Q1 2016 letter: http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/041a2223-4f7b-4007-b030-b48965cc6ad9
Our objective with Model 3 is to create the world’s best car with a base price of $35,000, before any incentives, with a range of at least 215 miles on a single charge, and with stronggross margins. We planto incorporate our best technology into Model 3, yet keep it relatively simple to build at high volume and with high quality
As for govt, I'll have to see if I can find the terms of the loan but https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-gets-loan-approval-us-department-energy says
Tesla Motors has received approval for about $465 million in low-interest loans from the US Department of Energy to accelerate the production of affordable, fuel-efficient electric vehicles.
lpickup said:
[And even though I don't necessarily think it's fair to play this game, I will point out that $35,000 in 2016 dollars is $36,706 in 2019 dollars.
I don't think it's fair either. Tesla raised prices on the S years ago and tried to cite CPI: https://www.tesla.com/blog/2013-model-s-price-increase. Notice the 40 kWh S is there? This is before any of those ever shipped. And those that ordered those eventually got a 60 kWh car software limited to 40.
 
lpickup said:
Even that doesn't really matter. What really matters (to me, and others) is whether or not Tesla continues on its path to achieve affordable, mass market sustainable transportation, or do they decide to just become another luxury automaker and be content with high profit margin vehicles sold in relatively low volume.

What really matters to shareholders is simply whether or not Tesla achieves profits to justify its market cap/stock price.
As a shareholder since the IPO, what matters to me is that Tesla keeps producing BEVs that displace ICE vehicles. They quickly went from 50k/yr to 100k to 240k to now a projected 400k this year. This is the mission and this growth is what I want more than large profits. They don't need large profits and shareholders shouldn't expect it. Tesla needs free cash flow (almost $1B.qtr now) and to plow that into growth a la AMZN.
Selling a $35k Model 3 is useless if it's at a loss because that will just slow down the mission. However, it's evident they will need to offer something in that price range (certainly in China) in order to grow. It will happen.

lpickup said:
At the end of the day, complaining about the fact that the $35,000 Tesla is not yet available is usually nothing more than an attempt to discredit Tesla. Yes, there are people that are legitimately waiting for that price point to jump into the EV market. Well guess what...it's simply not economical yet, but we are getting there, and will get there. You'll just have to settle for a slightly lesser vehicle for the time being. Hey, I think the Hyundai Kona EV could be an amazing vehicle if they commit to making enough of them.
Agreed.
 
EVDRIVER said:
WetEV said:
https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-deletes-standard-model-3-website-2019-2

Regurgitated FUD. "Quietly deletes" What a joke of a headline, as if companies announce ever website update. I can't believe how pathetic blog titles are. So now Tesla is never making a lower priced EV because they changed their webpage "quietly" I have never seen a more pathetic attempt to influence stock prices as I have with Tesla.
:roll:

The headline is perfect. It exactly reflects what happened. The verbiage about standard range 3 being 4-6 months away (or whatever period) was present on https://3.tesla.com/model3/design#battery and it's nowhere to be found starting that day and even now if you try going thru the "order" process. At least as of earlier today, I'm not aware of Tesla answering why the verbiage went away nor clarifying the status of the SR 3 or "$35K" 3. It's not like it disappeared for a few hours or a day then came back (e.g. https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/02/google-killed-android-tablet-section/).

Companies quietly unveil or discontinue or change things all the time (e.g. Apple quietly discontinuing something or quietly introducing something (e.g. new iPads w/o any event, just a press release)).

Examples:
https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-ipad-red-iphone-7-se-quiet-launch-no-one-cares-about-tablets/ -- I remember this happening since I work on iOS software for a living.
https://www.eweek.com/mobile/quiet-release-of-new-ipad-signals-change-in-apple-marketing-approach
https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/ios/79515/apple-quietly-updates-ipad

Sometimes, they actually announce it via some means (e.g. press release or telling the press) ahead of time.

Google for these:
apple quietly introduces
apple quietly discontinues
apple quietly price
microsoft quietly discontinues
microsoft quietly introduces

And so on. Replace the above w/other leading names in tech like Google or Amazon.
 
sparky said:
As a shareholder since the IPO, what matters to me is that Tesla keeps producing BEVs that displace ICE vehicles. They quickly went from 50k/yr to 100k to 240k to now a projected 400k this year. This is the mission and this growth is what I want more than large profits. They don't need large profits and shareholders shouldn't expect it.
Exactly
 
lpickup said:
Well yes, a good portion of the cost savings involved in getting to that base model is to eliminate the $5K PUP package. Deleting batteries will help of course, but with the price of batteries naturally dropping each year, it wouldn't surprise me that eventually they wouldn't even need to necessarily delete batteries.

If the MR model is at $42,900 today, being able to build the non-PUP version for $5K less gets us to $37,900. And even though I don't necessarily think it's fair to play this game, I will point out that $35,000 in 2016 dollars is $36,706 in 2019 dollars. So if they can pull off eliminating the PUP, they should be able to get darn close to an inflation adjusted $35K just by deleting $1200 worth of cells (about 12kWh). That would probably just about get them to 220 miles of range, so they still have the additional $1,706 to achieve the true $35K price point, which is why they're not quite there yet.
Your analysis is not quite right because in general Tesla has to sell cars at a profit. They shoot for ~ 15% profit per car at 10k cars per week, compared to 20% at 5k production per week currently. Reducing consumer price is mostly an exercise in cutting costs, not cutting profit. The PUP is mostly profit so cutting it out has some but not a lot of benefit. Battery is about 50:50.

Put another way, think about the cost to Tesla to include something like extra battery or 'nice' plastic, not the retail price.

As an example:
A Model 3 MR is $43k with a 20% profit margin = $8600
Goal is a Model 3 SR at $35k with a 15% margin = $5,200

They have to cut costs = (43k - 35k) - (8600-5200) = $4,600

Current Tesla pack costs are ~ $150 a kWh. Cutting out 40 miles of range saves them $1,500
Say that PUP cost is 1/3 of retail, then cutting it out saves 5000/3 = $1,667

They are about $1,500 away from goal. I cannot think of any more places to cut costs by excluding content so further price reductions will await drops in cost of battery production.
 
cwerdna said:
For investors. here's an example: http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/967ca2fa-9f4c-415c-856d-ee19c184331b which was the Q2 2017 update
The standard Model 3, starting at $35,000 with 220 miles of range and a 0-60 mph time of 5.6 seconds, should be available in the U.S. in November

I don't feel like I should have to point out this section of every investor letter, including the one linked, but maybe I do:

[/quote]Certain statements in this shareholder letter, including statements in the “Outlook” section; statements relating to the progress Tesla is
making with respect to product development, such as Model 3
and Solar Roof; statements regarding growth in the number of Tesla
store, service center, delivery hub, Supercharger and destination charger locations and in other service and repair capabilities;
statements relating to the production, production rate and delivery timing of products such as Model 3 and Solar Roof and completion of
energy generation and storage projects; statements regarding growth of our energy business and means to achieve such growth;
growth in demand and orders for Tesla products and the catalysts for that growth; the ability to achieve product demand, volume,
production, delivery, deployment, revenue, cash generation, cash flow, leasing, gross margin, spending, capital expenditure and
profitability targets; productivity improvements and capacity expansion plans, such as for Gigafactory 1; and statements regarding
Gigafactory 1 and Gigafactory 2 timing, plans and output expectations, including those related to battery and photovoltaic cell and other
production, are “forward-looking statements” that are subject to risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements are based on
management’s current expectations, and as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from those
projected
. The following important factors, without limitation, could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forwardlooking statements: the risk of delays in the manufacture, production, delivery and/or completion of our vehicles and energy products,
particularly Model 3; the ability to design and achieve and grow simultaneous and separate market acceptance of Model S, Model X
and their variants, as well as new vehicle models, specifically Model 3;[/quote]

(emphasis mine)

If you are an investor looking for promises, I don't think you get investing.

cwerdna said:
As for govt, I'll have to see if I can find the terms of the loan but https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-gets-loan-approval-us-department-energy says
Tesla Motors has received approval for about $465 million in low-interest loans from the US Department of Energy to accelerate the production of affordable, fuel-efficient electric vehicles.

Please tell me what part of that statement/goal has not been achieved and/or where it says anything about a specific price or timeframes.

cwerdna said:
lpickup said:
[And even though I don't necessarily think it's fair to play this game, I will point out that $35,000 in 2016 dollars is $36,706 in 2019 dollars.
I don't think it's fair either. Tesla raised prices on the S years ago and tried to cite CPI: https://www.tesla.com/blog/2013-model-s-price-increase. Notice the 40 kWh S is there? This is before any of those ever shipped. And those that ordered those eventually got a 60 kWh car software limited to 40.
[/quote]

Yes, and I think you missed my point, which is nicely illustrated by that document. In 2013 for $57,400 (or $59,900 after the increase) you could get a hypothetical 40kWh vehicle. Now for that price you can get a 75kWh vehicle. Is anyone really bemoaning the fact that they can't actually get a 40kWh Model S? Or is it that they couldn't get a $57,400 vehicle (at the time)? The effective costs of EVs are falling, even if the absolute price has not yet crossed that supposed $35,000 barrier, which apparently in some minds means it's suddenly affordable. To date Tesla (and other carmakers for that matter) have focused more on function than price, choosing to translate battery cost savings into increasing range for the same cost, rather than reducing costs and keeping the range the same. Sure, it's frustrating that it's taking longer to get to the true mass market. But it's the fiscally responsible way to proceed, in my opinion, particularly in light of sufficient (and maybe even overwhelming) demand. In the end that strategy is going to result in faster acceleration towards the goal of an affordable EV while strengthening the companies building the higher priced variants so that they are around to build those lower priced variants.

And as I said, if Tesla turns around and says "screw this, we're just going to focus on the high end" then I will join you in being disappointed, at least to the extent that other low-cost automakers don't swoop in and take that segment of the market. For example, if you draw another arbitrary line at $20,000, while I think it's important that that segment of the new car market ultimately be served by EVs, I don't necessarily think that Tesla needs to serve it, as long as they create the competitive pressure to force a lower-end manufacturer to release something in that segment. But for the time being, since Tesla did draw the line themselves at $35,000, I will hold them to that, and I believe they will eventually achieve that...just not on Elon's schedule.
 
Well, since it's the Official Tesla Model 3 thread, I guess it's a good place as any to say that I'm trading in my 2012 Leaf SL for a Dual Motor Model 3. I placed my $2500 deposit yesterday. :D On to the future! Honestly though if my Leaf battery wasn't degrading at an amazing speed, I probably would have stuck with it for another 2 years, but I can't make it to/from work on one charge any more now that I have to drop off my daughter. It only adds 5 miles each way to my commute, but that extra 10 miles makes it impossible. As a result, I must L1 charge at a pay parking deck (as opposed to employer provided which is free) every day just to make it. And when it's time for her dance lesson, I've got to endure scornful looks from the guys at the Nissan dealership nearby her dance studio when charging at the dealership. I'll troll them in my Model 3 once for old time's sake after I get it.
 
Durandal said:
Well, since it's the Official Tesla Model 3 thread, I guess it's a good place as any to say that I'm trading in my 2012 Leaf SL for a Dual Motor Model 3. I placed my $2500 deposit yesterday. :D On to the future! Honestly though if my Leaf battery wasn't degrading at an amazing speed, I probably would have stuck with it for another 2 years, but I can't make it to/from work on one charge any more now that I have to drop off my daughter. It only adds 5 miles each way to my commute, but that extra 10 miles makes it impossible. As a result, I must L1 charge at a pay parking deck (as opposed to employer provided which is free) every day just to make it. And when it's time for her dance lesson, I've got to endure scornful looks from the guys at the Nissan dealership nearby her dance studio when charging at the dealership. I'll troll them in my Model 3 once for old time's sake after I get it.

Nice, and good choice with AWD!
 
Durandal said:
I've got to endure scornful looks from the guys at the Nissan dealership nearby her dance studio when charging at the dealership.

Seriously? This is beyond sad. I've heard of some dealers that aren't exactly welcoming to EVs, but what on earth do they think they put the charging stations in for?
 
Durandal said:
Well, since it's the Official Tesla Model 3 thread, I guess it's a good place as any to say that I'm trading in my 2012 Leaf SL for a Dual Motor Model 3. I placed my $2500 deposit yesterday. :D On to the future! Honestly though if my Leaf battery wasn't degrading at an amazing speed, I probably would have stuck with it for another 2 years, but I can't make it to/from work on one charge any more now that I have to drop off my daughter. It only adds 5 miles each way to my commute, but that extra 10 miles makes it impossible. As a result, I must L1 charge at a pay parking deck (as opposed to employer provided which is free) every day just to make it. And when it's time for her dance lesson, I've got to endure scornful looks from the guys at the Nissan dealership nearby her dance studio when charging at the dealership. I'll troll them in my Model 3 once for old time's sake after I get it.

Excellent !!
 
lpickup said:
Durandal said:
I've got to endure scornful looks from the guys at the Nissan dealership nearby her dance studio when charging at the dealership.

Seriously? This is beyond sad. I've heard of some dealers that aren't exactly welcoming to EVs, but what on earth do they think they put the charging stations in for?

Charging the few cars they sell. This is a common issue at dealerships and manny Nissan DC stations at dealerships in CA have converted to pay EVGO. We know most dealers do not like this activity unless it is pay for use as the type of issues with visitors changes with each model.
 
LeftieBiker said:
I seem to recall, during the Obama era, Tesla getting massive sensibilities, while Musk was talking about their ultimate goal being a car line that anyone could afford - at least at the low end. My memory has gotten too fuzzy to remember more than that, though. Maybe they never put it in writing. :)
You remember wrong.
Look up GM
 
lpickup said:
Durandal said:
I've got to endure scornful looks from the guys at the Nissan dealership nearby her dance studio when charging at the dealership.

Seriously? This is beyond sad. I've heard of some dealers that aren't exactly welcoming to EVs, but what on earth do they think they put the charging stations in for?
It is sad. I used to go inside and sit patiently, not partaking of any of their free water or snacks, whenever a sales guy would ask if I was interested in looking at anything, I'd ask to see the new Leaf. "Oh, we don't stock those since they don't sell."
No, actually they don't sell because you don't stock them.
The dealership has 3 Leaf chargers, 2 of which are always blocked by fossil cars, the only one that isn't ICED is the one by the service center, and those guys are scowling because there's no reason to take a Leaf in for maintenance besides tires, and I do that at Walmart or Sam's Club. Sales guys aren't interested in ordering a car, their bonuses are based upon selling what's on the lot, so they seem to hate Leaf owners out here.

But yeah, super stoked on the AWD Model 3. I've been dreaming of a Tesla since 2008, the Leaf held me over, but also taught me what I didn't want in a BEV. I almost capitulated and bought a Bolt a while back, but I'm glad I held out. My wife's Volt is nice, but we have that because she's not ready to give up gas stations due to certain family members not living nearby chargers, etc...
 
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
I seem to recall, during the Obama era, Tesla getting massive sensibilities, while Musk was talking about their ultimate goal being a car line that anyone could afford - at least at the low end. My memory has gotten too fuzzy to remember more than that, though. Maybe they never put it in writing. :)
You remember wrong.
Look up GM

I do indeed remember GM, and me wanting Obama to grow a pair and require that they build more EVs as a condition of us bailing them out. Cwerdna just yesterday posted some support for what I wrote, although it still isn't clear to what extent government assistance was tied to or the result of Musk telling anyone who would listen (including investors) how Tesla was going to be building a car that would cost $35k - before subsidies.

It's rather amusing to see you become Tesla's own attack dog.
 
IEVS:
UPDATE: Tesla Model 3 No Longer Recommended By Consumer Reports
https://insideevs.com/tesla-model-3-loses-consumer-reports-recommendation/

According to Tesla Model 3 owners, the car has some reliability concerns.

***Update: We’ve embedded a Consumer Reports video below in which they discuss their reasons for recommending vehicles. You may want to skip ahead to the 9:31 mark. Hat tip MTN Ranger!

Consumer Reports reached out to us this week to let us know that it was making some updates based on vehicle reliability data. The Model 3 was one of a handful of cars to be impacted by the updated information. According to CR:

  • The Tesla Model 3 and Chrysler 300 are among the six cars that can no longer be “Recommended” by Consumer Reports (CR) due to declining reliability, the organization announced at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., before the respected Washington Automotive Press Association. . . .

. . . when the car lost its recommendation (much like the Tesla Model S and X in the past), the automaker was able to make “fixes” rather quickly in order to help appease CR. Tesla’s over-the-air software updates have proven advantageous on numerous occasions, but in this most recent case, software fixes will not help. . . .

The recent report shares that Model 3 owners have reported loose body trim and glass defects, which lowered the car’s overall score enough to take it off the publication’s list of recommended vehicles. The Model 3’s new score drops it down 11 spots in CR’s updated rankings. . . .

The article reporting the same news at GCR goes into more detail:
Satisfying, but not so reliable: Tesla Model 3 joins ranks of enthusiast cars
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...-tesla-model-3-joins-ranks-of-enthusiast-cars
 
Back
Top