Model 3 Unveiling [video]
model3.tesla.com
model3.tesla.com
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...
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.
115,000 deposits of $1000 equals $115M.
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.
[1] http://seekingalpha.com/article/855661-tesla-profit-point [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-rated-junk-by-sp-2014-5
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.
So if you ramp up production and you need for example an additional factory, that means your fixed costs will go up.
Building cars is a capital and R&D intensive business. I'm not sure where the idea that those costs will basically go away comes form.
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.
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?
They would still report a profit under this scenario.
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".
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.
... 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.
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.
Since when is a car under 35K is considered luxury?
I don't know if I agree with the naming conventions but it seems appropriate when coupled with the article on wiki [0]
Brand new cars like Honda Fit and Ford Focus are $15k. Nissan Maxima / Honda Accord is ~$22k starting.
$35k is where BMW and Lexus start. He's still competing against the luxury segment, but "entry" luxury.
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.
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.
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 :)
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 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 hive mind of Wikipedia considers the marketing segment to include the Audi A4 and the BMW 3-series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_vehicle#Luxury_market_s...
Enterprise Rent-a-Car runs a Lincoln MKZ or similar: https://www.enterprise.com/en/car-rental/vehicles/us/cars/lu...
Car and Driver includes a bunch: http://www.caranddriver.com/flipbook/swank-for-less-bank-ent...
From Wikipedia.
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:
http://automobiles.honda.com/tools/build-price/trims.aspx?Mo...
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).
Cough Star Citizen Cough ;)
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.
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.
But his presentation style is hard to watch - he is literally stammering through what feels like a dry script.
I've never seen him live before is this par for the course or nerves?
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.
Not that this stopped me from putting down my deposit.
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.
Similar isn't Same.
And on top of that we are talking about different kind of resemblance.
Genuinely curious, as a person who likes to analyze public speaking events.
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?
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.
But Elon Musk jumps right to the point, and doesn't beat around the bush.
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.
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.
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?
I think a lot of people in the audience had just spent 1000$ on a reservation and they needed to rationalise.
Considering that the $1,000 is fully refundable with no fuss, I don't think there's much need for rationalization.
It doesn't matter though, the Model 3 would still be just as promising with or without the audience participation.
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.)
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).
This, on the other hand is genuinely good looking.
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.
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...
http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-global/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/...
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.
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).
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.
I'll get solar (PV) eventually though.
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.
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.
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.
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)
https://forums.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-laguna-s...
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.
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.
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)
Please do not compare all the models BMW sold with a single Tesla Model S. BMW only sold 142,000 of 3 series in 2014. http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/bmw-3-series-sales-figu...
The fact is that BMW produced 40x more vehicles in 2015, which would suggest their supply chain and support network is much more robust.
http://images.car.bauercdn.com/upload/32029/images/1040x585/...
Interior:
http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/547435/2015-merce...
http://preview.netcarshow.com/Mercedes-Benz-C-Class-2015-160...
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.
But I don't care too much about asthetics in cars, I value practical considerations much higher.
215 Miles Range
with 0-60 in 6secs,
Seats 5 will have autodrive tech
all for $35,000
Deliveries begin end of 2017 (Hopefully)
This is truly a mass market full electric car. We may be seeing something on the lines of the iPhone - a category busting product.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a Model 3 with something like a P65D besting M3/C63 performance numbers.
This part confuses me.
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 ?
[0] https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/p90d-insane-p90d-lud...
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/l-or-no-l.63631/page...
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.
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.
(Int. Combustion Engine)---[variable rotational speed/torque]--->drivetrain
with:
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.
Chevrolet Volt, BMW i3 with Range Extender
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjWzoJdmPeM
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.
* Article title is "A Lot Riding on Tesla's Model 3 Unveiling"
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.
Customers would complain if they only got <100 miles range because they were doing burnouts at every stop light.
>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.
And so it does! The fastest RWD Model S has a 0-60 of 5.4 seconds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S#Specifications
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.
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.
[1] - https://twitter.com/autonews_west/status/715761107508584448
[2] - https://twitter.com/autonews_west/status/715767638916472833
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.
"Tomorrow is Part 1 of the Model 3 unveil. Part 2, which takes things to another level, will be closer to production. "
And back in January he tweeted this[2]:
"In ~2 years, summon should work anywhere connected by land & not blocked by borders, eg you're in LA and the car is in NY"
Do you think he is saying the Model 3 will be fully autonomous?
https://www.teslamotors.com/node/14147?no_cache=1459519432
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.
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.
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.
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 am aware that this is an unpopular opinion.
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.
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.
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.
If it gives us self driving cars a couple years earlier than we would have otherwise, I think it's worth the tradeoff.
Look at the citroen cactus dashboard and make it more Tesla-like http://images.autowereld.com/high/78673-image.jpg
Caught the glimpse the new horizontal screen, but no details on that in the presentation or on the side....
Wonder if they are not ready with all those yet. Or maybe I am used to Apple keynotes
Hopefully some vehicle reviewers will test drive it and we'll learn more going forward. Or when Tesla's site comes online.
I'm not. The car is not ready for prime-time, but there's pressure on Tesla, the company, to show they're "on track".
No playback. "Ended 3 hours ago" and "Broadcast not found"
Essentially they re-branded "full" on the AC dial.
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.
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:
I think the front is very clean, and seen from above and behind the large rear window makes it look great. In my book this is way better than a Prius.
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.
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 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.
I'm on car number 7 now and hope to never own a sedan in my life. Wagon/hatchback for life.
[1]http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/tesla-unveils-its-d...
Tesla have targeted 500k vehicles a year, which would be a huge stretch from their current 70k a year.
1. http://www.autonews.com/article/20140113/COPY01/301139914/bm...
Is MM a typo or a legit way to write million?
I decided to find out and here's a reddit thread explaining: https://www.reddit.com/r/answers/comments/2sd9bm/why_do_peop...
Some more source: https://books.google.com/books?id=3fIUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA426&vq=m...
[1] http://evobsession.com/nissan-leaf-sales-climb-to-over-17000...
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.
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.
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.
Looks almost identical specs-wise to Chevy Bolt, which will be available at the end of 2016 rather than 2017.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-31/tesla-s-ne...
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.
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'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 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.
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.
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?
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.
[1] http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-shows/detroit-auto-show/news...
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.
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.
"Incredibly inspired by the interest in Model 3. You won't be disappointed. Also, small token of appreciation coming for those who lined up."
holy shit comes to mind
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).
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.
1. https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2012/pb22340/html/inf...
>Get the latest Flash player to view this content
A car from 2016, a video from 1996.
Edit: https://www.ustream.tv/embed/22190759, original link had a "html5ui" parameter but it doesn't seem to help.
Livestreamer with --default-stream mobile_720p gets 403.
It would've been helpful if there was some visual indication that the event hadn't started yet, like a countdown.
Fun fact is he appears to be heavily involved in a company aiming to compete with Tesla's Powerwall: http://redflow.com/about-us/board-management/
https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xaf1/t51.2885-15/s...
The link was only a preview. It links back to their site now. Kinda defeats the purpose of using Periscope.
Shouldn't this really be the model E and not 3?
https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/mythbusters-part-3-recyclin...
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
So today was their Kickstarter pitch :-)
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.
So Tesla can enjoy their millions of undeliverables and bouncebacks. Good luck on those leads Tesla sales.
>1 million tuned in to watch the unveiling and we got this list of emails to prove it
>dick@dick.penis
3. wake up with stupid domains
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.
I imagine the model 3 has the same benefits and the interior is a lot larger than it looks.
That's 0330 UTC, for anyone who wants to convert it.
countdown to 8:30pm PST
The door windows also disappeared, but the front screen stayed together
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.
BTW, Bolt has already been unveiled [0]
And some manufacturing has already started [1]
[0] http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/01/chevrolets-bolt-is-an-el...
I guess I'm marketing form blind.