Tesla Second Quarter 2018 Update(ir.tesla.com)
ir.tesla.com
Tesla Second Quarter 2018 Update
http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/7235e525-db16-470c-8dce-9ecac0ad7712
242 comments
Tesla only sold 104 Roadstars in 2011. Now they are on track to sell 250,000 Model S, X, and 3 combined in 2018. The scale of Tesla's accomplishment is truly under appreciated. It becomes even more impressive when you realize that this is an electric car, sold by Tesla owned stores, supported by over a thousand Superchargers. Amazing !!
I don't follow Tesla or the automotive market but I do follow space and for many years SpaceX was mocked because of it's low launch rate and delays. They are now #2 by launch rate, behind only China. SpaceX launches 2x to 3x more often than ULA or Ariane and their rampup was also faster than that of comparable vehicles.
The argument that a company can't build it's product fast enough to satisfy demand strikes me as extremely weak: as long as margins as positive the production problems are solvable.
The argument that a company can't build it's product fast enough to satisfy demand strikes me as extremely weak: as long as margins as positive the production problems are solvable.
SpaceX has Gwynne Shotwell. I’m not sure there’s a similarly capable decision maker at Tesla.
Do you have any more information about her, e.g. an interview or biographical article that would detail her talents? I'm wondering why you're judging her so highly (no tone other than factual question intended).
In the SpaceX and even the whole aerospace community this is basically assumed because of years and years of her interactions and conduct.
Generally the theme is, if she says it the likely hood of something happening goes up 300%.
That said, I don't necessary think that you can assume a direct causation of the difference between SpaceX and Tesla based on her alone.
Generally the theme is, if she says it the likely hood of something happening goes up 300%.
That said, I don't necessary think that you can assume a direct causation of the difference between SpaceX and Tesla based on her alone.
It does not have insight into her SpaceX endeavors but gives a sneak peek into her thoughts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THQPNDNulVc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THQPNDNulVc
Toyota went from selling 19,000 Prius' in 2000 to 281,000 Prius in the same timescale. It becomes even more impressive when you realize that before the Prius, there was no market for green cars, hybrid, electric, or otherwise. Amazing!!!
[1] Even more impressive is that these are sales of a single model...
[1] Even more impressive is that these are sales of a single model...
I mean it is impressive. But Toyota was not really a startup with no manufacturing experience in 2000.
Edit: Just reading the post twice. Tesla took 7 years to go from ~0 to 250K annually. Toyota took 18 years. Not really an apple to apple comparison
Edit: Just reading the post twice. Tesla took 7 years to go from ~0 to 250K annually. Toyota took 18 years. Not really an apple to apple comparison
Toyota took 7 years as well. They did not start selling the Prius worldwide until 2000, and they hit 280k worldwide sales within 7 years.
But if you want to compare yearly figures...the non-liftback models went from 0 sales to 530,000 in sales in just 2 years. Now that is impressive. And it's also the counterpoint to Musk's Tesla: both Tesla and Toyota knew that demand existed for their cars. But Toyota knew how to execute properly, and did so, and was able to satisfy that demand. Tesla so far has royally fucked up, continues to fuck up, and it's up in the air whether they'll be able to right the ship before they run out of money.
But if you want to compare yearly figures...the non-liftback models went from 0 sales to 530,000 in sales in just 2 years. Now that is impressive. And it's also the counterpoint to Musk's Tesla: both Tesla and Toyota knew that demand existed for their cars. But Toyota knew how to execute properly, and did so, and was able to satisfy that demand. Tesla so far has royally fucked up, continues to fuck up, and it's up in the air whether they'll be able to right the ship before they run out of money.
I'm sorry, but this strikes me as extremely disingenuous.
They didn't invent the market, the Prius was just a better Honda Insight (primarily by virtue of having 3 more seats). Again, they deserve massive credit for their accomplishments.
But, again, they lose the "sales increase" by a wide margin unless you tweak that by insisting on limiting it to "a single model".
Certainly we don't know if Tesla will survive but the challenges facing a new carmarker of any sort are simply massive, rather than just producing a slightly-differently-propelled model in addition to the millions of conventional cars you already produce.
And where you really fall over is by trying to argue about "the non-liftback models" which I can only presume means the discontinued[1] Prius V which is a slightly-differently-bodied version of an existing car.
[1] https://www.toyota.com/priusv/
They didn't invent the market, the Prius was just a better Honda Insight (primarily by virtue of having 3 more seats). Again, they deserve massive credit for their accomplishments.
But, again, they lose the "sales increase" by a wide margin unless you tweak that by insisting on limiting it to "a single model".
Certainly we don't know if Tesla will survive but the challenges facing a new carmarker of any sort are simply massive, rather than just producing a slightly-differently-propelled model in addition to the millions of conventional cars you already produce.
And where you really fall over is by trying to argue about "the non-liftback models" which I can only presume means the discontinued[1] Prius V which is a slightly-differently-bodied version of an existing car.
[1] https://www.toyota.com/priusv/
Toyota had 80 years of car manufacturing and selling experience before the Prius. Of course, they will be able to execute properly on a product (which is an incremental innovation).
[deleted]
It definitely is impressive, and they deserve great credit for their advancements-- I never liked the Prius but it was beyond obvious that every car in the future HAD to have a way of capturing deceleration energy rather than just bleeding it off as crude waste heat -- how silly and archaic that seems now.
But I'm not quite clear on your comment-- At first I thought it was to be read that the Toyota accomplishment was more impressive than Tesla's. But then I realized maybe you meant it to be less impressive, because the scale is far less. So I assumed you meant maybe Tesla's accomplishment was the more impressive one. But then you said Toyota's is EVEN MORE impressive when you consider that it's just a single model (which is a good point).
But I'm not quite clear on your comment-- At first I thought it was to be read that the Toyota accomplishment was more impressive than Tesla's. But then I realized maybe you meant it to be less impressive, because the scale is far less. So I assumed you meant maybe Tesla's accomplishment was the more impressive one. But then you said Toyota's is EVEN MORE impressive when you consider that it's just a single model (which is a good point).
I was pretty impressed that my entirely gasoline-powered BMW 3-series apparently will use the braking energy to recharge the battery and disconnect the alternator, saving some small amount of MPG. So the technology is trickling into gasoline-powered cars as well, to save small amounts of fuel.
I've driven a stick-shift for a while in the past and always wondered if there was a way to capture the engine power when you downshift for engine braking coming up to a red light. Not sure how it would work though.
I've driven a stick-shift for a while in the past and always wondered if there was a way to capture the engine power when you downshift for engine braking coming up to a red light. Not sure how it would work though.
> I've driven a stick-shift for a while in the past and always wondered if there was a way to capture the engine power when you downshift for engine braking coming up to a red light. Not sure how it would work though.
Flywheels could work, but they are heavy, and have a potentially unsafe failure mode (dense material disintegrating at high RPM).
Flywheels could work, but they are heavy, and have a potentially unsafe failure mode (dense material disintegrating at high RPM).
You could integrate an alternator with the gearbox in some way, and only connect it if your foot is off the pedal, or if you're about to run out of electricity.
my 2012 Z4 had limited recapture as well, it was a manual transmission with start/stop. It was there to mostly keep the battery up so you could start/stop. There was zero indication of it doing anything which I really found as a missed opportunity. You can really alter people's driving behavior if they see they are being "rewarded".
On my 2016 3 series there's an MPG bar below the speedo, and if you're in Comfort mode and coasting it will light up the battery in blue. If you're in Eco mode and braking it will flip the bar to say "charge". So I guess on newer models they took your advice and made it a bit more visible, and it definitely does impact my driving behavior because I want to see it light up blue :)
> [1] Even more impressive is that these are sales of a single model...
If we relax that "restriction"... Toyota says they sold 1.52 million electrified vehicles in 2017. That includes the Prius (both hybrid and PHEV variants), all their other hybrids (they have at least one hybrid option in most market segments they cover now), and the Mirai (fuel cell vehicle), across both the Toyota and Lexus brands.
It sounds a little less impressive when you realize that's only about 15% of the vehicles they sold globally, though (10.386 million cars globally, although I'm not 100% sure if that number includes Lexus).
If we relax that "restriction"... Toyota says they sold 1.52 million electrified vehicles in 2017. That includes the Prius (both hybrid and PHEV variants), all their other hybrids (they have at least one hybrid option in most market segments they cover now), and the Mirai (fuel cell vehicle), across both the Toyota and Lexus brands.
It sounds a little less impressive when you realize that's only about 15% of the vehicles they sold globally, though (10.386 million cars globally, although I'm not 100% sure if that number includes Lexus).
I mean, unironically, yes. Prius is one of the most remarkable cars ever, even if actual car enthusiasts weren't very enthused.
As a car enthusiast, while I absolutely despise the driving dynamics of a Prius I deeply appreciate that it and other hybrids have had such a positive impact on cars. Hybrids are now becoming the standard for next gen drivers cars and are honestly pretty amazing tech.
Now if only people would stop driving their Prius' 10-under in the fast lane.
Now if only people would stop driving their Prius' 10-under in the fast lane.
Have you driven a fourth-gen Prius (2016+)? Reviewers seem to agree it has a much nicer feel than previous iterations.
(I own a 2018 and am very happy with it, but I've never driven an older one, so I can't personally address any complaints about driving dynamics.)
(I own a 2018 and am very happy with it, but I've never driven an older one, so I can't personally address any complaints about driving dynamics.)
My favorite thing about the Prius (other than the economy) is the simply MASSIVE space inside -- particularly rear seat legroom and the flat floor, but the trunk is huge as well.
My least favorite thing is the near-deafening road noise, particularly in the back seat. It's got a tin can door closure sound that reminds me of a Renault 5 or something. It's a HUGE step down from most economy cars in those regards.
This was through the 2nd and 3rd gen, at least. I've not been in a 4th gen.
My least favorite thing is the near-deafening road noise, particularly in the back seat. It's got a tin can door closure sound that reminds me of a Renault 5 or something. It's a HUGE step down from most economy cars in those regards.
This was through the 2nd and 3rd gen, at least. I've not been in a 4th gen.
It's hard to overstate just how weird the driving dynamics of a Prius are. I have a used one from like 8 years ago and going from it to driving a regular car is always a big adjustment because a Prius just doesn't handle like any other car. Solid commuter vehicle either way, though, and I can't complain about the gas mileage!
This is not a direct comparison even though everyone should appreciate Toyota’s accomplishment. Tesla started from nothing.
That's impressive, but fundamentally hybrids are a dead-end. They're more (not less) complex than pure internal-combustion cars, and they still need fossil fuel. Ten years from now there won't be any hybrids for sale; all cars will either be purely electric or special-purpose IC. Not that Toyota doesn't already realize this, but it puts Tesla's vision ahead for now in my opinion.
> It becomes even more impressive when you realize that before the Prius, there was no market for green cars, hybrid, electric, or otherwise.
The first incarnation of the Honda Insight was before the Prius, and somewhat successful before the Prius came on the scene and took over.
The first incarnation of the Honda Insight was before the Prius, and somewhat successful before the Prius came on the scene and took over.
Honda Insight - 1999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Insight
Toyota Prius - 1997 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius
From wikipedia:
>Total global cumulative sales for the first generation Insight were 17,020 units
Thats for '00-'06 sales. idk what the first year sales were but the Pirus was on the scene very soon after the Insight.
The other obvious thing, the Insight looked like a car for weirdos. Something that tesla and later model prius / leaf's have tried to avoid.
Thats for '00-'06 sales. idk what the first year sales were but the Pirus was on the scene very soon after the Insight.
The other obvious thing, the Insight looked like a car for weirdos. Something that tesla and later model prius / leaf's have tried to avoid.
I think we may be misremembering this. The Prius dates back to 1996, when it was based on the Echo. The Insight was '99.
Edit: Okay, maybe 1996 in Japan? According to this Wikipedia link, the Insight DOES predate the Prius but only in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_electric_vehicles_in_th...
Edit: Okay, maybe 1996 in Japan? According to this Wikipedia link, the Insight DOES predate the Prius but only in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_electric_vehicles_in_th...
Good link, to answer my own question, the first year insight sales were (drum roll): 17.
Honda Insight was never offered for sale, lease only. I'm not including leases because Tesla does not lease their cars and lease stats are more than a simple Google search away. But if we were to include leases, Prius' stats would look even better.
> Honda Insight was never offered for sale, lease only.
No, 17,000 or so were sold, and it was the first mass produced hybrid sold in the US.
No, 17,000 or so were sold, and it was the first mass produced hybrid sold in the US.
Your arguments continue to devolve into uninformed or utter bad faith.
The insight WAS offered for sale, and Tesla DOES lease their cars[1]
[1]https://www.tesla.com/support/tesla-leasing
The insight WAS offered for sale, and Tesla DOES lease their cars[1]
[1]https://www.tesla.com/support/tesla-leasing
I literally lease my Tesla
[deleted]
The other thing that Tesla's naysayers still don't get is that
A Tesla (any model) is the most fun street-legal car ever built
Full stop, no caveats. American muscle cars from the 60s weren't this responsive. No German car is this responsive. You just have to drive one to understand.
A Tesla (any model) is the most fun street-legal car ever built
Full stop, no caveats. American muscle cars from the 60s weren't this responsive. No German car is this responsive. You just have to drive one to understand.
> A Tesla (any model) is the most fun street-legal car ever built
Most fun? You must not have driven many cars. If you only enjoy quick acceleration - sure, but I prefer a gocart feel and a car nimble around the corners, and the only tesla that's remotely competitive in this area is the roadster, of which it sold very few. The Model S, while it has a very low center of gravity which makes it feel like a smaller/lighter car than it is in corners, is still a large boat if you compare it to cars that are considered to be "fun" and well-handling.
A lot more people would agree with the statement that an MX5/Miata is the most fun street-legal car ever built - because - well, it most likely is. :P
Most fun? You must not have driven many cars. If you only enjoy quick acceleration - sure, but I prefer a gocart feel and a car nimble around the corners, and the only tesla that's remotely competitive in this area is the roadster, of which it sold very few. The Model S, while it has a very low center of gravity which makes it feel like a smaller/lighter car than it is in corners, is still a large boat if you compare it to cars that are considered to be "fun" and well-handling.
A lot more people would agree with the statement that an MX5/Miata is the most fun street-legal car ever built - because - well, it most likely is. :P
[deleted]
That is highly subjective. A friend of mine has a model S, and I do not like driving it much. I find it to be a boring experience. He is considering selling it after just a year because he finds it to be a boring car. To me, it is a one trick pony. It accelerates insanely fast. And that is about it.
I MUCH rather drive my cheaper toyota 86 than a model S.
I want it to be an awesome car, but to me it just isn't.
I MUCH rather drive my cheaper toyota 86 than a model S.
I want it to be an awesome car, but to me it just isn't.
I wonder how many of those are Model S. I hope that Model S is not suffering any problems so that Model 3 and Model X can go forward. I am only person in my circle of friends interested in Model S as opposed to the other two models.
Anecdotally, I lost count of the number of Model 3's I see on a daily basis in Bay Area.
Anecdotally, I lost count of the number of Model 3's I see on a daily basis in Bay Area.
What attracts you about the S more than the 3?
I really, really, really wish my 3 had the same awesome dash and display of the S. And of course the S is better looking although a bit long in the tooth. And has more space inside. And the power trunklid is nice because I'm not used to sedans and don't really like manually closing the trunk on the 3. It's a 2-step motion unlike a hatchback lid that closes more naturally.
But the more time I spend in the 3, the more I realize it's a MUCH nicer car inside than the S -- which I didn't expect.
But the more time I spend in the 3, the more I realize it's a MUCH nicer car inside than the S -- which I didn't expect.
I can't speak for pseudocook but the fact that they replaced the dash with a tablet really puts me off of the 3. Not only is it ugly (IMO), its less functional.
You may want to look at this - https://electrek.co/2018/07/30/tesla-model-s-x-interior-refr...
Model S and X combined should be about 100K.
Tesla only sold 104 Roadstars in 2011.
I'd love to see a Tesla version of the Road Star!
http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/Gallery%20%20A/Yamaha%20XV%...
I'd love to see a Tesla version of the Road Star!
http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/Gallery%20%20A/Yamaha%20XV%...
Musk was nearly killed in a motorcycle accident, and has said they will never build an electric motorcycle because of how much more dangerous a motorcycle is vs a car.
I'm really just calling out the spelling in the gp comment.
Beyond the finances, Tesla says they’re still on target for 6000 Model 3’s a week by the end of the month.
Throw in the other Models and Tesla will be shipping 300,000-400,000 electric cars a year. That’s quite an accomplishment.
Throw in the other Models and Tesla will be shipping 300,000-400,000 electric cars a year. That’s quite an accomplishment.
I wish other car companies would create more compelling and somewhat affordable electric cars.
At least in the US, the only two cars I can think of (besides the Model 3, which is hard to come by) that move the needle at all are the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt, both of which look... not great.
Why don't any other car companies offer a 'standard' mid size or compact sedan that's fully electric? Just take an existing decent car like a Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, etc. and redesign it electric? I know it's a different drivetrain/architecture, but why not a standard looking body instead of some weird buggy space-age thing?
At least in the US, the only two cars I can think of (besides the Model 3, which is hard to come by) that move the needle at all are the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt, both of which look... not great.
Why don't any other car companies offer a 'standard' mid size or compact sedan that's fully electric? Just take an existing decent car like a Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, etc. and redesign it electric? I know it's a different drivetrain/architecture, but why not a standard looking body instead of some weird buggy space-age thing?
> but why not a standard looking body instead of some weird buggy space-age thing?
I think they're still counting on the signaling. It's said that the Prius was bought by so many in large part because it looked so goofy, in that it didn't look like anything else, so everybody knew it was a Prius, which by proxy meant that you were driving green.
Tesla shook that up, but styling still remains something withheld for the maximum dollars. There are very few stylish cars at cheaper price points because they know that despite whatever features are there, people shop with their eyes predominately.
If they happen to land on a design that's too fetching for the price point they're targeting, it seems likely that they'd uglify it somewhat and withhold the better design for a more expensive vehicle that they may or may not plan to make.
I think they're still counting on the signaling. It's said that the Prius was bought by so many in large part because it looked so goofy, in that it didn't look like anything else, so everybody knew it was a Prius, which by proxy meant that you were driving green.
Tesla shook that up, but styling still remains something withheld for the maximum dollars. There are very few stylish cars at cheaper price points because they know that despite whatever features are there, people shop with their eyes predominately.
If they happen to land on a design that's too fetching for the price point they're targeting, it seems likely that they'd uglify it somewhat and withhold the better design for a more expensive vehicle that they may or may not plan to make.
Tesla has the ability to make "normal"-looking cars because the brand itself signals the owner is environmentally-conscious. The "traditional" automakers could probably get away with the same thing if they had exclusively-electric sub-brands (GM should bring back Saturn as an EV-exclusive brand, IMO).
Tesla may be "normal" looking where you come from but the are pretty easy to spot here because they are wider than pretty much every other car.
The Gen-1 Prius didn't look much different from any other "used bar of soap" compact that Toyota made. The Gen-2 did have a unique body style, but I put that down to aero requirements to hit fuel economy targets.
The Honda Insight looked even more goofy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Insight#Design
They were shown in 1997 and on the road in the US by 2001 or so.
The Prius seems to have been a much better car.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Insight#Design
They were shown in 1997 and on the road in the US by 2001 or so.
The Prius seems to have been a much better car.
I drive a 2004 Prius and my friend recently bought a 2000 Insight.
The Insight is pretty much strictly a commuter car: it's laughably tiny, like a roadster without any power. But it's really fun, and gets outrageously good fuel economy despite how crude the hybrid system is relative to Toyota's.
The Prius on the other hand is an everyday vehicle that's spacious inside and small on the outside. Far better suited to be the only car someone owns.
The Insight is pretty much strictly a commuter car: it's laughably tiny, like a roadster without any power. But it's really fun, and gets outrageously good fuel economy despite how crude the hybrid system is relative to Toyota's.
The Prius on the other hand is an everyday vehicle that's spacious inside and small on the outside. Far better suited to be the only car someone owns.
Check out the rear fenders on the Honda clarity plug-in hybrid:
https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/17120...
https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/17120...
> it seems likely that they'd uglify it somewhat and withhold the better design for a more expensive vehicle
Source? Many flashy design elements are expensive to fabricate.
Source? Many flashy design elements are expensive to fabricate.
> At least in the US, the only two cars I can think of (besides the Model 3, which is hard to come by) that move the needle at all are the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt, both of which look... not great.
Yeah, Nissan LEAF and Chevy Bolt might not look great but they are far more affordable. With heavy federal and state incentives (and sometime as much as $10k incentives from local utility companies), you are talking about half or even as little as a third of the Model 3 MSRP. [1][2]
[1]: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1110809_lots-of-ways-to...
[2]: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1113092_costco-members-...
Yeah, Nissan LEAF and Chevy Bolt might not look great but they are far more affordable. With heavy federal and state incentives (and sometime as much as $10k incentives from local utility companies), you are talking about half or even as little as a third of the Model 3 MSRP. [1][2]
[1]: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1110809_lots-of-ways-to...
[2]: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1113092_costco-members-...
Hyundai makes something similar to an electric Honda Civic, the Hyundai Ioniq Electric: https://www.hyundaiusa.com/ioniq-electric/index.aspx
It's "affordable" at $30k, but it has 1/2 the range of the Model 3 at around 130 miles, which I think tells you a lot. This technology is still at a price point where you need to make significant trade-offs between range and price. A new Honda Civic is something like $20k by comparison, and without the range anxiety.
Still, I see a lot more of the these Hyundai Ioniqs here in Amsterdam after they were released, particularly as workhorse vehicles like local taxis. Part of that's government incentives to use electric vehicles, European customers having lower range requirements, and that gas is still practically given away for free in the US compared to what it costs in the EU.
It's "affordable" at $30k, but it has 1/2 the range of the Model 3 at around 130 miles, which I think tells you a lot. This technology is still at a price point where you need to make significant trade-offs between range and price. A new Honda Civic is something like $20k by comparison, and without the range anxiety.
Still, I see a lot more of the these Hyundai Ioniqs here in Amsterdam after they were released, particularly as workhorse vehicles like local taxis. Part of that's government incentives to use electric vehicles, European customers having lower range requirements, and that gas is still practically given away for free in the US compared to what it costs in the EU.
If you just want affordable, you can get a 2012 Nissan Leaf that gets about 85 miles per charge for $7000 asking price on Craigslist.
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/cto/d/2012-nissan-leaf/6658...
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/cto/d/2012-nissan-leaf/6658...
One of the design constraint comes from the size of batteries. This is the battery for a Toyota Camry hybrid, a car with very limited electric range : https://images.hgmsites.net/med/toyota-camry-hybrid-battery-... Imagine the size required for Prius batteries or other electric cars! They just didn't come up one day with the idea of selling ugly cars
That’s significantly smaller than a gass tank. Picture 3+ 5 gallon water containers as they hold 15+ gallons. You are also removing the engine and exhaust system. Look just look at a muffler some time they are huge.
Go a little further and remove the axle and giant transmission and suddenly you have a lot of space under a car.
Go a little further and remove the axle and giant transmission and suddenly you have a lot of space under a car.
Most of the ugliness in electric vehicles is not in their bulk/shape, but in the unnecessary and ugly flairs that manufacturers put all over them. Just freaking remove that crap.
As for batteries, why can't they just make it wider and flatter and put it at the bottom, like tesla?
As for batteries, why can't they just make it wider and flatter and put it at the bottom, like tesla?
I agree look at this weird styling on the Honda clarity PHEV. Rear fenders and tail end are hideous imo
https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/17120...
https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/17120...
I just had the traction battery in my Gen 2 Prius replaced. It's not really any larger than what's in the Camry. There was a hack for the Gen 2 Prius that allowed EV only operation, and the maximum distance on that was less than 10 miles. Unless you're looking at one of the new plug-in Prius implementations, the batteries they use aren't really all that large.
> I wish other car companies would create more compelling and somewhat affordable electric cars.
It looks better than the Bolt or Leaf
https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/volt-plug-in-hybrid
EV range is about 55 miles Gas range is about 250 miles
It looks better than the Bolt or Leaf
https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/volt-plug-in-hybrid
EV range is about 55 miles Gas range is about 250 miles
[deleted]
Innovator’s dilemma. EVs compete against existing combustion vehicles and all of the capex and supply chain that goes with it.
Have to be willing to cannibalize part of your own market to succeed. Tall order for most.
Have to be willing to cannibalize part of your own market to succeed. Tall order for most.
the ugliness is intentional, and i think this was even acknowledge by bmw execs to an extent. the margins on EV are comparitively very low, the (battery) supply chain is fragile. less profit + production headaches = don't make the product any more appealing than it needs to be
There also was the VW e-Golf, though they stopped making them in 2018. I'm not sure if that means anything for other manufacturers.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/30/volkswagens-decision-to...
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/30/volkswagens-decision-to...
There's still the Golf GT-E which looks pretty sweet, shared platform with the Audi e-tron. Finally a mainstream plug in hybrid with good performance. Now, about the price...
Probably has to look buggy to keep it compact with sufficient headroom. I’m 6’5” and still have 2” headroom in my Leaf, which is awesome considering it is a compact car. I can also put the seat all the way back and fit an adult behind me. Can’t do that in a Prius or Volt due to their sleekness. I have not been in a Tesla, but I’m guessing the 3 has poor headroom compared to the Leaf.
> Why don't any other car companies offer a 'standard' mid size or compact sedan that's fully electric?
Given that Ford is largely abandoning sedans, it would seem that they're not particularly popular anymore. The Leaf and Bolt aren't all that weird looking for hatchbacks. Original Leaf had some weird-ish features (like the headlights), but mostly had a similar profile to the Nissan Versa hatchback. The new 2018 model is very ordinary looking. The Chevy Bolt has a pretty similar shape to the Chevy Spark.
It's not a very sexy shape, but it's a practical one.
Given that Ford is largely abandoning sedans, it would seem that they're not particularly popular anymore. The Leaf and Bolt aren't all that weird looking for hatchbacks. Original Leaf had some weird-ish features (like the headlights), but mostly had a similar profile to the Nissan Versa hatchback. The new 2018 model is very ordinary looking. The Chevy Bolt has a pretty similar shape to the Chevy Spark.
It's not a very sexy shape, but it's a practical one.
>Given that Ford is largely abandoning sedans,
*Entirely abandoning.
Ford no longer produces any sedan models [0].
[0] http://fortune.com/2018/04/26/ford-no-longer-making-sedans/
*Entirely abandoning.
Ford no longer produces any sedan models [0].
[0] http://fortune.com/2018/04/26/ford-no-longer-making-sedans/
I believe that only applies to the North American market. It's still possible that they'll make sedans for Europe. It's also possible that they'll continue to make sedans but jack them up and call them crossovers.
They're still making the Mustang, but I suppose that's technically a 2+2 rather than a sedan.
Tangential question: why do people prefer sedans over hatchbacks?
Hatchbacks seem a lot more practical than sedans with no obvious downside. I can see people preferring the looks of one or the other, but neither is objectively prettier.
Hatchbacks seem a lot more practical than sedans with no obvious downside. I can see people preferring the looks of one or the other, but neither is objectively prettier.
Sedans are a bit easier to cool/warm due to less air volume. The trunk also feels more secure for storage of valuables than leaving them exposed in a glass hatchback’s rear. Style and price also play into it I think but even cheap hatchbacks like the Ford Fiesta don’t sell that well in the US.
In general people looking for a practical car in the US are often buying a crossover, SUV, or pickup truck.
In general people looking for a practical car in the US are often buying a crossover, SUV, or pickup truck.
Hmm, those are interesting points, although it seems like both can be addressed with a simple cover over the trunk.
I think you’re right that SUVs and crossovers are taking over, from both sedans and traditional hatchbacks.
It must just be fashion, as SUVs don’t have any real advantage -- most people never do any off-roading or haul large sports equipment, and most “SUVs” wouldn’t be up to the job anyway.
I think you’re right that SUVs and crossovers are taking over, from both sedans and traditional hatchbacks.
It must just be fashion, as SUVs don’t have any real advantage -- most people never do any off-roading or haul large sports equipment, and most “SUVs” wouldn’t be up to the job anyway.
SUVs sit up higher. This makes them easier to get into and out of.
SUVs are basically hatchbacks. I currently own a hatchback (GTI) and our old SUV was easier to get into and out of. The GTI is more fun to drive though.
SUVs are basically hatchbacks. I currently own a hatchback (GTI) and our old SUV was easier to get into and out of. The GTI is more fun to drive though.
On the rational side (in addition to aesthetics, preference, etc.). There's also aesthetics and probably a general feel that a sedan is a more serious adult car.)
Some people prefer a separate locked trunk.
In addition, small hatchbacks often tend to be designed as 2-seaters with a vestigal back seat as a way to maximize the use of the hatchback for cargo. As you get bigger you get something more like an Outback wagon or (increasingly) a crossover of some sort.
Some people prefer a separate locked trunk.
In addition, small hatchbacks often tend to be designed as 2-seaters with a vestigal back seat as a way to maximize the use of the hatchback for cargo. As you get bigger you get something more like an Outback wagon or (increasingly) a crossover of some sort.
[deleted]
Sedans are aerodynamic. Hatchbacks can fit more luggage.
A hatchback is the responsible choice for for a family car, and therefore boring by association.
A hatchback is the responsible choice for for a family car, and therefore boring by association.
The Volkswagen GTI and Golf R would like a word with you.
Just sold my R 2 weeks ago and picked up a 3. :) Both fantastic cars in their own right.
Is a "3" a Tesla Model 3, or something else? I recently saw someone refer to this vehicle as an "M3", which was pretty confusing given the BMW vehicle that goes by this name.
I realize this thread is about Teslas, but still folks are referring to non-Teslas here as well.
I realize this thread is about Teslas, but still folks are referring to non-Teslas here as well.
Yes, sorry, it's the Tesla version. I was trying to be more clear, not less clear. I have owned an actual M3 and I hate people calling Mazdas and Teslas "M3"s. I was tossing around the idea of making "T3" a thing, though, as I don't think it'll confuse others in the car world.
Weird, usually I hear "M" denoting a bmw M3. If I heard 3, and it's a bmw car enthusiast then I'm thinking 335i.
Maybe 3 will (hopefully) become associated with Tesla in the future and not BMW 3 series cause they are a dime a dozen in major metro areas.
Maybe 3 will (hopefully) become associated with Tesla in the future and not BMW 3 series cause they are a dime a dozen in major metro areas.
Perhaps hatchback is seen as teenager's or poor person's car
No but true hatchbacks like Honda’s tend to be fairly small and the general image they’re going for is young, active people.
Hatchbacks cost more
I was going to say you’re wrong, but apparently in the US you’re right! Very strange.
I think that is a US-specific thing.
For some reason US customers prefer sedans (maybe some of the reasons given by other commenters) and that has probably skewed the market a bit (e.g. hatchbacks are only sold at higher trim levels since they’re marketed as a niche product).
Edit to add: and maybe there’s a feedback effect too? Hatchbacks are more expensive because they’re less popular, so then they’re less popular because they’re more expensive.
I think that is a US-specific thing.
For some reason US customers prefer sedans (maybe some of the reasons given by other commenters) and that has probably skewed the market a bit (e.g. hatchbacks are only sold at higher trim levels since they’re marketed as a niche product).
Edit to add: and maybe there’s a feedback effect too? Hatchbacks are more expensive because they’re less popular, so then they’re less popular because they’re more expensive.
I think you're right about the feedback effect. Imagine the tooling needed to make all the parts, and then spreading that tooling cost across either 10x vehicles or 30x vehicles. Lower-volume vehicles are more expensive, all things equal.
> I was going to say you’re wrong, but apparently in the US you’re right! Very strange.
Depends on brand. Kia charges the same either way.
Depends on brand. Kia charges the same either way.
Toyota has a Corolla hybrid option now too, which seems to further support your case that they could do a full electric conversion as well if they really wanted to.
Because car companies are horridly shortsighted. All of the major US car makers right now are doubling down on building gas-guzzling pickup trucks and SUVs because they have a nice profit margin and because Americans love commuting alone downtown in traffic every day in their seats 7, 20 mpg abominations with trunks and beds that are never used.
Maybe it's what's necessary to survive in the moment and maybe the moment is the nature of the car industry, but all of these car producers seem to forget what happens when gas prices rise and the economy slows. Maybe then they'll actually innovate, but in terms of technology they're already playing catchup to Tesla. If Tesla can figure out how to produce these cars steadily traditional car makers are in trouble.
Maybe it's what's necessary to survive in the moment and maybe the moment is the nature of the car industry, but all of these car producers seem to forget what happens when gas prices rise and the economy slows. Maybe then they'll actually innovate, but in terms of technology they're already playing catchup to Tesla. If Tesla can figure out how to produce these cars steadily traditional car makers are in trouble.
Today one can buy electric and/or hybrid cars from Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, VW, Volvo, Audi, and even Jaguar. They are not going to stop making gas guzzlers, but they are steadily increasing their commitment to electric cars.
If electric cars take over the mass market, most of them will be made by established carmakers who know how to crank out millions of cars per year and have thousands of dealerships across the country. I'm sure they will be grateful to Tesla for proving the concept, but the traditional automakers won't have much trouble ramping up production once they know the market is there.
By the way, I would love to have an electric car but I don't have anywhere to charge it because I live in an apartment without a garage. Charging it at work is not realistic for me -- we have some charging spots, but it's really difficult to get one because so many of my coworkers also want to use them. There are millions of customers like me who need the charging infrastructure to improve before electric car ownership becomes practical, and we are going to keep giving our money to the traditional automakers.
If electric cars take over the mass market, most of them will be made by established carmakers who know how to crank out millions of cars per year and have thousands of dealerships across the country. I'm sure they will be grateful to Tesla for proving the concept, but the traditional automakers won't have much trouble ramping up production once they know the market is there.
By the way, I would love to have an electric car but I don't have anywhere to charge it because I live in an apartment without a garage. Charging it at work is not realistic for me -- we have some charging spots, but it's really difficult to get one because so many of my coworkers also want to use them. There are millions of customers like me who need the charging infrastructure to improve before electric car ownership becomes practical, and we are going to keep giving our money to the traditional automakers.
At some point this is going to become the limiting factor for EV adoption, but I don't think we're there yet. The market's small enough that single-family homeowners can sustain it.
BTW, depending on where you live, you may be able to have a charging station installed (at your expense). In Hawaii, condo associations must allow the installation of charging stations. Less useful for apartment renters, but possibly still an option. You can read stories on Tesla forums of renters who convinced their apartment owners to spring for a bank of charging spots, though it's an effort.
And there are people who make it work without home charging. I did that for a year before I got my own charging station installed, but for anyone who puts serious miles on their car, it's a nightmare--a green version of Mad Max--hunting for an opening in one of the few public spots. Wouldn't recommend it.
BTW, depending on where you live, you may be able to have a charging station installed (at your expense). In Hawaii, condo associations must allow the installation of charging stations. Less useful for apartment renters, but possibly still an option. You can read stories on Tesla forums of renters who convinced their apartment owners to spring for a bank of charging spots, though it's an effort.
And there are people who make it work without home charging. I did that for a year before I got my own charging station installed, but for anyone who puts serious miles on their car, it's a nightmare--a green version of Mad Max--hunting for an opening in one of the few public spots. Wouldn't recommend it.
> By the way, I would love to have an electric car but I don't have anywhere to charge it because I live in an apartment without a garage.
I figure there might be an opening for a startup company to drive around neighbourhoods early in the morning, fast charging peoples cars for them. Subscription service. Partner with an electric car company.
I figure there might be an opening for a startup company to drive around neighbourhoods early in the morning, fast charging peoples cars for them. Subscription service. Partner with an electric car company.
And even if you do have a garage, would your apartment complex allow you to install a real charger? Or would you get stuck charging with 110v?
Unfortunately that little piece of infrastructure could easily be a deal killer for a ton of people.
Not everyone is a homeowner with a garage. And parking in a charging space at some random retail establishment every couple days for a few hours to charge just seems insane.
Unfortunately that little piece of infrastructure could easily be a deal killer for a ton of people.
Not everyone is a homeowner with a garage. And parking in a charging space at some random retail establishment every couple days for a few hours to charge just seems insane.
That sounds like a temporary problem to me - not anything fundamentally wrong that can't be fixed.
Apartment complexes where I live (Denver metro) are already competing with each other on features like "bike/snowboard fix-up stations", "Amazon lockers", "heated pool", and other absurdities - you bet they're going to install 220v chargers if it helps lure people in. Eventually, it will be expected - just like the bike fix-up station.
Apartment complexes where I live (Denver metro) are already competing with each other on features like "bike/snowboard fix-up stations", "Amazon lockers", "heated pool", and other absurdities - you bet they're going to install 220v chargers if it helps lure people in. Eventually, it will be expected - just like the bike fix-up station.
Schoedel be fixed, for right now if you were at one of the big auto companies and you find out that 30% of customers* can’t buy an electric car because of these issues… what does that do to your interest in selling electric cars?
If I could buy something equivalent to my current car that was electric, I’d be happy to. But I would definitely have to figure out the charging situation. And that could easily turn into a mess. That mass, plus premium price, plus possibly limited availability may make it easier for me to just buy another gas car for now.
*Number made up
If I could buy something equivalent to my current car that was electric, I’d be happy to. But I would definitely have to figure out the charging situation. And that could easily turn into a mess. That mass, plus premium price, plus possibly limited availability may make it easier for me to just buy another gas car for now.
*Number made up
I expect there is going to be a bit of a chicken and egg problem during the evolution of car charging infrastructure.
For example, if electric cars become popular we will need tons of public charging stations, but nobody will be willing to build charging stations unless there are already a lot of electric car owners to use them.
The early adopters of electric cars are going to have to deal with a lot of overcrowding at charging stations, unless they are homeowners and can charge in their garages.
All that aside, there is still the issue of price. I paid $21k for a new Prius C that gets 45-50 mpg. A new Chevy Bolt costs about $29k in California after tax credits as far as I can tell, and that does not include the cost of an in-home charger. That $8k difference would cover years of gas purchases for the Prius -- I've had it for 5 years and I've been spending about $35 for a tank every 3 weeks.
For example, if electric cars become popular we will need tons of public charging stations, but nobody will be willing to build charging stations unless there are already a lot of electric car owners to use them.
The early adopters of electric cars are going to have to deal with a lot of overcrowding at charging stations, unless they are homeowners and can charge in their garages.
All that aside, there is still the issue of price. I paid $21k for a new Prius C that gets 45-50 mpg. A new Chevy Bolt costs about $29k in California after tax credits as far as I can tell, and that does not include the cost of an in-home charger. That $8k difference would cover years of gas purchases for the Prius -- I've had it for 5 years and I've been spending about $35 for a tank every 3 weeks.
If you sell a gas car today, you can sell the same customer an electric car tomorrow.
In theory, yes.
We just drove our Model 3 home 13 days ago. IF you want an electric car, nothing else on the market has the compelling mix of features that the 3 has, IMO.
I'm a big BMW fan, and they keep promising that they'll be selling normal electric cars Real Soon Like Now, but frankly, most automaker efforts are either 'weird' electrics like the i3 or Leaf or Bolt (which have their own range or fast charging network issues), or PROMISES to bolt electric motors to existing cars like the 3 series. It's great that they think that will magically result in an electric car, but it doesn't resolve the fast charging network issues, I've seen no real promises of charging network investments, UI that makes it easy to find said chargers, etc. Maybe it's in the works, I don't know, but the fact that they're not even publicizing whatever efforts they're making mean that they're not making a splash in the market; they're not trying hard enough.
The 3 feels like a substantially different rethink of the car; it's on when I touch the door handle (or sooner, if I start the A/C via the app). Other automakers seem lost in the "take a car, remove the gas engine, replace with electric motors, and BAM, electric car!" mindset.
We just drove our Model 3 home 13 days ago. IF you want an electric car, nothing else on the market has the compelling mix of features that the 3 has, IMO.
I'm a big BMW fan, and they keep promising that they'll be selling normal electric cars Real Soon Like Now, but frankly, most automaker efforts are either 'weird' electrics like the i3 or Leaf or Bolt (which have their own range or fast charging network issues), or PROMISES to bolt electric motors to existing cars like the 3 series. It's great that they think that will magically result in an electric car, but it doesn't resolve the fast charging network issues, I've seen no real promises of charging network investments, UI that makes it easy to find said chargers, etc. Maybe it's in the works, I don't know, but the fact that they're not even publicizing whatever efforts they're making mean that they're not making a splash in the market; they're not trying hard enough.
The 3 feels like a substantially different rethink of the car; it's on when I touch the door handle (or sooner, if I start the A/C via the app). Other automakers seem lost in the "take a car, remove the gas engine, replace with electric motors, and BAM, electric car!" mindset.
>I'm a big BMW fan, and they keep promising that they'll be selling normal electric cars Real Soon Like Now
I feel ya. I'm a chapter officer in the BMW Car Club, but we just placed an order for a Model 3 for my wife on Saturday. The only thing even remotely on the horizon for BMW is the iX3, which will be produced in China (even though BMW produces all X3s in the US currently). It will only have 250 miles of range. And it launches in 2020.
I currently drive a 530e plugin hybrid. I tell anyone who will listen not to waste their time with it. It has 15-20 miles of real world EV-only range. I live in a small town and it typically isn't enough for me to drive across town and back if I have the AC on. If I wasn't so upside down on the lease (12 months in), I'd be ordering myself a Model 3.
My wife made me get rid of the 2015 M3 I had prior to the 530e. I greatly miss that vehicle, but now the joke is that she's going to be the one with an M3. Just a slightly different kind of M3.
My next vehicle is not likely to be a BMW. It is mostly likely to be either a Tesla or a Porsche Taycan. Maybe BMW will have something worth my time in 2023. And it's so sad as they were ahead of the curve with the i3. And then they did... nothing.
I feel ya. I'm a chapter officer in the BMW Car Club, but we just placed an order for a Model 3 for my wife on Saturday. The only thing even remotely on the horizon for BMW is the iX3, which will be produced in China (even though BMW produces all X3s in the US currently). It will only have 250 miles of range. And it launches in 2020.
I currently drive a 530e plugin hybrid. I tell anyone who will listen not to waste their time with it. It has 15-20 miles of real world EV-only range. I live in a small town and it typically isn't enough for me to drive across town and back if I have the AC on. If I wasn't so upside down on the lease (12 months in), I'd be ordering myself a Model 3.
My wife made me get rid of the 2015 M3 I had prior to the 530e. I greatly miss that vehicle, but now the joke is that she's going to be the one with an M3. Just a slightly different kind of M3.
My next vehicle is not likely to be a BMW. It is mostly likely to be either a Tesla or a Porsche Taycan. Maybe BMW will have something worth my time in 2023. And it's so sad as they were ahead of the curve with the i3. And then they did... nothing.
I've got a Clownshoe but in 2015 I also bought a Golf R 6MT (replaced by the Tesla) instead of an F31 3 series wagon because of BMW's shortsightedness in not bringing a manual over anymore -- a car I waited YEARS for, basically since the E91 was discontinued. I always argued that by catering to the fashionistas instead of car people, they wouldn't have a "base" once the fashion went elsewhere. Well, the fashion is going to electric cars and they're being left behind...
BMW has definitely decided that the X vehicles are what Americans will buy if they want cargo space. Those of us who have no desire to drive an SUV or "Crossover" seem to be the minority these days, unfortunately.
BMW is hitting it out of the park with the M2, but their mass market vehicles of the G generation seem to be missing the point as the market moves to EVs.
Hopefully VW will knock it out of the park w/the Taycan and it's charging network.
BMW is hitting it out of the park with the M2, but their mass market vehicles of the G generation seem to be missing the point as the market moves to EVs.
Hopefully VW will knock it out of the park w/the Taycan and it's charging network.
Large cars are safer. The IIHS publishes a stat they call "driver deaths per million registered vehicle years." Check it out: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/on-the-road-again-...
Notice a pattern? All of the safest cars (including the handful in which nobody died) are large. Mostly SUVs and pickups, with a few luxury sedans thrown in. All of the least safe cars are small. Many of them are tiny.
Incidentally, electric cars tend to be very safe for their size because the battery makes them weigh more. I'm all for that-- I'm just saying that Americans' love of large cars isn't entirely irrational. Some very unlucky Ford Fiesta drivers would still be alive if they'd been behind the wheel of a Jeep Cherokee.
Notice a pattern? All of the safest cars (including the handful in which nobody died) are large. Mostly SUVs and pickups, with a few luxury sedans thrown in. All of the least safe cars are small. Many of them are tiny.
Incidentally, electric cars tend to be very safe for their size because the battery makes them weigh more. I'm all for that-- I'm just saying that Americans' love of large cars isn't entirely irrational. Some very unlucky Ford Fiesta drivers would still be alive if they'd been behind the wheel of a Jeep Cherokee.
Are larger cars increasing safety overall, or are they just "winning" in crashes v.s. smaller vehicles? Would the driver of the Ford Fiesta still be alive if he'd crashed into another Fiesta instead of a Jeep Cherokee?
Most likely they’re just killing people in smaller cars, deaths from car crashes are higher in the US compared to other developed countries after all. Americans seem to enjoy a good arms race.
Part of that is that in multi -vehicle accidents bigger cars do more damage to small ones because they have more mass. So the bigger car is definitely safer for its occupants, but not necessarily better overall.
Pedestrian vs SUV bull bars turned out to be so grim for the pedestrians that they've been banned in Europe. The occupant safety statistics only tell part of the story.
Pedestrian vs SUV bull bars turned out to be so grim for the pedestrians that they've been banned in Europe. The occupant safety statistics only tell part of the story.
You need to look at the demographics of the drivers. Younger, inexperienced drivers drive smaller cars.
Aren't there a couple of feedback loops there?
Younger/inexperienced drivers buy affordable cars, which are affordable because they are [perceived as] less safe.
Older drivers, of people with the income to make a choice who care about perception, buy cars that are [perceived as] more safe.
Younger/inexperienced drivers buy affordable cars, which are affordable because they are [perceived as] less safe.
Older drivers, of people with the income to make a choice who care about perception, buy cars that are [perceived as] more safe.
They’re more affordable because they cost less to make.
How awful that they're making cars that their customers want to buy. </s>
The reality is that electric cars aren't in great demand today, Everyone's working on them but most aren't in a particular hurry to push out cars that don't necessarily have a good mix of price/range/features for their customers and which they won't sell all that many of as a result.
The reality is that electric cars aren't in great demand today, Everyone's working on them but most aren't in a particular hurry to push out cars that don't necessarily have a good mix of price/range/features for their customers and which they won't sell all that many of as a result.
Something no one really talks about is the difficulty of just charging an electric car for anyone who isn't a homeowner. That's a nontrivial question -- and possibly a dealbreaker -- for millions of apartment dwellers.
Or homeowners without garages. I live in a house but park in the street in front of it. I can't practically string an extension cord to my car to charge it every night.
Nevermind what a bunch of drunk teenagers would do upon seeing that setup.
I'm in the same situation, there's the option of renting a nearby garage but when I factor that into the cost of an already expensive vehicle, the economics just aren't interesting at all.
I'm in the same situation, there's the option of renting a nearby garage but when I factor that into the cost of an already expensive vehicle, the economics just aren't interesting at all.
Tesla's network of superchargers aim to solve this. They stopped giving out free supercharging IIRC, but it's still a great way to keep the battery close to topped off - you can do it as a short pitstop after driving to work, and the same after your drive home assuming you have a supercharger closeby
They're slowly making appearances in public parking lots, train stations, etc, even curbside spots in some cities.
But yeah, nowhere near the number needed for the electric car revolution (tm).
Although I've noticed most of said chargers are usually empty, so I suppose it's a chicken and egg problem.
But yeah, nowhere near the number needed for the electric car revolution (tm).
Although I've noticed most of said chargers are usually empty, so I suppose it's a chicken and egg problem.
Making an electric car is trivial. The big problem is that battery costs still cause the majority of the total vehicle cost. The e-golf is a perfect example of that. It's identical to the ICE version except it costs twice as much at the cost of significantly lower range. The 2017 version is still at the 30k price point but the range was upgraded to 185 miles. It will probably take another 3 years until we see a 300 mile version to eliminate range anxiety for the majority of the population and then it will take another 3-6 years for prices to go down.
The ICE vehicle manufacturers are waiting for battery costs to come down. They aren't short sighted. It's simple economics.
The ICE vehicle manufacturers are waiting for battery costs to come down. They aren't short sighted. It's simple economics.
Because battery technology isn't where it needs to be yet, where Tesla is absolutely winning when it comes to this. Honda released their plug in Honda Clarity, but it only has a range of 89 miles.
This simply isn't true - the Chevrolet Bolt has an EPA-estimate 238 mile range, with many reviewers getting close to 300. Pretty much what you get in a base Model 3. What's more you can actually walk into a dealership and buy a Bolt today, good luck trying that with a Model 3. It also costs almost 15 grand less than the cheapest Model 3 Tesla is currently shipping, given they still don't have a release date for the mythical 35k mass market version.
Batteries are increasingly just a commodity, and will become more so as the rest of the industry ramps up electric car production.
Batteries are increasingly just a commodity, and will become more so as the rest of the industry ramps up electric car production.
There are a lot of automotive buying decisions where you can save $15k by purchasing a smaller, slower, uglier car. It’s not a choice people always make.
Couldn't agree more. It's also not the point I'm making.
Parent comment used the example of the 89 mile range Honda Clarity as evidence you don't get competitive battery range on non-Tesla cars. This is demonstrably not true.
Parent comment used the example of the 89 mile range Honda Clarity as evidence you don't get competitive battery range on non-Tesla cars. This is demonstrably not true.
> you don't get competitive battery range on non-Tesla cars. This is demonstrably not true.
While the Bolt is a nice car with good range, it is not range competitive with the Telsa LR model 3. I have been evaluating this in the context of driving from San Francisco to Portland. This is a practical drive in the Model 3, but not even close in the Bolt.
While the Bolt is a nice car with good range, it is not range competitive with the Telsa LR model 3. I have been evaluating this in the context of driving from San Francisco to Portland. This is a practical drive in the Model 3, but not even close in the Bolt.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Chevvy sell the Bolt at an $8k loss, due to the battery. Nonetheless I'd love to have a Bolt, but I live in the UK and they aren't bothering to produce a RHD version.
Supercharger network, OTA updates, superior driver assist system, superior warranty.
I’d wait for a Model 3 instead of buying a Bolt off the lot. Range isn’t everything.
I’d wait for a Model 3 instead of buying a Bolt off the lot. Range isn’t everything.
Can you pay extra to get a car that just works, and no OTA updates?
No. Not a vehicle for the paranoid (not used as a derogatory term).
[deleted]
The point I wanted to get at was that there isn't the same level of competition in electric cars than gas powered cars yet.
Honda released their plug in Honda Clarity, but it only has a range of 89 miles.
Oh, c'mon, you're going to use a car I can't even find a price on for comparison? Honda wants a zip code to determine if I'm even privileged enough to buy one.
Compare to a Chevy Bolt, as the sibling commenter mentions. The range might come up slightly short, but then go compare the price tags (and for bonus points, when you can get one). If Chevy wanted to bump the price, I think they could easily match Tesla's range.
Oh, c'mon, you're going to use a car I can't even find a price on for comparison? Honda wants a zip code to determine if I'm even privileged enough to buy one.
Compare to a Chevy Bolt, as the sibling commenter mentions. The range might come up slightly short, but then go compare the price tags (and for bonus points, when you can get one). If Chevy wanted to bump the price, I think they could easily match Tesla's range.
> If Chevy wanted to bump the price, I think they could easily match Tesla's range.
If the Bolt has room for more battery. Which from pictures it does not.
If the Bolt has room for more battery. Which from pictures it does not.
The Jaguar I‑PACE looks pretty good to me, though not cheap.
Each to their own, however the Leaf looks good in its 2018 refresh, the earlier model was a design abomination but some people bought them.
In Europe with tighter roads and enough charging stations springing up the new Leaf is looking more desirable than the Model 3. The range has increased on the Leaf for 2018 and with the growing infrastructure in charging I am not sure everyone needs the increased range of the 3.
Nissan have earned their spurs in EV, as have Tesla obviously. I would be happy buying from them due to their innovation and design effort. I would not buy an electric VW Golf or even an electric Smart Car as that ground up engineering hasn't been done, it is a mere retro-fit of an existing fossil-burner.
I think the fossil-burner marques that thought they could just put some batteries in the back seat and rip out the ICE did so for regulatory lip-service reasons, a bit like how Aston Martin came out with a re-badged Toyota iQ so that the average fuel consumption figures across their fleet could be lowered. Clearly it is not in the Aston Martin DNA to make a car that is vaguely safe outside school gates. Neither has it been in the DNA of the Big Three or the German auto companies to want to do electric power properly.
I don't know what the Chevy Bolt is there for, however I think the Nissan Leaf has grown into something that suits the European market really well. Teslas are a bit too land-yacht sized for Europe plus European buyers have different standards when it comes to panel fit. Even the 'autopilot' is ridiculous in European markets where there are 'roads and motorways' not 'highways, surface roads and the interstate'. The ludicrous mode is nice to have but the novelty has worn off. The Leaf is quicker on the 0-60 times than the Nissan Qashqai and able to compete at the lights with pimped fossil burners, that is enough, there is no need for it to trounce passing Ferraris.
The BMW i3 fits a niche in London as it is compact enough to actually park. People can sneak into EV only parking spots and avoid congestion charges. There are people able to pay the premium for these benefits, they are not necessarily wanting to go green, just have private transport and be able to park it.
Tesla are working their way down from the top of the market and it could be a while before they create an 'econobox'. Realistically there is a good chance that the car you want comes from elsewhere, e.g. China, and that it has new technology such as a much smaller battery coupled to a supercapacitor for regen/city economy. Waiting for the fossil burning marques to produce something is a waste of time, EV is not in their DNA.
In Europe with tighter roads and enough charging stations springing up the new Leaf is looking more desirable than the Model 3. The range has increased on the Leaf for 2018 and with the growing infrastructure in charging I am not sure everyone needs the increased range of the 3.
Nissan have earned their spurs in EV, as have Tesla obviously. I would be happy buying from them due to their innovation and design effort. I would not buy an electric VW Golf or even an electric Smart Car as that ground up engineering hasn't been done, it is a mere retro-fit of an existing fossil-burner.
I think the fossil-burner marques that thought they could just put some batteries in the back seat and rip out the ICE did so for regulatory lip-service reasons, a bit like how Aston Martin came out with a re-badged Toyota iQ so that the average fuel consumption figures across their fleet could be lowered. Clearly it is not in the Aston Martin DNA to make a car that is vaguely safe outside school gates. Neither has it been in the DNA of the Big Three or the German auto companies to want to do electric power properly.
I don't know what the Chevy Bolt is there for, however I think the Nissan Leaf has grown into something that suits the European market really well. Teslas are a bit too land-yacht sized for Europe plus European buyers have different standards when it comes to panel fit. Even the 'autopilot' is ridiculous in European markets where there are 'roads and motorways' not 'highways, surface roads and the interstate'. The ludicrous mode is nice to have but the novelty has worn off. The Leaf is quicker on the 0-60 times than the Nissan Qashqai and able to compete at the lights with pimped fossil burners, that is enough, there is no need for it to trounce passing Ferraris.
The BMW i3 fits a niche in London as it is compact enough to actually park. People can sneak into EV only parking spots and avoid congestion charges. There are people able to pay the premium for these benefits, they are not necessarily wanting to go green, just have private transport and be able to park it.
Tesla are working their way down from the top of the market and it could be a while before they create an 'econobox'. Realistically there is a good chance that the car you want comes from elsewhere, e.g. China, and that it has new technology such as a much smaller battery coupled to a supercapacitor for regen/city economy. Waiting for the fossil burning marques to produce something is a waste of time, EV is not in their DNA.
I believe it's for the exact same reason other Big Companies are incapable of delivering anything "exciting":
1. Soulless design-by-committee. 2. Complex internal politics - "Cool idea you have there with the Prius, but I don't want to see it become too successful and eat into the sales of the Corolla. We need to sell 200k Corollas or I don't get my bonus". 3. The "proven" technique of having focus groups with a diverse crowd of aged-35+ white suburban soccer moms tell you what features they value in a car the most.
1. Soulless design-by-committee. 2. Complex internal politics - "Cool idea you have there with the Prius, but I don't want to see it become too successful and eat into the sales of the Corolla. We need to sell 200k Corollas or I don't get my bonus". 3. The "proven" technique of having focus groups with a diverse crowd of aged-35+ white suburban soccer moms tell you what features they value in a car the most.
That, but also the aim to serve the mass market rather than the 1%, and therefore the need to produce a car that is profitable when sold for 25k rather than 65k.
Volvo will have one soon to compete with the Y.
We are about a year away from the Byton Electric Car here in the good 'ol USA - way better than any Tesla:
https://www.byton.com
https://www.byton.com
I assume that the established auto manufacturers are hamstrung by deep-rooted affiliations with big oil.
Who are the sponsors slathered all over their race cars? Petrol companies.
Who are the sponsors slathered all over their race cars? Petrol companies.
I’m reading it as “we aim” sounds like a goal. They’re expecting Expecting to produce 50-55k Model 3s in Q3
Which falls below the 5000/week
Which falls below the 5000/week
It's the difference between max and average
For a company that has consistently been FAR below their production target, that's the difference between a press marketing material and reality.
And they say that they "have repeated weekly production of approximately 5,000 Model 3 cars multiple times" in July.
But they expect to produce 50-55k Model 3 vehicles in Q3 (i.e. ~4000 per week at the midpoint), so it's not clear what those 5000 or 6000 per week really mean.
But they expect to produce 50-55k Model 3 vehicles in Q3 (i.e. ~4000 per week at the midpoint), so it's not clear what those 5000 or 6000 per week really mean.
It will be quite an accomplishment when they've demonstrated it. Talk is cheap with Tesla.
For the six months ending in June 2018 Tesla's operations burned $528 million of cash. It also spent $1.27 billion on CAPEX. At quarter's end, they have $2.2 billion of cash on hand. That's like 7 months of runway. What's keeping the boat plugged up is debt.
Good news is, there are no obvious bond market bogeymen on the horizon in the very near-term.
Good news is, there are no obvious bond market bogeymen on the horizon in the very near-term.
Their burn rate varies dramatically as they start shipping new models of cars. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/07/teslas-cash-crunch-expl...
> Their burn rate varies dramatically as they start shipping new models of cars
Sure, you have to build new tools, buy material, hire factory workers--all before you've sold your first vehicle. This is a known cash curve. The purpose of calculating a runway is to understand "we have to start selling lots of cars within 7 months, or else sell more debt or stock."
Sure, you have to build new tools, buy material, hire factory workers--all before you've sold your first vehicle. This is a known cash curve. The purpose of calculating a runway is to understand "we have to start selling lots of cars within 7 months, or else sell more debt or stock."
Right, but since they did just start selling a lot of cars, the runway calculation is now moot.
> since they did just start selling a lot of cars, the runway calculation is now moot
These runway calculations are only moot once Tesla is cash flow positive.
These runway calculations are only moot once Tesla is cash flow positive.
Rather, they’re moot once Tesla has exhausted diluting equity and issuing in the bond markets.
Cash on hand is important, but not the end all be all. See MoviePass and how they were extended additional funds ($5MM) even with no business plan and road to profitability.
Cash on hand is important, but not the end all be all. See MoviePass and how they were extended additional funds ($5MM) even with no business plan and road to profitability.
What is it now?
Well that depends on how fast you think they're selling cars right now or in the near future. And how much money they make on each model. Just guess, basically.
What if I guess they aren't making enough profit or selling enough cars to make the runway calculations moot?
I mean, people basically said the same about Groupon. "Once they become profitable the losses won't matter." Except Groupon hardly turned out to be the juggernaut that rewrote how commerce is done.
I mean, people basically said the same about Groupon. "Once they become profitable the losses won't matter." Except Groupon hardly turned out to be the juggernaut that rewrote how commerce is done.
Independent assessments show them making a large (30%) profit margin per vehicle: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-16/tesla-mod...
"$528 million in six month" sounds a lot worse than what the report itself says, namely
Cash outflow from operating activities in Q2 2018 was $130 million, which was significantly better than outflows of $398 million in Q1. This improvement occurred despite a substantial increase in finished goods vehicle inventory of $579 million as a result of the timing of deliveries.
Cash outflow from operating activities in Q2 2018 was $130 million, which was significantly better than outflows of $398 million in Q1. This improvement occurred despite a substantial increase in finished goods vehicle inventory of $579 million as a result of the timing of deliveries.
> finished goods vehicle inventory of $579 million as a result of the timing of deliveries.
AKA, we delayed delivering a lot of cars to not trigger the tax credit expiration in Q2.
AKA, we delayed delivering a lot of cars to not trigger the tax credit expiration in Q2.
Exactly. And this is a 'problem' they'll never again face, because now the clock is ticking.
Of course, it's been replaced with the 'problem' of selling incremental Model 3s as the effective price goes up quarter by quarter in the near term, but the issue has ALWAYS been whether they'll be able to sustain demand and sales as the vehicle goes through pent-up demand and then has to rely on incremental sales, year after year after year (or until they start dumping huge amounts of cash into ramping the NEXT car).
That said, I'm VERY impressed with our new 3; more so than I expected, and I suspect others will be similarly delighted and new sales will follow. Their next challenge will be ramping maintenance/service of the rapidly expanding installed base.
Of course, it's been replaced with the 'problem' of selling incremental Model 3s as the effective price goes up quarter by quarter in the near term, but the issue has ALWAYS been whether they'll be able to sustain demand and sales as the vehicle goes through pent-up demand and then has to rely on incremental sales, year after year after year (or until they start dumping huge amounts of cash into ramping the NEXT car).
That said, I'm VERY impressed with our new 3; more so than I expected, and I suspect others will be similarly delighted and new sales will follow. Their next challenge will be ramping maintenance/service of the rapidly expanding installed base.
There's a massive amount of demand here in Europe: the car is the right size, the right price qualifies for all of the tax benefits. They also have 0 competition. I expect there to be a waiting list for the next couple of years unless they keep boosting production..
Good point, I was totally ignoring Europe with this car -- and I shouldn't be, because I need to buy your left driver's side convex mirror mirror (so I can actually see what's in the lane to my left, unlike in the "flat" US mirrors) and your proper taillights with amber turn signals (please be plug-and-play).
> Their next challenge will be ramping maintenance/service of the rapidly expanding installed base.
I agree that this will be the next obvious challenge. "Thankfully", they're already seeing how this plays out in Norway, where they're really struggling to service the Model S fleet as it ages and repairs are required more frequently.
I consider this a good thing, because certainly there's someone in the service department thinking about what will happen in 3 years when the amount of Model 3s requiring service starts increasing further. Norway is the canary in the coal mine, which should be completely obvious to someone who does this full-time.
I agree that this will be the next obvious challenge. "Thankfully", they're already seeing how this plays out in Norway, where they're really struggling to service the Model S fleet as it ages and repairs are required more frequently.
I consider this a good thing, because certainly there's someone in the service department thinking about what will happen in 3 years when the amount of Model 3s requiring service starts increasing further. Norway is the canary in the coal mine, which should be completely obvious to someone who does this full-time.
I am also much more impressed than I expected to be with the Model3's I see on the street lately. It looks a lot better in real life than in the photos.
I interpret it like that as well, yes.
I was reading their GAAP metrics for six months, as presented on their Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows. (For the three months ending 30 June 2018, operations burned $129 million and CAPEX was $609 million.)
I saw the numbers in the narrative and am curious what costs they're including (or revenue items they're bringing forward) for these non-GAAP measures. Generally speaking, absent explanation, I default to GAAP.
I saw the numbers in the narrative and am curious what costs they're including (or revenue items they're bringing forward) for these non-GAAP measures. Generally speaking, absent explanation, I default to GAAP.
The $398 million can be found in the same table in the adjacent column for Q1 (3 month ending in 31 march)?
CAPEX has decreased in Q2 by about $45 million compared to Q1 btw.
> Good news is, there are no obvious bond market bogeymen on the horizon in the very near-term.
I actually see one. it depends on your definition of near term, but in march of next year Tesla has alot of debt coming due. This debt is convertible(to stock) at around $350ish.
However, reportedly, this debt allows tesla to raise the conversion rate such that it can convert the debt to equity at any rate it wants.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4191711-tesla-stealth-capit...
I haven't verified that but I thought its an interesting thesis:)
I actually see one. it depends on your definition of near term, but in march of next year Tesla has alot of debt coming due. This debt is convertible(to stock) at around $350ish.
However, reportedly, this debt allows tesla to raise the conversion rate such that it can convert the debt to equity at any rate it wants.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4191711-tesla-stealth-capit...
I haven't verified that but I thought its an interesting thesis:)
Will they eventually reach a point where they can just run with the capital equipment they already have, and drop the CAPEX spending down?
> Will they eventually reach a point where they can just run with the capital equipment they already have, and drop the CAPEX spending down?
That's the plan. But you have to spend money to make money, particularly in the car business.
That's the plan. But you have to spend money to make money, particularly in the car business.
Their goal is 10k cars/week, so perhaps then. There's also (reported today) $5B planned for the factory in China, expected to be raised largely in-country but with some American/international investment. And, of course, some capex is always necessary to replace depreciating stock and support new models (pickup, new roadster, and truck all planned).
They're talking about building a factory in Europe too, either in The Netherlands or in Germany.
The thing about these new factories is that they will be using already developed technology and product so the risk is much lower for them than for the original model3 factory.
What does that mean? I thought I read somewhere the cost of insuring Tesla debt had implied a high chance of default?
> the cost of insuring Tesla debt had implied a high chance of default?
There is a high chance of default. If the bond markets sour, Tesla will have to write off a lot of projects and lay off a lot of people to attempt stabilization. That basically shoots out their Model 3 and energy projects, which would bring the company's basic viability into question.
There is a high chance of default. If the bond markets sour, Tesla will have to write off a lot of projects and lay off a lot of people to attempt stabilization. That basically shoots out their Model 3 and energy projects, which would bring the company's basic viability into question.
Cash flow was -$528M Jan-Jun, i. e. Q1 and Q2, yes.
But it was only -$128M in Q2. Tell us why you chose the longer time frame for your prediction, exactly?
Your math also has some basic problems, because $2.2 billion / ($1.27 billion / 6 months) != 7 months == 11 months.
More importantly: you're mixing some completely different levels of accounting: cash flow may or may not correspond to changes in capital structure such as CAPEX. When CAPEX involves actual cash being paid, it's also reflected in cash flow. In that case, you're counting the same expenses twice. etc..
But it was only -$128M in Q2. Tell us why you chose the longer time frame for your prediction, exactly?
Your math also has some basic problems, because $2.2 billion / ($1.27 billion / 6 months) != 7 months == 11 months.
More importantly: you're mixing some completely different levels of accounting: cash flow may or may not correspond to changes in capital structure such as CAPEX. When CAPEX involves actual cash being paid, it's also reflected in cash flow. In that case, you're counting the same expenses twice. etc..
Your parent is not mixing different accounting concepts. Those are two lines taken directly from the statement of cash flows ("Net cash used in operating activities" and "Capital expenditures").
> changes in capital structure such as CAPEX
Hmm, so capital structure typically refers to the big elements liability side of a business. Equity versus debt, bank loans versus bonds--that sort of thing. When one purchases capital equipment (e.g. a factor), that counts as CAPEX. I will admit that this nomenclature could be less confusing.
Hmm, so capital structure typically refers to the big elements liability side of a business. Equity versus debt, bank loans versus bonds--that sort of thing. When one purchases capital equipment (e.g. a factor), that counts as CAPEX. I will admit that this nomenclature could be less confusing.
CAPEX is not the only component of runway. There's also the standard operating expenses to cover as well. Tell us why you ignored that and why you think Q2 is more relevant than Q1 + Q2.
Looks like the bankruptcy short thesis has been pretty much debunked, cash burn way below expected.
Not really. Accounts payable ballooned to around $3B, and cash on hand is only ~$2B (of which about $1B is in the form of revokable deposits).
You're sort of cherrypicking those numbers aren't you?... If you look a few lines down, you'll see that total liabilities and equity have gone down by over $1B. Also it's not ~$2B, it's $2.8B from $3.2B last quarter, which was my point about the cash burn. It's clear that the fears of running out of cash and defaulting are completely unfounded. They have multiple years of burn rate.
> Gigafactory 1 battery production reached an annualized run rate of roughly 20 GWh
Kind of interesting...the typical laptop has a 50 Wh battery, and there are about 160 million laptop sales per year. A typical smartphone has a 5 Wh battery and there are about 1.5 billion smartphones sales per year. So that one factory makes just about enough batteries for all the laptops and smartphones.
Kind of interesting...the typical laptop has a 50 Wh battery, and there are about 160 million laptop sales per year. A typical smartphone has a 5 Wh battery and there are about 1.5 billion smartphones sales per year. So that one factory makes just about enough batteries for all the laptops and smartphones.
And we would need 730 of such factories to provide all of 73 million annually produced cars with a 200kWh battery.
Fortunately, cars do not need 200kWh batteries. 75ish seems like the sweet spot.
After hours trading jumped from $300.81 to ~$320. That could change again before morning, but the markets look set to smile on this update. :-)
Is that graph of their market share true? Do they really have a ~50% market share? It sounds really high. At that sort of percentage can they really grow at the rate they need? I know they say things like
> We are drawing customers from many other segments, including non-premiums sedans and hatchbacks.
Is that the source of growth at this point?
> We are drawing customers from many other segments, including non-premiums sedans and hatchbacks.
Is that the source of growth at this point?
> Is that graph of their market share true? Do they really have a ~50% market share? It sounds really high. At that sort of percentage can they really grow at the rate they need?
Yes, when comparing to other compact luxury sedans such as the BMW 3-series and the M-B C-Class, yes, they are at 50% market share. The question becomes, are they just selling cars to people who would have bought a car in that class, or are they selling to people who normally would have been in a lower class. Anecdotally, they're growing the class, as there's a lot of interest in the Model 3 from people who otherwise would have bought a Camry, Accord, Malibu, or other mid-grade sedan.
Yes, when comparing to other compact luxury sedans such as the BMW 3-series and the M-B C-Class, yes, they are at 50% market share. The question becomes, are they just selling cars to people who would have bought a car in that class, or are they selling to people who normally would have been in a lower class. Anecdotally, they're growing the class, as there's a lot of interest in the Model 3 from people who otherwise would have bought a Camry, Accord, Malibu, or other mid-grade sedan.
Yes, but it's also selling to a somewhat-rabid list of reservation holders against a BMW 3 series that is around 3 or 4 years into its model cycle, a not-as-attractive-as-previous-generation C class that's 2+ years into its model cycle... these things are never apples to apples but its particularly bad when you have a backlog of people champing at the bit to buy your car.
And all for a $7500+ discount over 'true' MSRP which will begin to evaporate over the coming months (which was one reason we jumped on the 3 when we did, rather than waiting).
And all for a $7500+ discount over 'true' MSRP which will begin to evaporate over the coming months (which was one reason we jumped on the 3 when we did, rather than waiting).
The Model 3's shipping though are essentially luxury models though, correct? Not the cheap one that would compete with a Camry, Accord, Malibu, all of which can be had for around 20k.
Model 3 is supposed to be the cheap/basic version. Maybe a model 5 will be mid/luxury along with model S
In fact, on the call they said that the top 5 non-tesla cars being traded in for a tesla are:
Toyota Prius BMW 3-series Honda Accord Honda Civic Nissan Leaf
Toyota Prius BMW 3-series Honda Accord Honda Civic Nissan Leaf
https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-model-3-market-share-c...
Tesla has a history of drawing misleading market share graphs by comparing its cars against cars that reasonably would be considered to be in different market segments. You would have to be pretty charitable to call the model 3 a mid-sized sedan, for example.
Tesla has a history of drawing misleading market share graphs by comparing its cars against cars that reasonably would be considered to be in different market segments. You would have to be pretty charitable to call the model 3 a mid-sized sedan, for example.
The Model 3 is being categorised as a mid-size sedan by pretty much everyone.
What is misleading is neglecting some other premium mid size sedans from the market [1] such as the Acura TLX and the Inifinit Q50. On top of that the premium mid size sedan market is only about 3% (by volume) of the total US auto industry so 50% market share in that category is still only 1.5% of the total market.
[1] http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-analysis-q4-2017-premiu...
What is misleading is neglecting some other premium mid size sedans from the market [1] such as the Acura TLX and the Inifinit Q50. On top of that the premium mid size sedan market is only about 3% (by volume) of the total US auto industry so 50% market share in that category is still only 1.5% of the total market.
[1] http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-analysis-q4-2017-premiu...
Plausibly. For example BMW 3 + Audi A4 is only around 100,000 per year in the US combined.
The Tesla skeptics have gone out of their way to try to ignore what a dramatic accomplishment selling so many Model 3's so quickly represents (and doing so at such an elevated price point).
To top it off, the reviews keep coming in that several of the more ridiculous early manufacturing problems with the Model 3 have been fixed, such as panel alignment and seat comfort.
The Tesla skeptics have gone out of their way to try to ignore what a dramatic accomplishment selling so many Model 3's so quickly represents (and doing so at such an elevated price point).
To top it off, the reviews keep coming in that several of the more ridiculous early manufacturing problems with the Model 3 have been fixed, such as panel alignment and seat comfort.
Tesla sold fewer than 20,000 Model 3s in Q2. How is that an accomplishment?
Tesla is also claiming 50% of an extremely niche segment. It's like someone bragging about having the top-selling book in the Historical Sci-Fi Alien Albinos category.
Tesla is also claiming 50% of an extremely niche segment. It's like someone bragging about having the top-selling book in the Historical Sci-Fi Alien Albinos category.
> In July 2018, we delivered our 200,000th vehicle in the US, which means that our US customers will have access to the full $7,500 federal tax credit until the end of 2018
So basically they have until the end of the year to produce as many cars as possible and get their finances in good shape, otherwise they're in trouble.
So basically they have until the end of the year to produce as many cars as possible and get their finances in good shape, otherwise they're in trouble.
It will drop to $3,750 in January and then $1,875 in July. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/07/tesla-sold-200000-cars-...
Even that phaseout will probably result in a lot of cancellations from people who have been on the waiting list for several months already but who haven't taken delivery by the end of the year. Especially for the orders at the lower end of the price spectrum, which haven't even started shipping yet.
Loss aversion is real, and people aren't going to be happy about being asked to suddenly pay ~20% more for the exact same car. Since the base models haven't started shipping yet, it stands to reason that after the end of the year that will be mostly what's left on the waiting list. So if they lose a lot of those reservations, they're stuck with huge capital expenses and a potentially very significant decrease in orders.
Loss aversion is real, and people aren't going to be happy about being asked to suddenly pay ~20% more for the exact same car. Since the base models haven't started shipping yet, it stands to reason that after the end of the year that will be mostly what's left on the waiting list. So if they lose a lot of those reservations, they're stuck with huge capital expenses and a potentially very significant decrease in orders.
> Loss aversion is real, and people aren't going to be happy about being asked to suddenly pay ~20% more for the exact same car.
It's 10% more at most, and they are making it pretty clear now that the Short Range model will not be available before January 2019. Even then, many people can't even realize the entirety of a $7,500 tax credit. A single person needs $60k in income to generate $7,500 in taxes due after the standard deduction, and a married couple needs $80k to reach that point. Most people who are holding out for the $35k Tesla because that's all they can afford are also going to have a Tax due of less than the $7,500 credit.
It's 10% more at most, and they are making it pretty clear now that the Short Range model will not be available before January 2019. Even then, many people can't even realize the entirety of a $7,500 tax credit. A single person needs $60k in income to generate $7,500 in taxes due after the standard deduction, and a married couple needs $80k to reach that point. Most people who are holding out for the $35k Tesla because that's all they can afford are also going to have a Tax due of less than the $7,500 credit.
Do people in those income brackets purchase vehicles that are that expensive? It doesn't seem wise to spend nearly half your pre-tax family income on a single vehicle. I've been assuming the average income of purchasers of the model 3 was in the $120k range, and even that seems on the low side for the price.
"The average new car buyer is now 51.7 years old and earns about $80,000 per year" [1]
In a study from 2003 the new car buyer income was $69,875 [2] which is $96,905.51 in 2018 dollars [3]
[1] http://www.autonews.com/article/20150804/RETAIL03/150809938/...
[2] https://www.bls.gov/cex/anthology/csxanth8.pdf
[3] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=69%2C875&year1...
In a study from 2003 the new car buyer income was $69,875 [2] which is $96,905.51 in 2018 dollars [3]
[1] http://www.autonews.com/article/20150804/RETAIL03/150809938/...
[2] https://www.bls.gov/cex/anthology/csxanth8.pdf
[3] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=69%2C875&year1...
7500/35,000 = 21.4%
It's a 21% price increase, assuming the buyer would have been fully eligible for the credit.
Yeah, that's definitely going to change the math for a lot of prospective buyers. A basic Model 3 isn't worth $35,000 cash compared to other similarly priced EVs, especially not when those competitors will still qualify for the rebate.
It's a 21% price increase, assuming the buyer would have been fully eligible for the credit.
Yeah, that's definitely going to change the math for a lot of prospective buyers. A basic Model 3 isn't worth $35,000 cash compared to other similarly priced EVs, especially not when those competitors will still qualify for the rebate.
>It's a 21% price increase, assuming the buyer would have been fully eligible for the credit.
True, but not until 2020. In H1 2019 there is still a credit of $3750, and in H2 2019, there's a credit of $1875, so it doesn't fall off a cliff.
True, but not until 2020. In H1 2019 there is still a credit of $3750, and in H2 2019, there's a credit of $1875, so it doesn't fall off a cliff.
[deleted]
Tesla alone decides if the slot in the queue is tradeable. before it can be held to be a net loss of sale, They have the option to say "oh, ok then, its transferrable" and not have the hypothetical hole to fill.
Is 50% of annual income a typical price point for car purchases?
The median household income in the U.S. was $57,617 in 2016. The average transaction price for a new car in the U.S. was estimated at $36,270 in January '18.
So, for new car purchases at least, American buyers spend more than half the median yearly household income.
So, for new car purchases at least, American buyers spend more than half the median yearly household income.
New car purchases are likely made disproportionately by people who earn more than the median income, so we can't probably can't say much from those 2 numbers alone.
well the phase out will cost the least able to afford the car the most. I can still order a LR and get it sooner than the two people I work with who are awaiting the standard edition. Now I haven't asked them if they will continue to wait but even if I did order; I am not; its a random two to four months for me, which means I doubt any standard model would even ship before end of year
The information regarding the subsidy limit being hit soon was freely available to depositors.
Sure, and it's fully refundable. So there is no reason not to put down the deposit and then cancel if you don't take delivery by the time the incentive starts to phase out.
Well, except that 1000$ invested a couple years ago in a standard SP500 ETF would give you a ~1350$ payout today [1].
So basically, you are paying ~350$ of opportunity cost to take that decision.
[1] April 2016 (deposit date) VOO price was ~190$. Today it is 258$.
So basically, you are paying ~350$ of opportunity cost to take that decision.
[1] April 2016 (deposit date) VOO price was ~190$. Today it is 258$.
"Soon" is not the same as "already hit". Some likely gambled on beating the deadline and may cancel now.
So basically they have until the end of the year to produce as many cars as possible and get their finances in good shape, otherwise they're in trouble.
So.. can you explain everything after 'otherwise' please? In what sense are they in trouble?
So.. can you explain everything after 'otherwise' please? In what sense are they in trouble?
[deleted]
Out of curiosity, how many of you bought and sold TSLA over the last few hours since the report?
Reading the comments, feels like HN is schizophrenic which is actually not surprising (online mob mentality). The shorts and haters were out in full force before on HN, calling Tesla the next Enron, absolutely slamming Elon. Today, praise and congratulations.
Buying a car that's more than, say, $30,000 is such a laughably poor decision. Cars depreciate rapidly unlike real estate where you actually maintain some equity. If you're in your 20s and looking to pump your new RSU wealth into something, almost anything is a better choice than an expensive car.
Who are you to dictate what I should do with my hard-earned money? As long as you can comfortably afford it without any debt, spend the money on what you are enthusiastic on.
Next time you are buying groceries, laptops, or go to a restaurant, I am going to point out all your laughably poor decisions of not spending your money on the absolutely cheapest options.
Next time you are buying groceries, laptops, or go to a restaurant, I am going to point out all your laughably poor decisions of not spending your money on the absolutely cheapest options.
That's a pretty ridiculous comparison because of the difference in scale. There are significant opportunity costs to putting 10s of thousands of dollars into something that will depreciate in value over time rather than increase. Especially when you're in your 20's. That amount of money invested could be worth a lot more in 30 years. Compound growth is your friend.
I find it unlikely that the average HN member does not understand that earning money is a better financial decision than spending it on highly-depreciable luxury items (because such insights are entirely obvious), which is why comments like "compound growth is your friend" rub me especially the wrong way.
If one can reasonably afford a luxury item, it is perfectly fine to spend that money on that luxury item.
If one can reasonably afford a luxury item, it is perfectly fine to spend that money on that luxury item.
I said "comfortably", which implies that it should not threaten your retirement in any way. That is entirely dependent of one's individual situation, whereas the parent poster was making a blanket statement about such a choice being a "laughably poor decision".
I agree that keeping in mind and taking care of your retirement is necessary, but I personally would not want to go through my entire life without the very occasional splurging on things that are a pleasure now, if the numbers work out well. Having only ever the end in sight is a pretty sorry way to live, in my view.
The car (not a Tesla) is paid off, I treat its value as "lost" (even though in this particular case it has not actually gone down in value), and I'm sure that I will look at it and especially the project ideas it spawned in fondness, rather in regret of the loss of some additional compound interest. Granted, I'm not in my 20s, though.
My comparisons were over the top, but vacations for example can add up to a lot over time, and they usually don't leave anything behind in terms of assets.
I agree that keeping in mind and taking care of your retirement is necessary, but I personally would not want to go through my entire life without the very occasional splurging on things that are a pleasure now, if the numbers work out well. Having only ever the end in sight is a pretty sorry way to live, in my view.
The car (not a Tesla) is paid off, I treat its value as "lost" (even though in this particular case it has not actually gone down in value), and I'm sure that I will look at it and especially the project ideas it spawned in fondness, rather in regret of the loss of some additional compound interest. Granted, I'm not in my 20s, though.
My comparisons were over the top, but vacations for example can add up to a lot over time, and they usually don't leave anything behind in terms of assets.
But if you've already pumped your new RSUs into investments and have a lot of money saved up, go for it! It's fun!
While this is mostly true for ICE cars it's much less true for electric cars because of their much lower total cost of ownership.