Tesla Model 3 Announcement tonight

[Jimmy cooper]

Or how about the F35 fiasco which goes on towards a total of a trillion dollars?! it doesn't get any dumber than that!

 

[denverpilot]

We want the engineering numbers from YOU! Musk is constantly moving forward while you just paid your yearly dues in the flat earth society. While you come up with off the wall arguements about the government giving musk money, how about the idiots in congress not allowing a gas tax increase right now while Intrest rates and gas is cheap to rebuild our rotten roads and bridges, but yet ok well over 3 billion a year for Isreal and have for years

Hmm that was fun. You've switched from discussing Musk's toys (what the thread is about) to making up labels (again), personal insults (yawn, again), and attempting to debate gas tax policy?

How about you answer the questions I've posed about the product. Why can't it stand on its own without anyone else paying for a portion of 200,000 people's automotive toys?

It's not like idiots won't pay $60K for a car. I see that daily. I think your car came close, didn't it?

Want an Edison? Drop the cash. The whole wad. I won't care at all. Your money, your car, your choice.

Since its marginally related, gas tax? I'm cool with charging Edison car drivers by the mile since there's no other way to recoup the lost fuel taxes from them. They can afford it. They own a sports car. Right?

 

[peppy]

denverpilot - I would love to see renewables compete without subsidy but only if ALL subsidies are removed including those for coal, oil and natural gas. While we are at it, let's look at expenses if we allocate out money spent to secure those resources including support for Saudia Arabia.

As for the ecological disaster of batteries I suggest you look deeper into the chemistry. You will find they aren't the disaster you make them out to be. Much of the batteries can be recycled and the lithium content is small.

 

[deonb]

If Musk had to earn his way to profitability and scale without kickbacks to his customers, he'd still be building a niche car for millionaires. That's just cold hard numbers and facts.

There you go again, talking without closing your eyes and saying: "The US isn't the only country on earth".

a) For the $7500 tax credit, immediately half of Teslas don't get that because it's sold outside the U.S.
b) Of the other half that got it, 70% of them were sold for over $90k and a $7500 tax break wouldn't have made a difference to the sale one way or the other. Sales tax and interest rate has a much bigger impact than the federal tax rebate.
c) That leaves about 30% of the U.S sales that would have been affected. Tesla would have maybe had to drop the price by $5000 on average on those vehicles to keep their sales numbers up.

So that's $5000 per vehicle discounted over 15% of worldwide sales, which is $750 per vehicle on average, or ~0.83%. On a vehicle that Tesla makes 28% gross profit on... Mmm. Tell me again how he needs the kickback to be profitable? The dollar/Euro has a MUCH more pronounced effect over Teslas bottom line than the tax break.

Of course, most of those 50% US customers did indeed take the $7.5k tax break. People took it because people will by nature always take the maximum tax breaks allowed by law. Doesn't mean the tax break made a material difference to the viability or profitability of the Model S.

The Federal EV tax credit wasn't structured correctly - it shouldn't have been given to the Model S in the first place. When other manufacturers thought of EV's, they thought EV's need to be small cheap cars. But nobody could build a small cheap usable EV, so they needed the Federal Tax credit. The government thought the same thing, and never imagined any manufacturer selling 200k EV's at $90k average. Heck, they probably couldn't even imagine an American car selling for that much. And even then, the tax credit didn't actually help enough on the small vehicle side - the technology wasn't there. States made the same mistake, thinking EV's need to be small, crippled vehicles - they had to all scramble to revoke their sales tax exemptions from Teslas to make sure all those evil rich people didn't get it.

However, Elon Musk went with the whole EV vision in reverse from the beginning, and came up with his "Secret Tesla Master plan" and published it in 2006, which was to:

1. Build sports car (Roadster)
2. Use that money to build an affordable car (Model S)
3. Use that money to build an even more affordable car (Model 3)

That plan, which is the basis of Tesla's mission today, predates the availability of the $7500 tax credit by 4 years. It even predates the government loan availability to car manufacturing by 2 years. That loan was in the end desperately needed by Tesla - but if it wasn't for the financial crises in 2008, he would have access to VC funds, so wouldn't have needed the government loan. So Elon's vision wasn't wrong, but the timing was unlucky on the one side (financial crisis), and lucky on the other side (government loan). Either way, Tesla paid back the loan. First. With interest. It didn't cost taxpayers a cent.

So stop pretending that Elon saw this magical tax credit and raced to form a company exclusively for the purpose to go and grab it. He didn't.

 

[Dav8or]

I am curious how they can make a profit selling the model 3 for $35K. Ford makes an electric Focus that is basically sold in California and the New England states that require a % of the fleet to be total electric. A Ford rep told me that they lose $11K per Electric Focus sold and the Nissan Leaf was similar. Assuming that he is right, and neither of these cars are anything like the Model 3 appears to be, how are they building them so cheap? I am not knocking the Tesla, it just seems like they have figured out something that two of the worlds largest manufacturers can't. And 300,000 is a lot of orders, I am not sure of delivery times, but I would think it would take several years to produce that many cars. Ford Motor company produces about 200,000 vehicles per month worldwide!

In addition to what's been said, Tesla survives on carbon credits and taxes they don't have to pay. I believe the concept is to lower the cost of the battery and the car by increasing production and economy of scale. That's why the next gen EVs are important. The cost is coming down and the performance is going up. It will attract a lot more buyers to the table as witnessed by the Tesla pre-orders. There will be a critical mass tipping point where more and more will chose electric for their next vehicle and at some point, the EV will stand on it's own. When that is, I don't know. I'm not privy to their books.

 

[deonb]

In addition to what's been said, Tesla survives on carbon credits and taxes they don't have to pay. I believe the concept is to lower the cost of the battery and the car by increasing production and economy of scale... When that is, I don't know. I'm not privy to their books.

Yes, you are. It's a public company. Their books are on:
http://ir.teslamotors.com

Specifically, to address your carbon credits comment from the latest shareholder meeting:
"$8 million of ZEV credit revenue"

compare that to:
"revenue was $1.75 billion for the quarter"
and
"In Q4 alone, we generated $179 million of positive cash flow from our core operations"


$8m out of $1.75b or even out of $179m doesn't sound to me like "survives on carbon credits".

They don't have to pay tax because they're spending all their revenue on R&D. Our tax code allows you to do that because companies who do that are more likely to pay even more taxes in the future. If you think revenue instead of profit should be taxed, write to your congressmen.

 

[JoseCuervo]

And for those who think Tesla is evil because of tax policy, keep in mind all the tax give always that BMW, Toyota, MBZ, etc all got to build plants I the southern US.

 

[peppy]

I don't understand people. Tesla is an innovative US car manufacturer but conservative lawmakers work to block their ability to sell through company owned stores. In Texas those legislators get big contributions from Toyota and Honda dealers. I would think they would love a US based startup. In Nevada, a state with lots of bright sunny days, the far right works with the utility company (a monopoly) to block the expansion of solar. The result is that Solar City exited the state and hundreds of jobs have been lost. The economics have changed such that the main thing government needs to do is get out of the way. Instead politicians seem bent on blocking companies like Tesla and Solar City until the Chinese catch up.

 

[Fredbob711]

I don't understand people. Tesla is an innovative US car manufacturer but conservative lawmakers work to block their ability to sell through company owned stores. In Texas those legislators get big contributions from Toyota and Honda dealers. I would think they would love a US based startup. In Nevada, a state with lots of bright sunny days, the far right works with the utility company (a monopoly) to block the expansion of solar. The result is that Solar City exited the state and hundreds of jobs have been lost. The economics have changed such that the main thing government needs to do is get out of the way. Instead politicians seem bent on blocking companies like Tesla and Solar City until the Chinese catch up.

That's because those politicians get wonderful contributions to their campaigns from the people who have a vested interest in making sure things don't change. The dealers don't want the franchise laws changed or circumvented because that endangers their business model. Which let's be honest, can't stand on its own, nobody likes shopping at a car dealership that's part of the reason so many people are willing to put down deposits on the Model 3 (myself included). I know what I'll be paying for the car, and low availability in Tesla's case doesn't mean that a dealer is going to double the price just because they can. I'll pay whatever Tesla is charging for the car, including whatever options I want, and there won't be any haggling or last minute price hikes because of extras they decided I needed.

I also happen to believe in what Tesla is trying to do and appreciate the way they've gone about it. They've played their cards right at the right times to get to where they are. And I have respect for a man who risked his fortune twice to start up two innovative companies that are poised to make huge changes in existing industries that have become complacent and content to sit back and collect profits while strenuously resisting any changes to the status quo.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Just to be clear, I will reiterate that I think Tesla and Elon Musk are great. I'm not anti-Tesla, I'm just anti-government subsidy, and that applies to all energy sectors not just EVs or green-initiatives. I believe the government has overstepped its bounds by a huge margin (yeah, yeah, write my Congressman), and anyone getting a discount for buying a particular type of vehicle should be eliminated. I would also apply that to mortgages, too. I get to take a tax deduction because I own/finance a home, where renters get no such credit in most places. When you get rid of the ridiculous tax law and just put in a fair tax, so much of this BS disappears.

 

[Dav8or]

Yes, you are. It's a public company. Their books are on:
http://ir.teslamotors.com

Specifically, to address your carbon credits comment from the latest shareholder meeting:
"$8 million of ZEV credit revenue"

compare that to:
"revenue was $1.75 billion for the quarter"
and
"In Q4 alone, we generated $179 million of positive cash flow from our core operations"


$8m out of $1.75b or even out of $179m doesn't sound to me like "survives on carbon credits".

They don't have to pay tax because they're spending all their revenue on R&D. Our tax code allows you to do that because companies who do that are more likely to pay even more taxes in the future. If you think revenue instead of profit should be taxed, write to your congressmen.

Thanks for posting that. I had no idea it was so small. I won't be writing my congress woman, I'm all good with it.

 

[peppy]

Just to be clear, I will reiterate that I think Tesla and Elon Musk are great. I'm not anti-Tesla, I'm just anti-government subsidy, and that applies to all energy sectors not just EVs or green-initiatives. I believe the government has overstepped its bounds by a huge margin (yeah, yeah, write my Congressman), and anyone getting a discount for buying a particular type of vehicle should be eliminated. I would also apply that to mortgages, too. I get to take a tax deduction because I own/finance a home, where renters get no such credit in most places. When you get rid of the ridiculous tax law and just put in a fair tax, so much of this BS disappears.

I mostly agree. Additionally people shouldn't get a free ride by making others pay for their damage. As an example, if a business throws garbage on the side of the road then they, and not the taxpayer, should pay for cleanup. The cost of cleaning up effluent from a manufacturing plant should be added to the price of the product and not born as a taxpayer expense. If a business dumps crap into the air then they should pay appropriately.

Going a step further, why should taxpayers bear the expense of defending a country just because they have oil? I don't find Saudi Arabia a very democratic country and yet the US spends a lot of money defending it. Shouldn't that be an adder to imported oil?

I said I mostly agree because there are times where it is in the national interest to jumpstart something so that it can reach critical mass. I think it can often be done better than tax subsidies and I dislike picking winners so I think these efforts need to be chosen carefully. Rather than a rebate on taxes for EV's I would prefer a zero sum tax/rebate system. Gas guzzlers would pay an extra tax and economy cars would get a rebate with the net dollars being equal. Similarly I would eliminate gas taxes and go to a mileage tax. That way everyone pays their fair share for road use.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I mostly agree. Additionally people shouldn't get a free ride by making others pay for their damage. As an example, if a business throws garbage on the side of the road then they, and not the taxpayer, should pay for cleanup. The cost of cleaning up effluent from a manufacturing plant should be added to the price of the product and not born as a taxpayer expense. If a business dumps crap into the air then they should pay appropriately.

Going a step further, why should taxpayers bear the expense of defending a country just because they have oil? I don't find Saudi Arabia a very democratic country and yet the US spends a lot of money defending it. Shouldn't that be an adder to imported oil?

I said I mostly agree because there are times where it is in the national interest to jumpstart something so that it can reach critical mass. I think it can often be done better than tax subsidies and I dislike picking winners so I think these efforts need to be chosen carefully. Rather than a rebate on taxes for EV's I would prefer a zero sum tax/rebate system. Gas guzzlers would pay an extra tax and economy cars would get a rebate with the net dollars being equal. Similarly I would eliminate gas taxes and go to a mileage tax. That way everyone pays their fair share for road use.

Gas guzzlers DO pay extra tax, by consuming more fuel. Also, I think if you want to tie road use to mileage, you just add the tax on the purchase of new tires. You can buy 40K mile tires, and the taxes are based off of that.

 

[peppy]

Gas guzzlers DO pay extra tax, by consuming more fuel. Also, I think if you want to tie road use to mileage, you just add the tax on the purchase of new tires. You can buy 40K mile tires, and the taxes are based off of that.

I have to go in for an emissions check each year anyway. The guy records the mileage. Instead they tax EV's $200/year for roads. However, the division isn't that clear. How about PHEV's? They use gas but some don't use much.

To make myself clear, I don't have an EV. My car has a 429HP V8 so it isn't exactly an economy car.

 

[bullwinkle]

S


same reason you have a mortgage on your house. Sure, you could save for 30yrs, by why not get that house today.

A subsidy is not an interest bearing loan.

 

[JoseCuervo]

And for all those who whine about the $7500 tax credit, keep in mind that businesses can take advantage of Section 179 accelerated depreciation deductions to expense all the Suburbans, SUV's, etc they want to buy for their wives, plus the jacked up Dodge Diesel pickups with $3000 of tires and rims.

And we can fly our planes across state lines to have maintenance done in the ever growing number of states that are exempting sales tax on aircraft parts and labor.

 

[bullwinkle]

Wind is competitive with pretty much all other energy generation. Storage is an issue which is why Tesla's energy storage business may one day way outstrip their car business.

On what basis? Not on the basis of area (land) required, nor on the basis of energy input in materials to construct the generators. It's only cheaper (maybe) if you ignore all that and only look at ongoing maintenance (including fuel in that for other forms of electricity generation). Nuclear is FAR more efficient.

http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/

 

[JoseCuervo]

On what basis? Not on the basis of area (land) required, nor on the basis of energy input in materials to construct the generators. It's only cheaper (maybe) if you ignore all that and only look at ongoing maintenance (including fuel in that for other forms of electricity generation). Nuclear is FAR more efficient.

http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/

I always get a kick out of the anti-wind conspiracy theories. There is some nut-case down the freeway a few hundred miles that has billboards up with "red-light district" (due to the red lights on the towers) and links to all these anti-wind websites.

And a couple of other looney-conspiracy theories...


good stuff. Thanks for posting.

 

[bullwinkle]

I always get a kick out of the anti-wind conspiracy theories. There is some nut-case down the freeway a few hundred miles that has billboards up with "red-light district" (due to the red lights on the towers) and links to all these anti-wind websites.

good stuff. Thanks for posting.

Ah, now we see. Rather than look at the math and actual, you know, facts, you just state with blanket certitude that any disagreement is a "conspiracy theory" and claim victory.

A Convenient Untruth, we might say.

 

[Katamarino]

Musk hasn't produced much in terms of real innovation. He's just packaged up things that already existed really well and convinced John Q Public he's building the next "Flying Car".

.....

It's rarely the person who makes something truly new or useful who wins in our society anymore. Jobs did it, making new things that nobody had seen, but Musk is quite a different animal.

I couldn't resist pointing out the hilarious contradiction within your single post. Jobs did nothing in terms of technology; all the Apple stuff had been done by others before. He just packaged it up and made it a cult; exactly what you're complaining about Musk doing. At least be consistent in your ranting...

 

[peppy]

On what basis? Not on the basis of area (land) required, nor on the basis of energy input in materials to construct the generators. It's only cheaper (maybe) if you ignore all that and only look at ongoing maintenance (including fuel in that for other forms of electricity generation). Nuclear is FAR more efficient.

http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/

Try here http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

In summary:
conventional (dirty) coal 95.1
nuclear 95.2
gas (ACC) 72.6 <-- this is why coal is being displace by natural gas
wind 73.6
photovoltaic 125.3 <-- a big drop but still very expensive

 

[ifly4fun]

A subsidy is not an interest bearing loan.

Thank you for that clarification. At its core, not much different. I suppose you don't invest in any tax-deferred funds then either? IRA? 401? Is that a better anology? Gov's give you a cut today so they can collect more tomorrow.

 

[jsstevens]

I couldn't resist pointing out the hilarious contradiction within your single post. Jobs did nothing in terms of technology; all the Apple stuff had been done by others before. He just packaged it up and made it a cult; exactly what you're complaining about Musk doing. At least be consistent in your ranting...

In terms of the Macintosh GUI, you are correct. In terms of the iPod & iPhone, no.

John

 

[bullwinkle]

Thank you for that clarification. At its core, not much different. I suppose you don't invest in any tax-deferred funds then either? IRA? 401? Is that a better anology? Gov's give you a cut today so they can collect more tomorrow.

You seem confused. A subsidy is a government PAYMENT to a company or individual. Not a tax break or credit. Not a loan to be paid back at interest. A direct payment with no expectation of the government (e.g. taxpayers) recouping that money. These are wildly different concepts economically.

Now, explain to me why *any* for-profit private company should be receiving payments from the government that do not have to be paid back, no matter how wildly successful (or an abject failure) the company eventually becomes.

 

[ggroves]

I am curious how they can make a profit selling the model 3 for $35K.

They won't. The first deliveries are going to be "highly optioned" in Musk's own words. $35K + battery upgrade + autopilot + Supercharger access + AWD (dual motors) + + +. I speculate the first cars will go for $60K - $70K. Look at their current "Signature" buyer Model X sales. $150K a copy, highly optioned. They did this with the Model S as well. Why sell it at $35K when the market will support a much higher price?

Also, how many BMW 3-series cars get sold as base models, with no options? How about Audi A4's? How many base models do you see in the Luxury car segment, which is where the Model 3 will compete? The answer is almost none. Tesla will make a profit on the Model 3, because a $35K "stripper" version will be like the mythical unicorn.....invisible.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ah, now we see. Rather than look at the math and actual, you know, facts, you just state with blanket certitude that any disagreement is a "conspiracy theory" and claim victory.

A Convenient Untruth, we might say.

Yeah, a conspiracy-laden website created by a guy who's Twitter handle is @ProNuclear is always laughable. And, even more so, the nut-case down the freeway who keeps paying for those billboards.

Thanks for sharing. I got another good laugh.

 

[redrum4me]

A subsidy is not an interest bearing loan.

I think he was trying to hint at the mortgage interest and property tax deduction on your schedule A.

"A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public. Politics play an important part in subsidization."

 

[EdFred]

Here's a routing app:

https://evtripplanner.com/planner

You get a route through the supercharger locations.

It's interesting. There is a page where it shows the time, distance, and power use for each leg. It looks like it will make you stop around every 1:45 to 2 hrs, then charge for anywhere from 25 min to 1 hour+. Legs with a lot of elevation gain require longer charges.

Bahahahahahah. If I try to drive from my house to the cabin in the UP, I have to drive to Duluth, MN to get there, about a 60% longer trip. It also turns a 7+ hour trip into a NINETEEN hour trip. Go Batteries!!

 

[Matthew]

Bahahahahahah. If I try to drive from my house to the cabin in the UP, I have to drive to Duluth, MN to get there, about a 60% longer trip. It also turns a 7+ hour trip into a NINETEEN hour trip. Go Batteries!!

It's about the journey, not the destination!

That's just the high speed supercharger stations, I think. I don't know if you can have it route you through the other charging stations that are popping up in grocery store parking lots and other places.

 

[ifly4fun]

You seem confused. A subsidy is a government PAYMENT to a company or individual. Not a tax break or credit. Not a loan to be paid back at interest. A direct payment with no expectation of the government (e.g. taxpayers) recouping that money. These are wildly different concepts economically.

Now, explain to me why *any* for-profit private company should be receiving payments from the government that do not have to be paid back, no matter how wildly successful (or an abject failure) the company eventually becomes.

I'm not confused. I fully comprehend the difference between a credit, deduction, subsidy and everything else. You're thinking to precise, generalize all of these. Financial benefits that encourage future economic growth and in return taxes. Let's throw a third one in- tuition subsidies, let's call these grants.. Would you turn those down too? They all have the common goal, help out today for dividends in the future (taxes off larger 401k, taxes on more profitable corporations, income taxes on higher Ed earners). There is a theme here.

 

[EdFred]

I'm not confused. I fully comprehend the difference between a credit, deduction, subsidy and everything else. You're thinking to precise, generalize all of these. Financial benefits that encourage future economic growth and in return taxes. Let's throw a third one in- tuition subsidies, let's call these grants.. Would you turn those down too? They all have the common goal, help out today for dividends in the future (taxes off larger 401k, taxes on more profitable corporations, income taxes on higher Ed earners). There is a theme here.

Yep, it's called socialism through bribery.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I have to go in for an emissions check each year anyway. The guy records the mileage. Instead they tax EV's $200/year for roads. However, the division isn't that clear. How about PHEV's? They use gas but some don't use much.

To make myself clear, I don't have an EV. My car has a 429HP V8 so it isn't exactly an economy car.

No emissions here in Okie-land, so they'd have to start doing inspections or just make people eat it on a tire-tax.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I was in line at 5:30am. Was #17 in line. My the time the store opened its doors there were 500 more people lined up behind me.

I showed up right as the Santana Row (San Jose) store opened at 10 AM. There was a guy who went through the line and counted, we were right around #700, there were others behind us.

Tesla did a GREAT job, they cranked through those 700 people so fast we were walking out of the store in under 3 hours. While we waited, they brought us cookies and bottled water.

What was really interesting to me was that there wasn't a single demographic that was under or over represented in the group. The line was white, black, asian, male, female, young, and old. Impressive range of appeal.

I'm starting to hate combustion engine cars and it has nothing to do with "going green".

Amen. I bought a Ford Fusion Energi to test the waters without any range anxiety. I'm so spoiled on electric driving now, I hate it when the battery runs out and the engine kicks in. Electric driving is so smooth, quiet, and fun!

Tesla's are really cool cars but also really expensive. Don

That's what the Model 3 solves. After the tax credit, it costs less than the average new car sold in the US.

But the electric car will be nothing but a novelty until it can be recharged in 15 minutes or less. According to the Tesla website, charging for 215mi range (full charge on the Model 3) takes SEVEN HOURS.

That's on L2 (Level 2, 240VAC) with an empty battery. You would never use L2 on a road trip, you would use a Supercharger or other L3 (Level 3 aka DCFC, DC Fast Charge, 400-500VDC). You get 80% in 30 minutes and head to the next one. You're probably already stopping nearly that long to fuel, pee, and get food on a normal road trip in a gas car.

Even using one of Tesla's "supercharger" stations (if you can find one while traveling - ha!)

They're all over the place now, and by the time the Model 3 comes out pretty much the entire Interstate highway system will be covered as well.

The Tesla is nice if you never go more than a hundred miles from your house, and have hours to charge. But until they solve the charge time issue, it's going to stay a niche vehicle.

You're missing something here. You leave the house every morning with a full "tank". On a road trip, see above - You'll be stopping anyway, even in a gas car. Sure, the stop might be 10 minutes longer in the Tesla, but you'll also get your "gas" for free.

Should I end up going through with the purchase when my number comes up (90% likely), I plan to pick up my Tesla at the factory in Fremont, CA and drive it home to Wisconsin.

That said, I resisted putting down a deposit. I don't like buying ver 1.0 of anything, and who knows what the options will be by the end of next year?

The deposit is fully refundable. I got in line on the 31st so that I'll have the option of getting one relatively early. When I got in line, I figured it was 50/50 whether I'd buy the car or not, not knowing what it was going to be. After the reveal and subsequent answers from Elon Musk, I'm up to 90%. Looks like an awesome car.

I keep thinking our ideal everyday car would be a plug-in hybrid, where in a pinch a small gas engine could recharge our batteries as we drove.

Do it. I absolutely love my Fusion Energi.

Such things exist, but right now the electric-only range is woefully low.

If you look at a plug-in Prius, yes. The Fusion Energi and the Chevy Volt will cover a commute for most people, if you need longer range you should check out the BMW i3 REx. That one is a little weird because, while it has an 80ish-mile electric range, it'll only go 80 additional miles on gas because due to some weird California rule they were trying to fit into, it only has a 1.5 gallon gas tank!

It is hard to beat the energy transfer of dumping chemicals into a tank. Unless you can swap batteries I don't think electrics will every get there.

You can already swap batteries on a Tesla in 90 seconds. Their station in Harris Ranch does exactly that, but most owners like the Supercharging experience and don't mind the time it takes, so very few people make use of the battery swap.

You might be able to pull off extended trips in California, as long as you don't go too far north of San Francisco, but cross country? Forget it.

That is true for everyone BUT Tesla. Here is the Supercharger network TODAY:



Here is the Supercharger network as it'll be at the end of THIS YEAR:



This charging network is one of Tesla's biggest advantages over the rest of the industry. NOBODY else has anything close. Here's a look at ALL non-Tesla L3 charging stations in the US, combined:



OK if you're on the coasts, maybe, but not so much elsewhere. And keep in mind, a Tesla can use these too! But, nobody else can use Tesla's Superchargers.

Unfortunately for Tesla it looks like Chevy will beat them to the punch with their Chevy "Bolt" due later this year.

Two big problems with the Bolt:
1) It doesn't have the Supercharger network and thus can only be used for road trips in coastal areas (and then, only with careful planning).
2) You still have to deal with a Chevy stealership to get one. Who likes the process of buying a car from a dealer? It sucks. Tesla has figured out what Apple did years ago, that it's the entire customer experience that matters. Tesla stores remind me a lot of Apple stores, and Apple stores are the best shopping/buying experience available.

As well once Tesla reaches their 200,000th electric vehicle their buyers no longer qualify for the federal rebate incentives. So that will hurt them too.

Yup, and that does suck because it kind of penalizes them for sticking their necks out and doing the innovation required to make electric cars a widespread reality. IMO, the tax credits should cut off on the same date for all manufacturers.

Any car that can go 200 miles takes care of 100% of my driving needs. If its further than that I fly - what do you guys have airplanes for anyway ?

Amen! That's why the 200-mile range number is what I've been looking for. Any farther, I'll probably fly.

I understand that there will be a charge for the charge on the new lower price model.

That is as of yet unannounced (and Tesla has specifically announced that they're not announcing that yet). I'm guessing they're waiting to see how low they can get the production costs to see which models and how much. It'll likely be like the early Model S, where the basic models can pay $2500 at purchase or $3000 afterwards and higher end models will get it for "free".

Drag a trailer behind you that carries a fuel tank and a generator. Recharge on the go! Somebody should invent something like that.

Already been done! http://www.gizmag.com/ev-charging-trailer/28513/

Seems like it's missing the point, though. Better would be a trailer with another (bigger) battery and stations where you could swap that out every couple hundred miles.

For those of us who live in a northern climate, with a real winter, anybody know how Tesla deals with the windshield defrost and cabin heater issues? What does it do to range?

This can be an issue - One of the things an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) is really good at is generating heat! Range does go down in the winter (as it does for ICE vehicles as well), heat exacerbates the issue. Figure the first hour will take about 10 miles of range, subsequent hours maybe half that. I'm not sure what Tesla's heating systems are like, most EVs (including plug-in hybrids) still use a more traditional coolant-loop system with a heater core that simply adds a resistive heating element. Makes sense in a PHEV, but Nissan has changed to a more efficient heat pump setup. Not sure what Tesla does.

Expect to see some very big companies tumble and disappear in about 10 years time. Remember Nokia and Sony Ericsson? They were untouchable. Biggest cell phone makers in the world. But they bet on traditional phones, not smart phones and the game was lost to Apple and Samsung in literally 2-3 years. Gone. Kodak did the same. They were the biggest makers of CCD's and CMOS image chips in the world, but they didn't want to put it in consumer cameras because they were afraid of hurting sales from their film side. So when everything went digital about 15 years ago, they didn't have a business. This from a company that used to rule the stock market and was one of the biggest American cash cows.

You have to evolve, otherwise you die. Doesn't matter how big you are.

Amen. Tesla is going to be very disruptive.

 

[EdFred]

**** the Upper Peninsula

- Tesla

 

[Dav8or]

Model 3 deposits have now passed 325,000. Those tax credits are long gone now. Since Tesla has said that they are only going to produce fully loaded cars first, that means those that put a deposit down with intentions of buying the base $35,000 car and end up paying sub 30k for it may be disappointed. By the time Tesla decides it has to finally do a batch of stripper models to live up to the hype, the credit may well be gone for these buyers. IIRC, the 200,000 number is for all Teslas ever sold, so Model Ss, Xs and even the Roadster. I would guess they are nearly half way through that 200,000 number right now.

That is the one disappointment I have with Tesla. They are a bit of bait and switch with their marketing hype. They promise low base price models, but that never really happens. Very, very few people actually got $60,000 Model Ss and they quickly canceled that entry level price point after delaying production and deliver of those base models as long as they could. Before the car was released though, it was all about how affordable it was. They made claims of lower cost Xs too, but wisely never offered those. I expect the Model 3 to be the same.

After they have built a big hype about the "$35,000" Tesla and got people to the dealership, they will build as few as they can at that price and then drop the entry model. IMO, Musk has already hinted at what the new base price will be. $42,000 and no tax credit. This is the only advantage GM has with it's Chevy Bolt. They have a long way to go to that 200,000 mark and they are more honest in their pricing. You order the base model, you get the base model in the order that the orders are received, not when they feel like making them.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

I just read in one of the car rags where Porsche is working on a battery that will give it's Model S competitor a 313 mile range, and an 800v charger that will bring the battery up to 85% charge in 15 minutes.
Expected in 2018.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Fine and dandy, but 85% of electricity is generated from fossil fuels, either hydrocarbons or coal. The rest is nuclear. Electricity doesn't just magically appear. You are fooling yourself if you think you are opting out of the carbon cycle and living in the future by driving a Tesla just because Elon Musk says so.

Please cite your source - 'cuz it's not true. In the US, as of 2013 only 39% of our electricity comes from coal. Here's the full story of US energy use, from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:

Also, even if 100% of the electricity came from coal, an electric car would still produce less pollution than a gas car. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

There are no barriers to entry for the oil companies to set up recharging stations at any time. I see no particular reason that Tesla, or anyone else, can maintain a monopoly on that business.

I don't see them doing it, though. If they were smart, they'd be on it already! BP looked to be getting smart, but I heard they sold off BP Solar. Oops.

Tesla will be forced to open their Supercharger stations to other electric vehicle brands to keep them viable, and won't be able to restrict Tesla owners from refueling anywhere they want.

Tesla owners can already refuel anywhere they want. It's the other manufacturers who are choosing to hamper their electric vehicles by not investing in infrastructure or using Tesla's.

This. Electric will not replace even a majority of vehicles in the next 20 years.

Elon Musk has a bet going with someone that we'll see 50% of new cars being electric by 2027. It'll sure be interesting to see what happens in any case!

Yep, assuming you move where there's lots of regular sunshine. Not true for many locales.

That's what I'd have thought too. My brother lives in California and has a small solar array, something like 2.5kW. He's had it for just over a year and recently crossed the 3MWh mark. I was surprised to learn that a friend of his who just put solar on his new house in Wisconsin in January has already generated his first megawatt hour! Supposedly, even with the crappy weather here in Wisconsin we're able to get about 85% of what they do in California off the same size array. I'll find out soon enough, I'm planning to put in solar in a couple more years.

I wouldn't either. He's the epitome of slimy business operators who ride waves of popularity to engender government corruption to make him profitable.

That doesn't jive with anything I've heard about the guy from anyone who has actually met him. You should learn more about him, he's a pretty fascinating guy.

Not likely without massive investment in a great many more nuc plants for base loads much higher than we see today in hot climates.

Nate - Go here. Read this. You'll like it, this guy gets into all of the nitty-gritty details like you and I both like, and cites his sources. It's long, but quite fascinating. So much so that I'm now reading all his stuff, it's really well researched and written: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html

According to what he found, we could move 70% of all miles driven by all cars in the US to electric vehicles with NO changes to the grid.

However, their generally lower performance

Uh... What? Go to YouTube and see all the videos of Teslas leaving some formidable competition (Ferrari etc) in the dust. There's even some fun ones, like an Alfa Romeo racing an Alfa Romeo being towed by a Tesla. LOL

The battery technology is obviously still a lacking and far from having the sort of energy density of a the equivalent amount of fuel in weight. Saying so is not being a Luddite. That's just stating a fact.

Who cares about weight? Total weight, sure, but Tesla has simply made up for battery weight by making other parts of the car lighter. It's still a bit on the heavy side, but has an excellent effect on safety - By putting the battery on the bottom of the car, they've made it almost impossible to roll over.

What matters is not weight (quick, how much does the gas in your car weigh?) but range and performance; Tesla is doing great things here.

The capabilities of electric power vehicles at the current time is obvious in their applications to aircraft. Look for example at the Pipistrel Panthera. The range and endurance is dramatically lower for the all-electric model than the internal combustion engine model.

All merely design tradeoffs. Plus, that's like saying that the Tesla sucks because the Prius doesn't perform well. ?!?!

And Congress held hearings to break up Henry's company and hand it to "better educated" businessmen and investors of the time. Ford had to fight his government to keep his company back then. Read up on it, it's fascinating.

Sounds that way, got a link?

It was ALWAYS the PRICE that was the back-breaker of a production electric car, and it still is.

Before the Model T, that was true of ICE cars as well. Ford changed the equation. Musk is doing the exact same thing with the Model 3 via the Gigafactory.

People signed up for the thing before it's released because they get a government DISCOUNT on them if they get a low production number.

I lined up. I don't care if I get the discount, and as otherwise posted, neither did all of the people lining up in similar fashion ALL OVER THE WORLD who are not going to get a tax credit.

I lined up because clearly Tesla understands how to build a compelling product AND a compelling user experience, both of which have been sorely lacking from the car industry pretty much forever. This is the Model T meets the iPhone. It's the beginning of a revolution. I'd rather buy it and enjoy it than to be Steve Ballmer laughing at the iPhone or Nokia going under.

[/quote]He had a great starting point with the nuts in overcrowded California mandating X number of electrics for no particularly scientific reason. Notice where his company is headquartered? Political kickbacks galore. It's nearly a lifestyle in California. He could have put the company anywhere. Literally anywhere. He put it in the heart of the political territory demanding the product.[/quote]

Um... So much wrong here:

1) Musk joined/founded Tesla *AFTER* the e-car mandate had already been killed.
2) He could have put the company literally anywhere, so he put it... Oh yeah, WHERE HE ALREADY LIVED! And had a large supply of young, smart engineers locally! There was no better place to put it even without the politics of CA.

I believe that $4.9B figure is for all Musk ventures, including Solar City and SpaceX. Space X alone got a $1.4B gov contract. Tesla Motors got a $465 m DoE loan, and has since repaid it.

Yeah, that $4.9B figure is all kinds of snake oil. It includes all of the tax refunds given to Tesla customers. It also includes that SpaceX contract, as you mention, which is not a "subsidy" but a payment for a service. The figure I've heard is that if you add up the actual Tesla subsidies and add up all of the subsidies given to existing manufacturers and oil companies, a Tesla costs a taxpayer only about 1/3 of what an ICE car costs.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

What they were avoiding was the made up "fleet percentage" numbers. They have international businesses to maintain and no place else other than the U.S. is authorizing government money to buy individuals toys -- BUT -- the U.S. does mandate that a specific percentage of your "fleet" produced here must be EV.

Basically the deck is stacked for a "fleet" that's 100% EV vs a manufacturer that knows how to produce what ALL of their customers want.

They get no more benefit from fleet percentage than Ford or anyone else. It's a black and white thing, you either meet it or you don't.

I mean, who'd actually WANT the Big Three to actually ramp up and totally crush him by challenging them with a more efficient offer like, "The first 100 million EVs to market get all of the cash?" That would have killed him before he even started. Nope, make it a "fleet percentage" and it looks "fair" at first glance.

That wouldn't have killed him, it'd have given him way more of an advantage. You're starting to sound completely nonsensical.

If Musk had to earn his way to profitability and scale without kickbacks to his customers, he'd still be building a niche car for millionaires. That's just cold hard numbers and facts.

No, it's not. I don't think anyone who bought an S gives a crap about the tax incentive. They have plenty of money if they're buying it, they don't need the incentive. They just want a really cool, fun car!

It's just which politicians got paid is all. Chrony oil company or chrony green company. Same engineering problems at their core -- efficient use of energy, not lowering energy use. Thermodynamics doesn't allow that.

Nate, if you're going to talk about thermodynamics you need to know something about thermodynamics. The Otto cycle used in all cars' gasoline engines with the exception of some hybrids that use Atkinson cycle engines is terrible. Normally aspirated Otto cycle engines top out at less than 30% efficiency. Electricity is more efficient by far than an internal combustion engine at generating motive power. Now, if you want to talk about heat, sure, there's a ton of waste heat generated by that engine to keep you warm in winter, but you're still venting most of that heat to the atmosphere.

Gee, look. Basic coverage of the interstate highway system but avoiding the poor people in the south and southwest, until we make the cheaper and more subsidized version...

And extra density where spoiled rich people with electric toys who'd vote for government to buy them for them, would live.

No, they started where they were selling cars. Lots of states have mandated-dealer laws in place that prevent Tesla from selling there. If there's not going to be any cars there, why would you build infrastructure for them there first? That makes no sense whatsoever.

And come on. None in Aspen or Vail? You know the billionaires will need somewhere to have the staff go charge up the car to be seen in. Oh, wait. They'll just install them in their ten car garages. I forgot.

Aspen and Vail aren't on the way to anywhere, so it makes no sense to install a supercharger there. You can plug into a regular charger in your garage and it'll be charged long before you leave, so what's the point of a Supercharger? Or are you really frothing at the mouth so much you can't make sense any more?

I am curious how they can make a profit selling the model 3 for $35K. Ford makes an electric Focus that is basically sold in California and the New England states that require a % of the fleet to be total electric. A Ford rep told me that they lose $11K per Electric Focus sold and the Nissan Leaf was similar. Assuming that he is right, and neither of these cars are anything like the Model 3 appears to be, how are they building them so cheap? I am not knocking the Tesla, it just seems like they have figured out something that two of the worlds largest manufacturers can't.

The Gigafactory is the difference. Musk himself said that making money on the Model 3 requires a fully operational Gigafactory. Considering they'll be more than doubling the world's Li-Ion battery production, that gives them a huge advantage.

Also, I highly doubt Ford is losing money on any sales, or they wouldn't be selling them nationwide. And they do - I have a Ford Fusion Energi and I know others with Focus Electrics that were all purchased here in Wisconsin. They're a little hard to get because our charging infrastructure isn't as good as it is on the coasts, but they do sell them nationwide so I can't believe that they'd be losing money on them, especially not that much. And Nissan has sold a ton more Leafs, if they were losing that much money on them it'd sink them.

And 300,000 is a lot of orders, I am not sure of delivery times, but I would think it would take several years to produce that many cars. Ford Motor company produces about 200,000 vehicles per month worldwide!

The Tesla factory, when it belonged to GM/Toyota joint venture NUMMI, cranked out 500,000 cars a year. They'll certainly take some time to ramp up to that kind of production, but I think they should be able to get through 200,000 by maybe mid-2019. Of course, now they're up to 325,000 so I would imagine new orders now are probably into 2020 delivery times!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

How about you answer the questions I've posed about the product. Why can't it stand on its own without anyone else paying for a portion of 200,000 people's automotive toys?

It can, as evidenced by the many foreigners and half of the waiting list who won't get the credit and know it.

Also, the credit will be available for other manufacturers for FAR longer, so Tesla has to have a superior product and experience for continued success, since it's going to be a competitive disadvantage for them for at least 8 years (now 'til Chevy has gone through 200,000 Bolts at their stated 30,000/year production rate).

Want an Edison? Drop the cash. The whole wad. I won't care at all. Your money, your car, your choice.

I would, happily. I don't know if I'll get the credit. I don't care, I'm still gonna buy the car.

Since its marginally related, gas tax? I'm cool with charging Edison car drivers by the mile since there's no other way to recoup the lost fuel taxes from them.

Totally in favor of that too. I would happily pay my fair share of highway taxes via some other means than the current gas tax. It's only fair.

Ah, now we see. Rather than look at the math and actual, you know, facts, you just state with blanket certitude that any disagreement is a "conspiracy theory" and claim victory.

A Convenient Untruth, we might say.

How is this any different than you seeing the disagreement and automatically assuming it's true?

Bahahahahahah. If I try to drive from my house to the cabin in the UP, I have to drive to Duluth, MN to get there, about a 60% longer trip. It also turns a 7+ hour trip into a NINETEEN hour trip. Go Batteries!!

**** the Upper Peninsula

- Tesla

You missed one thing - By the end of this year, you'll just be able to use the Supercharger at the north end of the mitten on 75.

Infrastructure ain't perfect yet, but it'll get there.

IIRC, the 200,000 number is for all Teslas ever sold, so Model Ss, Xs and even the Roadster. I would guess they are nearly half way through that 200,000 number right now.

That's what most people think, half gone.

FWIW, it's not a strict cutoff at 200,000 and if you're number 200,001 you get nothing. I think that everyone who takes delivery in the same quarter as the 200,000th car gets it, and then the next two quarters get 1/2, next two quarters get 1/4, and then it's zero. *If* they can ramp up production just right, maybe all 325,000 will get *something* but it's highly unlikely.

That is the one disappointment I have with Tesla. They are a bit of bait and switch with their marketing hype. They promise low base price models, but that never really happens. Very, very few people actually got $60,000 Model Ss and they quickly canceled that entry level price point after delaying production and deliver of those base models as long as they could. Before the car was released though, it was all about how affordable it was. They made claims of lower cost Xs too, but wisely never offered those. I expect the Model 3 to be the same.

They canned the 40kWh Model S because they got exceedingly few orders for them so production didn't really make sense. Those that had orders in actually got a 60 instead of a 40 for the same price with charge software-limited to 40, which further indicates that production cost was behind the decision, not bait-and-switch. Making the higher-option models first makes the most economic sense in terms of recovering already-spent R&D dollars.

IMO, Musk has already hinted at what the new base price will be. $42,000 and no tax credit.

No, he said that's what they're expecting the average one to go for with options, not what the base price will be.

This is the only advantage GM has with it's Chevy Bolt. They have a long way to go to that 200,000 mark and they are more honest in their pricing.

Au contraire. GM is selling the Bolt as "$30,000! Cheaper than the Model 3!" but that is AFTER tax credits. It's $37,500 before.

I just read in one of the car rags where Porsche is working on a battery that will give it's Model S competitor a 313 mile range, and an 800v charger that will bring the battery up to 85% charge in 15 minutes.

It'll melt the battery in just 15 minutes! LOL

I'll believe it when I see it. They probably said this just to try to stop hemorrhaging customers to Tesla. Tesla has really put the hurt on Porsche, Audi, et al.

 

[denverpilot]

Please cite your source - 'cuz it's not true. In the US, as of 2013 only 39% of our electricity comes from coal. Here's the full story of US energy use, from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:

Something wrong with your number. Using LL graphic's numbers, I come up with 43.2%. Also that's 2013, and doesn't account for what happens with an increase in base load vs. peak load.

Also, even if 100% of the electricity came from coal, an electric car would still produce less pollution than a gas car. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

Will read later and see what their assumptions are.

I don't see them doing it, though. If they were smart, they'd be on it already! BP looked to be getting smart, but I heard they sold off BP Solar. Oops.

If you haven't worked with BP directly or as a competitor, you may not understand that they are an incredibly "bottom-line" driven company. At the expense of even safety -- see Gulf of Mexico accident, most of the folks I know "in the biz" still, say no U.S. company would have pushed as hard on that well as BP does. They do it both willingly and inadvertently... willingly they push a "bottom-line" culture across the board. Inadvertently, that pressure, combined with the oddities of being foreign owned and managed, make local people feel more pressure to "produce" to meet the demands of essentially absentee higher/upper management that only look at remote workers to the UK as a number. Shell also has this cultural "remote worker" problem... the power is held in the UK and the US workers, after having seen our SEC break up mergers that actually made business sense in a global economy (Texaco/Chevron, as the first example to become "SEC losers", forcing Texaco into the arms of the waiting Shell) and having to scramble to kiss serious butt of new "Hi, I'm here from your new owners and I'm supposed to see if you're doing a good job" UK ex-pats that scared the whole damn industry to death of losing their jobs or being forced into early retirement, did many things that would have once been ill-advised under US management.

That's a long story to say, "BP rarely gets out of businesses that are profitable, and they're REALLY good at squeezing a profit, even at the expense of safety."

Or as many friends at Texaco put it when they were forced into the arms of Shell, "Well, it's not going to be good, but at least it wasn't BP. That'd get people killed." Texaco had a VERY strong safety culture when I was there, and those that survived the Texaco/Chevron SEC disaster and then survived into the Texaco/Shell merger did manage to bring SOME of it along, but it's never been the same. BP has never really cleaned up their act since way back then, either, but most people still IN THE BIZ won't talk about them poorly -- too many layoffs and mergers and SEC merger cancellations and what-not mean that most of the industry keeps its mouth TIGHTLY SHUT about safety problems at OTHER companies, because they know they might be WORKING FOR THOSE BOSSES TOMORROW. It's bad.

Nate - Go here. Read this. You'll like it, this guy gets into all of the nitty-gritty details like you and I both like, and cites his sources. It's long, but quite fascinating. So much so that I'm now reading all his stuff, it's really well researched and written: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html

Will do.

RE: Henry Ford and Congress trying to remove him as CEO of Ford Motor Company via political wrangling being "interesting"...

Sounds that way, got a link?

I've been looking for the original article that was really interesting and had references directly to the Congressional Record, but Google fails me because Henry Ford's massive anti-Semitism has so many articles, that Google and other search engines mostly just spit out that stuff. And there were a LOT of Congress pretty much constantly ticked off at him over that, and numerous lawsuits. Ford was pretty much a nut-job when it came to his views on Jews.
(Unrelated, but this paper seems as good as any, as a primer on that... if interested:
http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/99/hhr99_2.html )

I lined up. I don't care if I get the discount, and as otherwise posted, neither did all of the people lining up in similar fashion ALL OVER THE WORLD who are not going to get a tax credit.

You don't have to take it, you know.