Krugerrand
Meow
And I'll remind you, well over $300 with a market cap of 56 billionish (with a B). Yeah, not sweating it and neither are investors.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
And I'll remind you, well over $300 with a market cap of 56 billionish (with a B). Yeah, not sweating it and neither are investors.
Drive Innovation | Tesla Europe
Looks like Tesla is now partnering with Miles & More in Europe.
Anyone know what the conditions are for companies to take part in this?
Looks like Tesla is now partnering with Miles & More in Europe.
Anyone know what the conditions are for companies to take part in this?
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Bollinger Motors Jeep Wrangler 2 Door type BEV is about to be officially revealed.
Last edited:
An foolproof way at a SpC to determine if the under-cover car is a Model 3 or Model S is to look at the cable port: Model S ports, as we all know, swing horizontally. The Model 3 port swings vertically (it swings up).
This works only at a SpC (and, of course, when charge cable is connected)....I've been very impressed how a covered Model 3 looks just like a Model S - I thought the hatchback would give its stern a steeper profile but to me it's effectively impossible to discern the difference.
This works only at a SpC (and, of course, when charge cable is connected)....I've been very impressed how a covered Model 3 looks just like a Model S - I thought the hatchback would give its stern a steeper profile but to me it's effectively impossible to discern the difference.
Waiting4M3
Active Member
M3 reservation doesn't mean that the buyer will necessarily choose to pay for the EAP/FSD, I think the pricing of those options will matter on the uptake rate, even if it doesn't impact overall M3 sales #.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
Sure, but I can't imagine many people not choosing EAP/FSD at their respective prices. Maybe some are waiting until the company makes further progress on the software, but that's irrelevant to the discussion I proposed.
In the off chance that uptake isn't more than 80% on these two options, and the company will reduce the option price to increase uptake (to benefit Tesla Network for example), then the company should increase ASP another way.
Setting the ASP at $42k, with EAD/FSD included for free or very minimal price, and without ramping up production beyond current plan, could mean foregone cash flow that can be used to accelerate gigafactory buildout or solar roof production.
sundaymorning
Active Member
I was at the Tesla store in Pasadena, I was told that it's store will have solar display installed in its store by tomorrow.
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
We'll see. I'm basing my opinion on what Elon said.
You do realize that Tesla's mission is to produce compelling EV's, not to maximize their short term profits?
I think it is now unlikely that the base battery will be a 60 kWh. Could even possibly be a 50 now.
This would also make it the most efficient car on the planet.
I don't get that thinking at all. The M3 is in no way comparable to a Chevrolet Bolt. Tesla would also very much like people to upgrade to larger battery sizes.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
I'm a big fan of keeping the mission statement in mind when forecasting what the company will do. Having said that, the company is already producing as many cars as they can, fulfilling its mission statement.
What I'm proposing isn't in opposition of the company's mission statement, but supportive of it, as keeping asp slightly higher (which wouldn't reduce the rate at which Tesla is accelerating the world's transition to sustainable energy since demand is much greater than max supply anyway) could allow the company build out additional Gigafactories quicker, increasing the rate at which.... etc.
Tesla's plan is to accelerate the transition to sustainable energy. They need the model three to be a cash generating machine to fund all of their future endeavors!
I trust Tesla/Elon's estimated delivery date for new orders more than a counter website -- late 2018 not April 2019.
Last edited:
ValueAnalyst
Closed
I also estimate that Model 3 reservations have already exceeded 550,000, and Tesla has said 500,000 total cars in 2018, 100,000 of which would be model s/x, so April 2019 seems reasonable.
I think the difference MAY be that Tesla is planning on ramping up model 3 beyond 10,000/week by 4Q18...
...or maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part.
Given the large number of reservations, I think it is likely they will be able to sell far more than 10,000 Model 3s per week at some point but am happy to sit back and wait for guidance from the company on when and how many.
Yes, but that is not right for what it does for customer net promotion of the vehicle.
Promotion does not equal taunting. Recommending something that you know the other person cannot afford does not create community, but division. People have to drop out of activities when the cost is too high: Have to.
People struggle to promote in a conditional way. In other words they do not do it.
The car is smaller than an S. There is no blood in those turnips.
Tesla needs to deliver a car at a price that one family can recommend to another family, without threatening the college fund.
So to make net promotion work, there are 1000 small details that have to be right, and pricing is one of them.
Or they could advertise like GM. With an advertising budget of 3.77 billion in the US. If they sell 500,000 cars annually, that is $7500 per car.
Which behavior generates more good will: Advertising or selling the car for $7,500 less?
The net promoter script has to work. That means a lot of things, but priced right is one of them.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
1) Bragging rights.
2) People that have never owned an EV, a large percentage of future M3 buyers, their first criteria they judge an EV by is range. That it is superior in every way except cargo entry opening and headroom will not stop many buyers from putting a plus next to Chevy Bolt and a big minus next to the M3 if the range is less.
3) I don't think buyers will forgo the 300 mile range M3 because there is a 240 mile range Model 3. And if they do and were seriously considering the bigger pack they will likely spend the money on higher margin options anyway.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
RobStark
Well-Known Member
I was responding to kbM3 who implied it was a good idea to reducing the kWh in the base pack to reduce weight and increase efficiency.
That would improve affordability but reduce range.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
