2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion

[ggies07]

There really is zero basis for selling the base model 3 ASAP other than to satisfy the selfish desires of the consumers who can't see the logic of why Tesla would want to sell as many premium trims as they can. By that I'm looking at those who advocate for the reservation holders who actually qualify for the federal tax credit, yet only want the base trim. They want a $27,500 model 3 and are whining to make it happen. If it happens, good for you, if not, then leave it be.

Excuse me, but I've been waiting since 2012 for a cheaper, long range EV. I'm still on an ICE, yet I'm supposed to sit here and let other Tesla owners get a Model 3 before me because the company wants to make more money? That's not Elon's/Tesla's mission, the point is to transition as fast as possible to EVs. I don't mind how they are doing the ramp up now, but I except them to allow me to buy one at base price soon since they've been talking about for 3 years now a price of $35,000....which they say will be Jan-Mar.

And no, I don't need the tax credit to afford the car, I just need the base price they've talked about....that's the number I've been anticipating.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Bringing back full circle:

2017 Tesla Model 3 Has Unexpected Electric Motor Design | Edmunds

In the shareholder meeting, Musk said that among the dual motors one would be optimized for high way driving and the other for city driving. So I wonder if one will be PM and the other AC induction.

Model S feels like it's getting outdated in so many ways. Not with respect to "competition" (if there is such a thing). But with respect to Model 3.

- Interior
- Battery tech
- Motors

I would even add exterior. Just looking at the pics, Model-3 looks more like Panamera but a whole lot better. Model S looks sexy but it doesn't evoke the same level of lust as Model 3. Sort of how Apple products do... That's a round about way of saying Model 3 looks sexier than Model S.

I really hope Musk will show a fully refreshed Model S in September event. I was hoping that would happen at Model 3 launch event. But I guess Tesla runs on Tesla-time as usual.

This article speculation is based on the EPA Model 3 document which states that Model 3 motor is PM AC type. I believe that this conclusion is premature. The EPA report has few pieces of information (not related to test data it describes) that are questionable.

Take for example Model 3 battery specific energy that is listed as 150Wh/kg in this document. This is lower than similar document lists for Model S, which is simply improbable. How it could be that Model 3 is about 20% lighter than Model S if M3 battery is **heavier** than MS battery **and** it's body at least partially made of steel, while MS body is aluminum.

So some of the data listed in this EPA document is very likely wrong. I would not put too much faith in the M3 motor info from this document. As far as I am concerned the jury is out on this one.

 

[MitchJi]

But this is really a side issue -- my main point is that if Tesla Semi has a major TCO advantage over diesel, which I think it will, the adoption curve for Tesla Semi has the potential to be much steeper than for Tesla Automotive...

I believe that the semi could have a steeper production curve because a major part of the production ramp for semi's will be batteries, and I believe that it will be easier for Tesla to produce more batteries than cars. OTOH the timeline that they mentioned for semi's wasn't very aggressive. By the time that Tesla ramps semi production M3 price should already be over 10k per week.

 

[MitchJi]

This article speculation is based on the EPA Model 3 document which states that Model 3 motor is PM AC type. I believe tat this conclusion is premature. The EPA report has few pieces of information (not related to test data it describes) that are questionable.
<snip>
So some of the data listed in this EPA document is very likely wrong. I would not put too much faith in the M3 motor info from this document. As far as I am concerned the jury is out on this one.

Maybe you should send an email to IR and see if they will clarify that.

 

[Waiting4M3]

There really is zero basis for selling the base model 3 ASAP other than to satisfy the selfish desires of the consumers who can't see the logic of why Tesla would want to sell as many premium trims as they can. By that I'm looking at those who advocate for the reservation holders who actually qualify for the federal tax credit, yet only want the base trim. They want a $27,500 model 3 and are whining to make it happen. If it happens, good for you, if not, then leave it be.

Every customer that walks in to buy a base M3 is a candidate to be upsold on PUP and EAP/FSD. For all we know the margin on those options could be much fatter than on the long range upgrade. I don't see much benefit in limiting the potential customer pool to just the long range model. Ask yourself this, if one only has $45K to spend (or $35-38K after incentives), would s/he buy the base+PUP+EAP? or the long range model without any options? I can see potentially more opting for the base+PUP+EAP.

 

[JRP3]

Excuse me, but I've been waiting since 2012 for a cheaper, long range EV. I'm still on an ICE, yet I'm supposed to sit here and let other Tesla owners get a Model 3 before me because the company wants to make more money? That's not Elon's/Tesla's mission, the point is to transition as fast as possible to EVs.

True, but to do that the company needs to be a viable business, so making money has to be a consideration. It makes sense to prioritize higher margin vehicles in the beginning of production, and I always expected them to do so.

 

[Alketi]

This article speculation is based on the EPA Model 3 document which states that Model 3 motor is PM AC type. I believe tat this conclusion is premature. The EPA report has few pieces of information (not related to test data it describes) that are questionable.

Take for example Model 3 battery specific energy that is listed as 150Wh/kg in this document. This is lower than similar document lists for Model S, which is simply improbable. How it could be that Model 3 is about 20% lighter than Model S if M3 battery is **heavier** than MS battery **and** it's body at least partially made of steel, while MS body is aluminum.

So some of the data listed in this EPA document is very likely wrong. I would not put too much faith in the M3 motor info from this document. As far as I am concerned the jury is out on this one.

Keep in mind there's more data than just the EPA document.

Tesla signed a rare earth mineral/permanent magnet deal with a Chinese company (Zhongke Sanhuan) in late 2016.

Rockstone Research

 

[ggies07]

True, but to do that the company needs to be a viable business, so making money has to be a consideration. It makes sense to prioritize higher margin vehicles in the beginning of production, and I always expected them to do so.

Right, as a shareholder since 2012, I get that, which is why I understand them making the LR Model 3 batteries and cars first and then start the SR Model 3 battery in November. I like that they will be doing both at the same time to give more color to the situation. I use my ICE everyday all the while watching a lot of you talk about your EV and I'm ready for mine, please don't take that a way just for "margins". Let's not get so focused on money we forget the mission.

 

[JRP3]

Let's not get so focused on money we forget the mission.

Let's not forget that they are linked, no money, no mission.

 

[erthquake]

I don't know why you are going off on me, I only noted that a lease works for those without income to take advantage of the full tax credit. Pretty sure they are going to offer a lease option. It's a more of a consumer expectation, to not have a lease option would be a bad experience for the customer and Tesla clearly values the customer experience. They offer leases on X/S today, they will for the model 3 as well, it's a cost of doing business.

Aren't Tesla's lease options terrible for consumers? Even accounting for the tax credit, I thought leasees get soaked by Tesla. It makes sense. Tesla would rather not lease because of the initial capital outlay. They will offer leases, but they're going to make them expensive to make up for the fact that, right now, there are more effective ways for them to spend cash.

 

[DragonWatch]

While the ICE manufacturers sleep with catchup on their face, TheStreet is finally licking it off

Tesla's Many Would-Be Rivals Are Chasing a Speeding Target

 

[DurandalAI]

Every customer that walks in to buy a base M3 is a candidate to be upsold on PUP and EAP/FSD. For all we know the margin on those options could be much fatter than on the long range upgrade. I don't see much benefit in limiting the potential customer pool to just the long range model. Ask yourself this, if one only has $45K to spend (or $35-38K after incentives), would s/he buy the base+PUP+EAP? or the long range model without any options? I can see potentially more opting for the base+PUP+EAP.

I can speak personally that I intend on getting the base model + blue ($1k) + EAP (and later buying FSD once it's proven.) I have no interest in PUP. I would like the LR battery, but justifying an extra $9k is difficult. Essentially I must choose between LR and EAP. EAP is what excites me the most, although LR cannot be upgraded at a later time.

 

[elasalle]

Keep in mind there's more data than just the EPA document.

Tesla signed a rare earth mineral/permanent magnet deal with a Chinese company (Zhongke Sanhuan) in late 2016.

Rockstone Research

I had come across this article seems to be on same topic:
Tesla Model 3 Is An Image-Breaker (But Not The Way You Think)

For more tech differences:
What's the Difference Between AC Induction, Permanent Magnet, and Servomotor Technologies?

Not sure still why design changed if it did. But could be more cost effective without giving up much on performance ...

 

[supratachophobia]

True, but to do that the company needs to be a viable business, so making money has to be a consideration. It makes sense to prioritize higher margin vehicles in the beginning of production, and I always expected them to do so.

Exactly, people confuse Tesla's vision as being mutually exclusive or independent of making money. You guys need to get over that. They only reason they have the freedom to do what they are doing is because shareholders think they can do it while making them a profit. And ultimately, as a publicly traded company, that is their mission statement. The true genius is they are doing while saving the world.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Maybe you should send an email to IR and see if they will clarify that.

Well, I had a better idea, I think.

Both Car and Driver and Motor Trend articles on Model 3 list it's motor as AC induction one. Motor Trend did have an extended (more than 10mins) first drive of Model 3, including an opportunity to talk with Franz Holzhausen, but Car and Driver did not. After complaining about this to Elon on twitter C&D deputy editor was promised a test drive at the end of this month. So I pinged him on tweeter with the suggestion to clear information about the motor type. We'll see whether it leads anywhere...

 

[vgrinshpun]

Keep in mind there's more data than just the EPA document.

Tesla signed a rare earth mineral/permanent magnet deal with a Chinese company (Zhongke Sanhuan) in late 2016.

Rockstone Research

I am agnostic on the issue of the type of Model 3 motor, just saying that it is not clear what it is at this point.

 

[SBenson]

Bannon is out.

Not sure if it means anything to Tesla.

 

[supratachophobia]

Bannon is out.

Not sure if it means anything to Tesla.

Who is that?

 

[Reciprocity]

Aren't Tesla's lease options terrible for consumers? Even accounting for the tax credit, I thought leasees get soaked by Tesla. It makes sense. Tesla would rather not lease because of the initial capital outlay. They will offer leases, but they're going to make them expensive to make up for the fact that, right now, there are more effective ways for them to spend cash.

I guess I dont know what "soaked" means in this context. If you buy the vehicle and your payment is 1200, vs 950 for a low mile lease, the later can make a lot of sense when you do not make enough to fully utilize the tax credit. I had this exact scenario, but didnt want the lease because I can use the full credit and I wanted to keep the car longer then 3 years.

I think you are missing the point. There might be better ways to spend the money, but consumers expect it and its a cost of doing business. Its not really an optional thing for someone who sells cars to people and even less so for Tesla over the next year or so while tax credits are still available in the US.

 

[GoTslaGo]

Bannon is out.

Not sure if it means anything to Tesla.

Link? Couldn't find anything.