Cancelling my reservation

[ℬête Noire]

I wanted a new small (not mini) EV with good performance for my birthday. ... The second timeline bump killed the birthday plans.

The great thing about birthdays? There's always another one next year.* Hopefully your 3 gets to you way ahead of schedule for the next one.


* Until you're in position where you don't care anymore, may that be a long ways out.

 

[Sandiegodoug]

We also will use the x for any long trips. The seats are more comfortable to me,especially on a long drive. My 3 will basically be my personal vehicle when wife at work. I really didn’t need autopilot, but was only way to get traffic aware cruise, which is a safety feature for me.

 

[daniel]

... Solar city merger was pure fantasy.

I owned stock (not a lot, but some) in both Solar City and Tesla. Then my Solar City stock disappeared and instead I had more shares of Tesla. This was the merger (or I think more properly, the buy-out of Solar City by Tesla) happening. The buy-out merged the two companies. Yes, it happened. Others who owned stock in both can testify to this. Or you can get documentation from the SEC.

The fundamental theorem of Economics is:

"Allocation of limited resources with unlimited wants".

While demand outstrips supply for vehicles more than $35K, we won't see a $35K vehicle.

Except that Elon Musk is not motivated solely by economics. He's also motivated by a principled or emotional wish to see the nation go to 100% electric for ground transportation, and a personal commitment to help make this happen. It's why he released Tesla's patents so that other companies could enter the EV market as competitors to Tesla, because that will bring about the electric roadway faster. So, yes, the $35K Model 3 will come out (not when promised: with Tesla nothing happens when promised) but while people are still willing to buy the LR version. Because Musk truly wants more people, including those who cannot afford more than $35K, to be driving electric.

... If I lose a grand to assist that? I've spend more on dinner to be honest. ...

Wow! And I thought I was being luxurious when I spent just under $70 on a restaurant meal. (Actually $200 for three people, my treat.) And that was a fabulous meal at a very fancy restaurant. You've got me beat by miles and miles.

 

[MXWing]

Except that Elon Musk is not motivated solely by economics. He's also motivated by a principled or emotional wish to see the nation go to 100% electric for ground transportation, and a personal commitment to help make this happen. It's why he released Tesla's patents so that other companies could enter the EV market as competitors to Tesla, because that will bring about the electric roadway faster. So, yes, the $35K Model 3 will come out (not when promised: with Tesla nothing happens when promised) but while people are still willing to buy the LR version. Because Musk truly wants more people, including those who cannot afford more than $35K, to be driving electric.

TSLA still has to answer to shareholders and suboptimal decisions will not be good when the equity markets are tapped for funds...

To be more exacting, I will clarify and say that $35K vehicles will not be produced as long as production demand for the premium vehicles outstrips the supply.

I would dump all my TSLA immediately followed by buying puts without hestitation if Musk says:
"Yeah, we could have sold 10000 P-AWD-PUP Model 3's for $85k this quarter but we were fine with selling 10000, $35K cars instead"

That's only half a BILLION in forgone revenue.

 

[ohmman]

Wow! And I thought I was being luxurious when I spent just under $70 on a restaurant meal. (Actually $200 for three people, my treat.) And that was a fabulous meal at a very fancy restaurant. You've got me beat by miles and miles.

I was wondering how that was in sync with this, myself:

But it's like cutting line, something I won't do; it's how I was raised. I won't even use most FasTrak lanes because of the same reasons, if everybody must wait except the rich, I won't do it. Yeah, I can afford it, but it's tacky, especially in California where we advertise we treat everybody as equals. I'll wait my turn like the proletariat must.

I guess if you take the slow lane to the French Laundry, it's not nearly as posh.

 

[McRat]

You almost got through that without making some kind of California political reference. Good effort.
...

It's sort of hard not to. My EVs run on grid electricity, and I run grid-tied. Summer rates were brutal, double demand fees, highest TOU rates, and a heat wave that went past 110°F several times. I need to temp control to 70°F ±2.0°F per gov't restrictions 24/7/365.
It was $.24 per kWh. OWW! $1900/m for 8000kWh. But virtually all is On Peak at the highest rate.

Right now it is the lowest rates of the year, a mild winter so far, no hot or cold days. 13kW (average peak) of solar output, and other energy saving technologies.

Because of this, I'm using 25% of the power I used last year, at the lowest possible rates, 2124kWh for $560. Or $.26/kWh. Virtually all off-peak since the solar zeros out the TOU mid-peak usage.

The less power I use now, the higher my cost per kWh is. It is $229 a month for the NEM 2.0 meter, plus demand fees, plus other fees, and the electricity used is only $113 including both generation and distribution.
So far this month:

If I should plug in a 7.2 kW EVSE at work at 8 am tomorrow, the first 15 minutes is $114.41 (7.2kW x $15.89/kW) for the size of the charger and $0.50 per hour for the actual electricity used. Charging EVs is very cheap. You simply can't afford to pump the energy through the meter. Hahahaha...

Call it normal. Call it progress. Call it The Green Advantage. It still stings. It still hurts EV adoption.

HA!!! I did not mention the state or the P Word!

 

[daniel]

TSLA still has to answer to shareholders and suboptimal decisions will not be good when the equity markets are tapped for funds...

To be more exacting, I will clarify and say that $35K vehicles will not be produced as long as production demand for the premium vehicles outstrips the supply.

I would dump all my TSLA immediately followed by buying puts without hestitation if Musk says:
"Yeah, we could have sold 10000 P-AWD-PUP Model 3's for $85k this quarter but we were fine with selling 10000, $35K cars instead"

That's only half a BILLION in forgone revenue.

TSLA is about ten times what I paid for my shares (though I've not tried to figure my basis for the TSLA shares I got for my SCTY shares). But I didn't buy either as an investment. I bought both because I wanted to feel like I was a part of companies doing the right thing, and because I loved my Roadster so much. (Still do, though I'll be selling it once my Model 3 comes.) If I'd put my entire savings into TSLA when I bought my couple of hundred shares, I could buy one of those oceanfront condos on Maui that I've been lusting after.

No way I'd bet against Tesla. (But I'm far too cautious an investor to put all my eggs in any one basket, so probably no oceanfront condos in my future. )

 

[u00mem9]

I owned stock (not a lot, but some) in both Solar City and Tesla. Then my Solar City stock disappeared and instead I had more shares of Tesla. This was the merger (or I think more properly, the buy-out of Solar City by Tesla) happening. The buy-out merged the two companies. Yes, it happened. Others who owned stock in both can testify to this. Or you can get documentation from the SEC.

I’m sure surfer was saying the justification for the merger was pure fantasy...and he’s right about that. They cooked up some BS about it helping cash flow AND held a launch for the solar roof tiles they had been working on for 2 weeks and started taking orders, claiming production would soon follow. They knew very well that neither of those representations were truthful.

Pure fantasy is a pretty accurate description.

 

[McRat]

...
Wow! And I thought I was being luxurious when I spent just under $70 on a restaurant meal. (Actually $200 for three people, my treat.) And that was a fabulous meal at a very fancy restaurant. You've got me beat by miles and miles.

Take a group to the Voodoo Lounge in Vegas at SEMA and pick up the tab. I think the tip was more than a grand.
But more commonly we go to a nice Mexican restaurant. A family of 4 is under $100.

 

[gregincal]

To be more exacting, I will clarify and say that $35K vehicles will not be produced as long as production demand for the premium vehicles outstrips the supply.

That very well may be true, and it seems pretty reasonable that production will outstrip the demand for the LR variants by the end of the year. As a matter of fact, I'd bet that's what Tesla is basing their SR delivery estimates on (since they know what the uptake on LR versions is).

 

[daniel]

I’m sure surfer was saying the justification for the merger was pure fantasy...and he’s right about that. They cooked up some BS about it helping cash flow AND held a launch for the solar roof tiles they had been working on for 2 weeks and started taking orders, claiming production would soon follow. They knew very well that neither of those representations were truthful.

Pure fantasy is a pretty accurate description.

Obviously, merging two companies is not going to alter the overall cash flow, though it could allow cash to easily flow from one to the other. But given the track record, I'm happy with them, and I think the merger makes sense, since the companies are complimentary: Electric cars and solar energy and batteries. Tesla makes great cars and is growing by leaps and bounds. I know far less about Solar City, but I love that they are making solar cells so people can power their homes and their cars by sunlight.

The merger is not fantasy, notwithstanding that some folks may think it was a bad idea or that the justification was inappropriate. I think it was a great idea.

 

[ℬête Noire]

Obviously, merging two companies is not going to alter the overall cash flow, though it could allow cash to easily flow from one to the other. But given the track record, I'm happy with them, and I think the merger makes sense, since the companies are complimentary: Electric cars and solar energy and batteries. Tesla makes great cars and is growing by leaps and bounds. I know far less about Solar City, but I love that they are making solar cells so people can power their homes and their cars by sunlight.

Solar City was the cash flow spinner Tesla needed in the moment to keep the books is good shape through Tesla production scaling up on vehicles and batteries. Of the three groups Solar City was the most mature in their market (AKA growing the slowest, relatively obviously), and was the easiest to scale back sales overhead without gutting current sales and future sales potential. The merger also made it far easier for SC to bundle Powerwalls into their projects (removed communication barriers that legally have to be there for separate public corps and avoided conflict of interest issues).

 

[ℬête Noire]

That very well may be true, and it seems pretty reasonable that production will outstrip the demand for the LR variants by the end of the year. As a matter of fact, I'd bet that's what Tesla is basing their SR delivery estimates on (since they know what the uptake on LR versions is).

That'd suggest Tesla's internal marketing data is telling them to expect SR:LR packs to sell at something like 2:1. That seems plausible.

They'll open up AWD before that (production willing) but once they get to the SR it'll be interesting if they open up the non-PUP at the same time? That is $5K extra and certainly margin but maybe that would just cannibalize their software-only sales of AP & FSB, which most certainly have a higher gross margin.

 

[McRat]

Just a hunch but I think some non-owners will be called up before owners waiting for AWD are called. Once AWD is available, the queue will aim at owners again. If AWD becomes available before they run out of owners who are ordering 3LR's, then the non-owners will not be called yet. Good news, is non-owners will get a choice of 3LRs and 3LRDs. I think the 3SRD is a non-starter.

 

[ℬête Noire]

Just a hunch but I think some non-owners will be called up before owners waiting for AWD are called. Once AWD is available, the queue will aim at owners again. If AWD becomes available before they run out of owners who are ordering 3LR's, then the non-owners will not be called yet. Good news, is non-owners will get a choice of 3LRs and 3LRDs. I think the 3SRD is a non-starter.

My understanding is that Tesla is running (is about to run?) multiple lines, right? Even if they aren't it looks like they should be able to readily mix RWD and AWD on the same line as they are building RWD with nearly all the stuff there for AWD. You think they won't run a mix, from the start? Keep cranking LR PUPs you've worked the kinks out of, money in the bag, while you pour troubleshooter focus into early production kinks on LR-D on the side. The D variant is going to be less cash flow than the PUP option, not sure about the gross margin but that still means it'd have to be coming off the line at something like 90% of the rate of 1st Prod variant to make up the difference.

 

[Glamisduner]

There are other EV options.
But for your 80 mi commute, the cheapest is ...
The BMW i3 REx. 2014 22k mi asking $16.9k Hollywood. Slightly quicker than Volt, slower than Bolt, way quicker than all EVs but Tesla. BMW badges are complimentary with each car.

No pure BEV in the inexpensive used market can do 80 miles reliably. Cheap enough to leave it at the airport and forget to pick it back up.

Seriously, it will show you if an EV fits your lifestyle, without a significant financial risk. Most you can lose is about $4k for driving it until a Model 3 of your choice is available.

EDIT - IT HAS TO BE REx. The standard model won't do.

I thought about it, but I'm not thrilled with the idea of buying a 5 year early old model S that is out of warranty for 50k, plus I don't think you get the 10k tax incentives on a used model S so they are still considerably more expensive than a first production model 3. The Chevy bolt would probably be a more economical choice if it came to buying another EV even though I would much rather buy a used S I'm not sure I could afford the maintenance that could come with it.

 

[MXWing]

I thought about it, but I'm not thrilled with the idea of buying a 5 year early old model S that is out of warranty for 50k, plus I don't think you get the 10k tax incentives on a used model S so they are still considerably more expensive than a first production model 3. The Chevy bolt would probably be a more economical choice if it came to buying another EV even though I would much rather buy a used S I'm not sure I could afford the maintenance that could come with it.

Used cars that don't qualify for the tax incentives have that "priced in" as part of the offering. The explanation is that rational buyers account on the availability of the incentives on a new purchase. Buying a used EV carries an opportunity cost of forgoing that incentive which shifts the demand curve to the left. To reach an equilibrium point where a sale can actually take place, the used EV seller has to shift their asking price to the left accordingly.

Used car prices relative to new cars will go UP once the incentives expire.

I can not vouch personality for the veracity of the following claim but I found it compelling to read regarding Tesla's with tons of miles:
Tesla Model S Hits 300,000 Miles with less than $11,000 maintenance costs

 

[mattjs33]

Don't be. He made a completely false statement and is scrambling to change the narrative. Logic will have no effect on him since he's clearly not interested in facts. Tesla shipped a 40 at the advertised price, they will do the same with the 3, and he'll have to find something else to complain about.

What do you hear me complaining about? I'm offering my opinion based on the facts as I saw them. Is that not allowed here? Or only if you agree?

Would you agree that it was true that Elon delivered about a dozen Model 3's at the end of July to satisfy his target, and then another one not until what, November, December? He has a habit of setting these goals and then meeting them in a token fashion to say, yeah we did just as I said we would. Would you agree that we will never know how many people might have ordered a $49,900 Model S had one been available? Would you agree that it's possible that Elon promised the Model S at $49,900 way too early in the game, such that when it became clear he could not build it profitably, he axed it at the first opportunity? Could you imagine something similar happening with the Model 3? I can.

You can hate me for my take on it if you want. But MXWing said basically the same thing, and folks agreed he was right. As long as people are ordering $60K versions of the Model 3, they'll put off building $35K versions as long as they can. Or until it becomes moot. That's my guess based on the fact that this is what Tesla's balance sheet requires.

Everyone thinks Tesla bothers me, but they don't. What bothers me is when people gush about Tesla's awesome $35K electric car, that does not at the moment technically, you know, exist.

 

[gregincal]

What do you hear me complaining about? I'm offering my opinion based on the facts as I saw them. Is that not allowed here? Or only if you agree?

Would you agree that it was true that Elon delivered about a dozen Model 3's at the end of July to satisfy his target, and then another one not until what, November, December?

No I do not agree. Model 3's were delivered in every Month after July in increasing numbers each month. That's a fact.

 

[gregincal]

Would you agree that we will never know how many people might have ordered a $49,900 Model S had one been available?

One was available. I could have bought one if I wanted (I chose to buy the S85 instead). They discontinued it early, but everybody who had reserved a Model S earlier could have ordered one if they wanted.