And arguably a better deal because it comes with the full glass roof and upgraded seat material! Versus the originally soild roof and cloth seats.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Doubting Price is real!
- Thread starter BigTonyTones
- Start date
And arguably a better deal because it comes with the full glass roof and upgraded seat material! Versus the originally soild roof and cloth seats.
TJKR
Member
Price is real. This thing is designed to be not expensive to build, thus the shape. Flat, folded steel panels. No body, no chassis, flat glass, no paint. I've heard Model 3's body stamping is very expensive, as well as the painting. Cybertruck avoids both. There's also major weight savings. Also, the 75 kwh battery pack in Model 3 is rumored to be under $10K and battery prices will be even lower in 2 years. Tesla has all this baked into the price.
dhrivnak
Active Member
While I hope it is true, Tesla’s track record is not very good. The Roadster, Model S, Model X and Model 3 at the initial advertised price were vary rare, and if available they made it very hard to get. Like ordering a SR+ then having to call to downgrade.
iwannam3
Active Member
Stainless steel is not cheap. Scrap SS is worth almost 5 times steel scrap. Add a special alloy mix and hardening, it will be significantly higher than auto grade steel.
Barklikeadog
Active Member
I'm with you on this one. even before the reveal when we had the 'under 50k' suggestion to go on, it didn't seem realistic.
without seeing the vehicle yet, we only knew that it would be 2x the size, 2x the materials, 2x the functionality, more battery, etc of the Model 3.
So why would it essentially cost the same?
Stainless Steel
20122013201420152016201720182019406080100120N.A. Stainless Steel Index ValueJS chart by amCharts
METAL:
STAINLESS STEEL
GRADE/FORM:
304 2B SHEET
COUNTRY:
US
CURRENT PRICE:
$1.58/lb
METAL:
STAINLESS STEEL
GRADE/FORM:
430 SHEET
CURRENT PRICE:
$1.03/lb
The MetalMiner North American Stainless Steel Price Index (the graph) is a weighted average of all stainless steel prices submitted to our database. Produced each Friday, the average is normalized to account for the composition, size, and quantity of materials purchased, specific to the North American market.
20122013201420152016201720182019406080100120N.A. Stainless Steel Index ValueJS chart by amCharts
METAL:
STAINLESS STEEL
GRADE/FORM:
304 2B SHEET
COUNTRY:
US
CURRENT PRICE:
$1.58/lb
METAL:
STAINLESS STEEL
GRADE/FORM:
430 SHEET
CURRENT PRICE:
$1.03/lb
The MetalMiner North American Stainless Steel Price Index (the graph) is a weighted average of all stainless steel prices submitted to our database. Produced each Friday, the average is normalized to account for the composition, size, and quantity of materials purchased, specific to the North American market.
Doubling the size of everything, and with it the prices is a fairly poor way of making a pricing assumption.
The vehicle is not double the mass, length, frontal area and therefore also doesn't require double the drivetrain (batteries/motors etc) to propel it. Twice the functionality is also a vague metric for comparison, as functionality is a consequence of design, not just material use and doesn't necessarily impact fabrication cost. A considered calculation will show that the prices are close for the lower spec ones, but not impossible, especially considering that we don't know what supply contract costs they have to compare things too.
As a material SS can be cheaper that aluminium, and is definitely so if you leave out the stamping machines, fabrication and paint shop that aluminium requires and SS doesn't. I'd expect the actual body of the CT to work out cheaper than a M3 despite the size increase of the body. As for drivetrain, the frontal area of the CT is not significantly larger 15% (4sqft) than a MX and although the drag co-efficient will be higher, overall the battery size most definitely does not have to be doubled to achieve those ranges. More like 25-35% more battery capacity should do.
The other factor that needs to be assessed in all of this is that because they are using existing production lines from the Model 3 manufacturing, a lot of the development costs can be reduced for the CT. For M3 they also rolled out there 21700 cell production line, new drive train components etc plus new aluminium fabrication, that all needed to be developed from scratch. The reuse of the drivetrain fabrication means they don't need to be recouped through the CT price, and can essentially be made at maintenance and material costs instead. That's the beauty of skateboard design and high performance EV motors. They're using the M3 drivetrain in the semi as well for the same reason.
The point is that it is possible, if you use the right data input for your assumptions.
Brando
Active Member
I'm going to assume you have no manufacturing or fabrication experience.
Aluminum is much more easy to work with in every level -- stamping, forming, cutting (via laser or shear). The exception to this rule is when forming very thin aluminum as it tends to crack, though you really could say the same of steel.
The reason for the sharp edges of the truck isn't for aerodynamics, it's because if they tried to manufacture one of the more curved renders we saw out of stainless steel the truck would cost $200,000.
This is why they are working with flat sheets and scoring to achieve the bend line.
Brando
Active Member
So actual fabrication costs will be cheaper, just as I claimed. Even with little metal factory experience it is obvious to me too.
Still don't know how much cheaper. Let us just say about the same cost as the Model 3 - probably less, right?
stamping machines, painting shop, floor space, worker hours/vehicle will all add to the savings including
equipment costs
Barklikeadog
Active Member
Doubling the size of everything, and with it the prices is a fairly poor way of making a pricing assumption.
The vehicle is not double the mass, length, frontal area and therefore also doesn't require double the drivetrain (batteries/motors etc) to propel it. Twice the functionality is also a vague metric for comparison, as functionality is a consequence of design, not just material use and doesn't necessarily impact fabrication cost. A considered calculation will show that the prices are close for the lower spec ones, but not impossible, especially considering that we don't know what supply contract costs they have to compare things too.
As a material SS can be cheaper that aluminium, and is definitely so if you leave out the stamping machines, fabrication and paint shop that aluminium requires and SS doesn't. I'd expect the actual body of the CT to work out cheaper than a M3 despite the size increase of the body. As for drivetrain, the frontal area of the CT is not significantly larger 15% (4sqft) than a MX and although the drag co-efficient will be higher, overall the battery size most definitely does not have to be doubled to achieve those ranges. More like 25-35% more battery capacity should do.
The other factor that needs to be assessed in all of this is that because they are using existing production lines from the Model 3 manufacturing, a lot of the development costs can be reduced for the CT. For M3 they also rolled out there 21700 cell production line, new drive train components etc plus new aluminium fabrication, that all needed to be developed from scratch. The reuse of the drivetrain fabrication means they don't need to be recouped through the CT price, and can essentially be made at maintenance and material costs instead. That's the beauty of skateboard design and high performance EV motors. They're using the M3 drivetrain in the semi as well for the same reason.
The point is that it is possible, if you use the right data input for your assumptions.
and beyond that;
Cybertruck: multifunction tailgate, with ramp...
Model 3: nope
Cybertruck automatic retract bed cover (if you want one of these on a current pickup it costs about 2500 to 3k)
model 3: nope
cybertruck tires: as a truck owner I can tell you truck tires are not cheap
model 3 tires: cheap
cybertruck: exotic light bars on front and read of vehicle
model 3: nope
cybertruck: heavier vehicle that could go 500miles
model 3 250-300 miles
iwannam3
Active Member
A pound of aluminum covers a lot more area than a pound of SS. Even assuming AL has to be thicker. There will be a Hue and cry about the nickle and chromium sourcing. Nickle Indonesia, Philippines and Russia. Chrome is South Africa (48%), Kazakhstan (13%), Turkey (11%). Not as bad as conflict cobalt, but used in much higher concentrations.
CT Tailgate: what about the ute bed itself?
CT Bedcover: what about the towing capacity and off-road suspension setup?
CT Tyres: Agreed
CT Lights: I'd expect the light bars to be cheaper than the M3. The light enclosures cost more than the LEDS themselves. CT LEDs are far simpler, the top one doesn't even have a separate glass cover...it used the windscreen instead. They are the opposite of exotic.
CT Mass: won't be much heavier than MX. Even the battery isn't that much bigger.
Regardless, none of the items listed except the tyres, necessarily double the cost. Model 3 is also no longer "state of the art". It's four design years older as well. You have to admit that re-purposing the Model3 manufacturing must reduce the cost of CT, and that material cost is less than the manufacturing cost for most components.
Last edited:
Barklikeadog
Active Member
I didn't claim that the cost would double. I suggested that the size, materials, features, range etc are double a model 3, so how can it cost the same?
You can buy a set of Model 3 headlights for $450.
How can this be cheaper?
Double the size, materials, features and range imply double the cost. None of these are doubled. Likewise none of the costs, if claimed or not. There are genuine savings in development and manufacturing, let alone the materials used, which all make the CT price possible. The likelihood of any larger company, including Tesla, getting the price wrong is fairly low IMHO, unless there's a resource price war.
As for LEDS, just stick a couple of these $25 ones on where you need them: ;-P
Barklikeadog
Active Member
like the $35,000 model 3?Double the size, materials, features and range imply double the cost. None of these are doubled. Likewise none of the costs, if claimed or not. There are genuine savings in development and manufacturing, let alone the materials used, which all make the CT price possible. The likelihood of any larger company, including Tesla, getting the price wrong is fairly low IMHO, unless there's a resource price war.
As for LEDS, just stick a couple of these $25 ones on where you need them: ;-P
So actual fabrication costs will be cheaper, just as I claimed. Even with little metal factory experience it is obvious to me too.
Still don't know how much cheaper. Let us just say about the same cost as the Model 3 - probably less, right?
stamping machines, painting shop, floor space, worker hours/vehicle will all add to the savings including
equipment costs
Actually, your claim was that manufacturing with steel is less costly than aluminum, and is wildly inaccurate.
I'd suggest just sticking to what you know...
Barklikeadog
Active Member
do we really need to rehash this well covered subject?
ok
$35,000 the car is $35,000! he only said that about 50 times in the reveal.
From the 1st delivery, it took almost 2 years to deliver the $35,000 model.
Any color besides black? That's 1k more for a basic paint job.
And then they made it as difficult as possible to order the 35k model.
Can't get it online, nope, you you to call someone at the store who I'm sure will do whatever they can to upsell you.
The Tesla order page acts like this doesn't exist.
At the unveiling he should have said $40,000!
Even Elon said if they started selling the 35k version early on the company would have 'gone under in 6 months'
so yea, that was a major pricing error
Or should we discuss the wild swings in pricing and 'FSD' that screwed so many?
@Barklikeadog
I haven't been part of a M3 discussion and only joined with the CT release.
But I was mostly aware of what was going on. It's not unusual for any business to try to get customers through the door with a budget version and then upsell them with options. That is even the case at the local service station, where the fuel is discounted, but the food sold in the store is heavily marked up.
Adding cost for paint options is completely normal throughout the car industry, so I don't have to argue that one.
As for promising a $35k model after a certain date that is also fine, seeing they had to build the production line from scratch, use new batteries, new drivetrain etc. The options simply gave them the margins they needed to make the first higher spec versions affordable. Once that was done, they made the lower margin (read better value for money for customers) version, which they could afford, because the higher versions paid for the development costs. That they made that decisions to stay afloat whilst ramping up was a smart move to reach their goals otherwise nobody would have gotten a M3. Money doesn't grow on trees, investors aren't charities, customers are stingy.
It's highly doubtful they will have a similar issue with the CT because of the reuse of the M3 drivetrain and batteries, plus the fact they originally had the cheapest CT on sale first.
I can agree that FSD is being currently being targeted to see how much customers are willing to pay for it. They only recently brought those numbers into their cashflows as they are essentially outstanding pre-paid purchases. FSD when it works will be much more valuable than the promise of getting FSD at some point. SO buying early would make sense.
Regardless, I think most people only see the value proposition of the CT itself for themselves, without understanding the fundamental advantages of the design in the manufacturing process because of the materials used, or not used at all.
I haven't been part of a M3 discussion and only joined with the CT release.
But I was mostly aware of what was going on. It's not unusual for any business to try to get customers through the door with a budget version and then upsell them with options. That is even the case at the local service station, where the fuel is discounted, but the food sold in the store is heavily marked up.
Adding cost for paint options is completely normal throughout the car industry, so I don't have to argue that one.
As for promising a $35k model after a certain date that is also fine, seeing they had to build the production line from scratch, use new batteries, new drivetrain etc. The options simply gave them the margins they needed to make the first higher spec versions affordable. Once that was done, they made the lower margin (read better value for money for customers) version, which they could afford, because the higher versions paid for the development costs. That they made that decisions to stay afloat whilst ramping up was a smart move to reach their goals otherwise nobody would have gotten a M3. Money doesn't grow on trees, investors aren't charities, customers are stingy.
It's highly doubtful they will have a similar issue with the CT because of the reuse of the M3 drivetrain and batteries, plus the fact they originally had the cheapest CT on sale first.
I can agree that FSD is being currently being targeted to see how much customers are willing to pay for it. They only recently brought those numbers into their cashflows as they are essentially outstanding pre-paid purchases. FSD when it works will be much more valuable than the promise of getting FSD at some point. SO buying early would make sense.
Regardless, I think most people only see the value proposition of the CT itself for themselves, without understanding the fundamental advantages of the design in the manufacturing process because of the materials used, or not used at all.
Similar threads
