False Information: Tesla Admits It Still Hasn't Completed A Model 3 Beta Prototype

[ecarfan]

Also, there might be a problem getting our money back if Tesla goes bankrupt

I think that is extremely unlikely.

 

[dsvick]

I don't know, I am getting a second thought about M3, I'm not sure how can tesla put a reliable car on the market in four months without doing proper testing. I reserved my M3 on April 4th 2016 and I might cancel the reservation just because we don't see any evidence of M3 being tested.
We should have part 3 by now and see what the inside would look like, but we have no idea and that's what is making me feel like there is a problem or uncertainty.
Also, there might be a problem getting our money back if Tesla goes bankrupt.
What do you guys think??

I think it is highly unlikely that Tesla will go bankrupt. Also, if I were in your position I wouldn't worry too much about it. An April reservation probably puts you at getting your car sometime in Q1 so there will have been plenty of time for them to work out any issues. Just because you haven't seen testing going on doesn't mean it hasn't been.

 

[BluestarE3]

Also, there might be a problem getting our money back if Tesla goes bankrupt.
What do you guys think??

Why, do you think Tesla is on shakier ground financially than it was 11 months ago when you were confident enough to reserve your Model 3? Since then, the Gigafactory has started manufacturing cells and the Fremont factory has been retooled to accommodate Model 3 production. We're not talking about plunking down a deposit for Elio or Faraday Future here... Tesla does have a track record for manufacturing, delivering and servicing actual cars. One can make an argument that they may be late, but not that they won't delivery.

 

[larmor]

The only worry is a delay in M3, since telsa might get distracted pumping out industrial powerwalls to replace defunct peakers or peakers needing maintenance...

 

[tashtibet]

who and why would people believe FAKE news-Tesla is on schedule-is this speculation news/gossip?

 

[lolachampcar]

I'm just glad they are giving/selling the first cars to their own employees. This may just be the single best bit of management genius I've seen. If you make a crappy bed, you will have to sleep in it. From a customer standpoint, it is about time the people that build it have to live with some of the half rear execution they have, in the past, provided their early (for each release) customers.

The above said, I've been relatively happy with the build quality of my Jan P85D but and very glad it was not a Dec build. Of course, this opinion does not include the as of yet to be delivered 691 hp

 

[N5329K]

I don't know, I am getting a second thought about M3, I'm not sure how can tesla put a reliable car on the market in four months without doing proper testing. I reserved my M3 on April 4th 2016 and I might cancel the reservation just because we don't see any evidence of M3 being tested.
We should have part 3 by now and see what the inside would look like, but we have no idea and that's what is making me feel like there is a problem or uncertainty.
Also, there might be a problem getting our money back if Tesla goes bankrupt.
What do you guys think??

Given your reservation date, Tesla will have addressed at least some of the "1.0 issues" by the time you receive your car, and you should have at least some opportunity to see a Model 3 for yourself, all prior to configuring.
That said, there is a nonzero chance of Tesla going TU, too. I don't think it's likely. But it's not impossible.
Robin

 

[scaesare]

Guys, read the 10K, it is As of December 31, 2016. It does not include any period after.

Yup, not only does @Snow Drift nail it, the actual article even acknowledges that possibility when it says (as the OP notes):

"Wahlman points out, Tesla has not “completed” a Model 3 “beta prototype” as of, well, either of these two dates: December 31, 2016 (the period that the SEC filing covers)..."

Tesla then, in the earnings call, declares that the prototypes were indeed built in Feb. 2017.

And still the article, written in March, chooses a sensationalist headline that doesn't line up with likely facts.

Brilliant reporting.

 

[larmor]

I'm just glad they are giving/selling the first cars to their own employees. This may just be the single best bit of management genius I've seen. If you make a crappy bed, you will have to sleep in it. From a customer standpoint, it is about time the people that build it have to live with some of the half rear execution they have, in the past, provided their early (for each release) customers.

The above said, I've been relatively happy with the build quality of my Jan P85D but and very glad it was not a Dec build. Of course, this opinion does not include the as of yet to be delivered 691 hp

I wonder if some of the robots will be getting M3's too... just sayin' the bots might want to go out for a bite to eat...

 

[Eclectic]

Yup, not only does @Snow Drift nail it, the actual article even acknowledges that possibility when it says (as the OP notes):

"Wahlman points out, Tesla has not “completed” a Model 3 “beta prototype” as of, well, either of these two dates: December 31, 2016 (the period that the SEC filing covers)..."

Tesla then, in the earnings call, declares that the prototypes were indeed built in Feb. 2017.

And still the article, written in March, chooses a sensationalist headline that doesn't line up with likely facts.

Brilliant reporting.

Where in the earnings call did Tesla declare that Model 3 beta prototypes were built in Feb. 2017? I searched the transcript of the last call and there was no such statement. Did they refer to it in some way other than explicitly stating that the Model 3 Beta Prototypes are in production?

 

[scaesare]

Where in the earnings call did Tesla declare that Model 3 beta prototypes were built in Feb. 2017? I searched the transcript of the last call and there was no such statement. Did they refer to it in some way other than explicitly stating that the Model 3 Beta Prototypes are in production?

It was actually in the IR letter:

In early February, we began building Model 3 prototypes as part of our ongoing testing of the vehicle design and manufacturing processes. Initial crash test results have been positive, and all Model 3-related sourcing is on plan to support the start of production in July.

 

[SageBrush]

I know we are all bored waiting for our cars, but I think a forum dedicated to media drivel and click-bait articles would be most welcome.

 

[gjunky]

just remember, you asked for it.
View attachment 217945

I am pretty sure that is an original model S (with nose cone)

 

[Eclectic]

It was actually in the IR letter:

Thanks. That actually is in line with the disclosure in the 10-K. As others have noted, there is a difference between a beta prototype and an alpha prototype, and the fact that the IR letter doesn't specify what kind of prototype was being produced in February implies (strongly) that it is not a beta prototype. It may well end up being what is finally deemed to be the beta, but the IR letter doesn't contradict what was in the 10-K (i.e., that no beta prototype is in production).

 

[scaesare]

Thanks. That actually is in line with the disclosure in the 10-K. As others have noted, there is a difference between a beta prototype and an alpha prototype, and the fact that the IR letter doesn't specify what kind of prototype was being produced in February implies (strongly) that it is not a beta prototype. It may well end up being what is finally deemed to be the beta, but the IR letter doesn't contradict what was in the 10-K (i.e., that no beta prototype is in production).

I suspect it's not still at alpha if they are to the point of crash testing. Your design has to be pretty feature complete at that point, and that's the typical definition of beta.

Neither of which matters for my point: the statements most certainly allow for the possibility of that the betas have been built, and did no such thing as "admit they have yet to build a beta prototype", yet that's exactly what zerohedge opted to use as a headline.

 

[Eclectic]

I suspect it's not still at alpha if they are to the point of crash testing. Your design has to be pretty feature complete at that point, and that's the typical definition of beta.

Neither of which matters for my point: the statements most certainly allow for the possibility of that the betas have been built, and did no such thing as "admit they have yet to build a beta prototype", yet that's exactly what zerohedge opted to use as a headline.

That headline is accurate. The 10-K clearly states that the beta prototype hasn't been selected and unless a beta has been selected, there are no beta prototypes being built. Tesla may well end up selecting a car as the beta that has yet to be built as a prototype. Zerohedge may have hyped their spin on the disclosure, but what they are reporting is in fact what was disclosed.

 

[mrtian97]

10-K is only as of 12/31/16, not including Q1-17

 

[stopcrazypp]

That headline is accurate. The 10-K clearly states that the beta prototype hasn't been selected and unless a beta has been selected, there are no beta prototypes being built. Tesla may well end up selecting a car as the beta that has yet to be built as a prototype. Zerohedge may have hyped their spin on the disclosure, but what they are reporting is in fact what was disclosed.

Accurate or not it's misleading (purposefully? given the "admit" word choice, which implies fault/guilt), especially given the article text doesn't clarify. I would argue a more accurate headline would be: "Tesla board still hasn't named an eligible beta prototype". That's why when @Snow Drift put the direct quote, the exact situation suddenly became much more clear. The headline and article leads people to believe Tesla haven't been building any prototypes that can be considered beta (by industry vernacular), when they certainly have.

 

[Model 3]

In my opinion those prototypes been build in feb. can most accurate be considered "beta candidates" - until the board officially accept one as a "beta". It is not correct to call them "alpha prototypes" as that was those they showed us a year ago. Yes, building and crash testing this beta candidates may revile some problems that needs to be fixed before the board accept them as official "beta builds", but for all practical purposes it is beta.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

Wow...I am just so glad there are other forums out there that choose to take a more wait and see attitude rather than all the short sellers and doubters automatically assuming that the sky is falling. By all means, cancel your reservation. Just puts the rest of us one car closer to delivery.

Dan