-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Did Tesla ever call the Roadster the "Model R"? I don't see using the Model T, that is totally associated with the old Ford vehicle, it would be a marketing mistake for Tesla to use it.
I don't believe that. You take all the advantages you can offer. Maybe the S will get bumped up to 400 miles by then.
Why? All manufactures offer blinged out versions. That's where the money is for Tesla.
Ryan, you are not channeling Elon. This is the man that always wants to push the bar. By the way, beating a Porsche XXX is Elon's most common phrase at car announcements.
Again. Slapping on sig badge, and putting the buyer first in line is mega-profitable.
No doubt.
In Model S pricing, each kWh of battery capacity costs the consumer about $500. I'm basing this on the $10K it costs to go from 40kWh -> 60kWh. There are assumptions built into this, and it could be wrong; I think it's reasonable for this back-of-the-envelope stuff.
This means the 40kWh battery pack in the lowest Model S costs $20K to the consumer. That implies the rest of the car is $37k.
If you figure a 5% annual decrease in battery costs, in three years the 40kWh battery pack would cost approximately $17k. For Bluestar to sell at $30k then, the rest of the car would have to cost $13k to consumers. Figuring in the $7500 federal rebate (which may not be available at that time), means that the non-battery part of the car would be $20,500.
If Bluestar is the Tesla equivalent of the BMW 3-series, then let's breakdown the 3-series costs to see how much of it is the non-drivetrain part of the car.
In the US, the 3-series has an effective market price of around $40k. I'm estimating about $8k of that is drivetrain. (I'll admit I could be wildly off here, so if you know about this sort of thing, please comment.) That means the rest of the car is $32k. Subtract another $3k for dealer profit (which Tesla does not have), and you have $29k for the car, which includes BMW's margins (which may or may not be similar to Tesla's).
So can Tesla design and build the non-drivetrain part of Bluestar for $8k less than BMW can?
Also worth noting is that this is with the smallest battery pack, which would probably give a real-world range around 160miles.
I'm sure my analysis is off in some ways, and I welcome critiques because I find cost breakdown analyses helpful/interesting for speculating at the price and range for Bluestar.
This means the 40kWh battery pack in the lowest Model S costs $20K to the consumer. That implies the rest of the car is $37k.
If you figure a 5% annual decrease in battery costs, in three years the 40kWh battery pack would cost approximately $17k. For Bluestar to sell at $30k then, the rest of the car would have to cost $13k to consumers. Figuring in the $7500 federal rebate (which may not be available at that time), means that the non-battery part of the car would be $20,500.
If Bluestar is the Tesla equivalent of the BMW 3-series, then let's breakdown the 3-series costs to see how much of it is the non-drivetrain part of the car.
In the US, the 3-series has an effective market price of around $40k. I'm estimating about $8k of that is drivetrain. (I'll admit I could be wildly off here, so if you know about this sort of thing, please comment.) That means the rest of the car is $32k. Subtract another $3k for dealer profit (which Tesla does not have), and you have $29k for the car, which includes BMW's margins (which may or may not be similar to Tesla's).
So can Tesla design and build the non-drivetrain part of Bluestar for $8k less than BMW can?
Also worth noting is that this is with the smallest battery pack, which would probably give a real-world range around 160miles.
I'm sure my analysis is off in some ways, and I welcome critiques because I find cost breakdown analyses helpful/interesting for speculating at the price and range for Bluestar.
Just noted a flaw in what I posted...I backed out the $20,500 non-battery car cost for Bluestar using $30K as the target price. But then I compared it to a $40k market price BMW.
To make it apples to apples, I should have used $40k as the target price for Bluestar, which would mean $30,500 for the car sans battery. This compares favorably to BMW's non-drivetrain car cost (if my assumptions are correct).
Point of this is that it seems do-able for Tesla but you get a Bluestar with
1) the smaller battery pack (40kWh)
2) a price point of $40k to the customer, not $30k.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
"In Model S pricing, each kWh of battery capacity costs the consumer about $500. I'm basing this on the $10K it costs to go from 40kWh -> 60kWh. There are assumptions built into this, and it could be wrong; I think it's reasonable for this back-of-the-envelope stuff."
Tesla is charging only $400/kWh at the top end (60kwh-> 85kWh for $10k). That would put the current cost of a 40kWh pack at $16k.
Tesla's CTO Straubel, has said industry improvements are at 7-8% per year: http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2012/03/28/who’ll-name-the-law-for-electric-car-batteries/
But let's use your 5% to be conservative. In 3 years, I get ~$14k. A 3 series sedan starts at $35k. $35k-$14k = $21k for Tesla to work with for the rest of the car (for the base model). If you include the tax credit and assume a $30k sales price, they have $23.5k to work with. I don't know how feasible that is, but I expect Tesla would be willing to delay the Bluestar if the battery cost math doesn't work out yet (plus like the Model S they will likely release the most expensive version first).
Tesla is charging only $400/kWh at the top end (60kwh-> 85kWh for $10k). That would put the current cost of a 40kWh pack at $16k.
Tesla's CTO Straubel, has said industry improvements are at 7-8% per year: http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2012/03/28/who’ll-name-the-law-for-electric-car-batteries/
But let's use your 5% to be conservative. In 3 years, I get ~$14k. A 3 series sedan starts at $35k. $35k-$14k = $21k for Tesla to work with for the rest of the car (for the base model). If you include the tax credit and assume a $30k sales price, they have $23.5k to work with. I don't know how feasible that is, but I expect Tesla would be willing to delay the Bluestar if the battery cost math doesn't work out yet (plus like the Model S they will likely release the most expensive version first).
The "Model" terminology is not necessarily something it's smart to get locked in to. Even less to mechanically stick with alphabetic sequence (which doesn't really exist anyway; no Model R, then Model X, etc.)
But -- how about "Model C" (Car). :biggrin:
Or, immodestly, "Gen YS" !
It is safe to use the eight percent. It's been a constant from 2002 and Elon has implied in the last Conference call that an even greater battery breakthrough is in the works thus making the battery cost even less than 8% compounded yearly reduction
ryanjm
Tesla Podcast Host
I hope so! And I hope that means a 300-mile BlueStar.
I'd love for you to be right, but, in Tesla's view, what's the appeal to potential Model S buyers if the cheaper BlueStar has all of the same cool toys? Besides just being a bigger car?
You're certainly right about Elon, and I hope you're right about the hypothetical Performance BlueStar. But it's got to fall in line BEHIND Model S, that's my point. Even if they COULD make it faster.
I'm going to try to be first in line if that's the case.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I think vfx's main point is that the Model S would have improved by then (using the same battery advances that make the Bluestar affordable), so the Bluestar may match/exceed the specs of the 2012 Model S, but the 2015 Model S will be better than both. An analogy using the smart phone/computer/consumer electronics market: a budget model this year usually matches or exceeds the top-of-the-line model last year or the year before that.
Agreed.
There is a very strong argument that the X is the best and most important Tesla model. Most important because it will have the biggest operating cost advantage.
In its segment it makes the most difference. 7 passenger luxury performance SUVs are in the 12-15mpg ballpark.
The bluestar will be competing with much smaller sedans that get in the 25-40 mpg range.
If you need 7 adult passenger seating, the Model X is so far ahead of its class, its like magic.
Yah, just like Tesla would never make their sedan outperform their roadster. Oh wait...
I think it's flawed math using marginal capacity cost to calculate total cost. For example, my retail source has Intel Core i7-875K, 2.93GHz at EUR 260, vs Intel Core i5-760 2.80GHz at EUR 180. That's EUR 615 per GHz which is clearly bogus. To illustrate that, Intel should sell an i3 2.53GHz CPU at EUR20.
Higher performance hardware in the same package always has excessive marginal cost.
Methinks you mean highest. Top end is usually excessive. Slightly and moderately higher usually has a reasonable marginal cost. Market forces don't tolerate excess profits across the full spectrum, just at the peak.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
It certainly may be an overestimate (we are expecting that) but it's a nice ballpark figure that includes margins for Tesla.
And I don't think your comparison is a fair analogy using processors that cross different lines (i7 vs i5 vs i3) because the actual performance and features of those processors vary once you do that (it's not just GHz that determines value.).
Looking purely at GHz, from Intel, tray cost of a 2.80GHz i7-860 is $284, 2.93GHz i7-870 is $294. You are paying $10/0.13Ghz = $76.92/Ghz marginally.
For 2.80GHz, that's equivalent to $215.38, for 2.93GHz that's $225.38, so the marginal cost is actually cheaper than the full retail cost you are paying.
http://ark.intel.com/products/series/43123
Last edited:
ryanjm
Tesla Podcast Host
Sorry, not trying to offend or antagonize anyone. I was just trying to contribute to the conversation. I just have a hard time believing that Tesla's $30k car (or $~50k if we're talking Performance) would outperform the company's own $50k car (or $85k if we're talking Performance), that's all. :redface: Sure, things evolve and the Model S will get better as BlueStar approaches, but if BlueStar is out in three years, I wonder if Tesla will make upgrades to S that quickly, considering they've already got a one-year waiting list for them. It could potentially leave a lot of early adopters upset if they get their $90k car and then 18 months later -- after sitting on awaiting list for a long time -- Tesla's own car that's roughly half the price outperforms it.
@ryanjm - Nah, you didn't.
My point was that your assertion that they won't make BlueStar outperform Model S is akin to saying they wouldn't make Model S outperform Roadster. Tesla has already shown that they have no such inhibition.
More generally, Tesla seems to be more concerned with making the best EVs they can (regardless of potential model cross-cannibalization).
More specifically, Elon's personal mission (as I understand it) is for all manufacturers to make the best EVs they can -- regardless of potential impact on the long-term viability of Tesla the company relative to its competition.
My point was that your assertion that they won't make BlueStar outperform Model S is akin to saying they wouldn't make Model S outperform Roadster. Tesla has already shown that they have no such inhibition.
More generally, Tesla seems to be more concerned with making the best EVs they can (regardless of potential model cross-cannibalization).
More specifically, Elon's personal mission (as I understand it) is for all manufacturers to make the best EVs they can -- regardless of potential impact on the long-term viability of Tesla the company relative to its competition.
Similar threads
