Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)

[Papafox]

How about the sentiment "Choice is good" in the range discussion? Granted, Tesla did not find enough buyers for the 40kwh version of the car to justify its continued production, but I bought one because of price point and it serves my needs well on an island that is about 40 miles long. Can a 200 mile range work fine for most drivers if superchargers are plentiful and quick? Yep, I suspect so. Should Tesla some day offer a 400 mile range car for those who want or need (Alaska, Northern Canada, etc.) it? Yep. Choice is good.

 

[Krugerrand]

How about the sentiment "Choice is good" in the range discussion? Granted, Tesla did not find enough buyers for the 40kwh version of the car to justify its continued production, but I bought one because of price point and it serves my needs well on an island that is about 40 miles long. Can a 200 mile range work fine for most drivers if superchargers are plentiful and quick? Yep, I suspect so. Should Tesla some day offer a 400 mile range car for those who want or need (Alaska, Northern Canada, etc.) it? Yep. Choice is good.

Choice is definitely good. I'd argue that right now the focus for electrifying transportation 'quickly' is to concentrate on what the majority need/think they need rather than having choice for all.

 

[chickensevil]

So two things to add to the discussion...

First: pack degrade. We all know that as the cars get older the packs slowly don't hold as much as when they were new. If 80% loss is "reasonable" to expect before the car is crushed or the battery replaced then a 200 mile pack is now looking like 160. Then add all the other things on top that JRP3 and other have mentioned mentioned... Cold weather, hilly terrain, weight from passengers and luggage, and generally not doing a "range charge" for most all of your driving. Note that a standard 90% charge on a fully degraded pack would be 140 miles. So really you have lost close to 30% of your daily range, which is what I have seen some people voice concern about with their roadsters.

Second: I don't honestly know what type of household people were raised in or what luxuries people currently enjoy but I personally grew up in a household of 7 with an income of less than 30k a year for the household. And I will tell you, one of the things we did NOT do... Like ever... Was fly anywhere. Even taking old ticket pricings into account you were looking at close to 2,000 for 7 people to board a plane and go to a "reasonablely cheap" stop. Then add in whatever you were spending at your destination and you could quickly see how that wouldn't be panning out on our salary. Now obviously my family would not be the market for even a 30k car... Because that would be nearly impossible for us to have been able to afford, but if we are considering that all cars MUST go electric. Then you can assume that we would at some point find either a cheap new car or a used one. I can tell you, a 100 mile car would not work for us. Because when you live on the poorer side, and you do things with your kids you focus on things that are also cheap to do. So we did road trips to places that were cheap or free... And back then gas prices were also a LOT better (so really its compatible to cheap electricity today.)

Point is, there are a lot of people, especially today, who do not fly... And likely never will, because flying is a luxury they cannot afford. Then add in the millions of people who live in the country as well, where it is not uncommon that the closest big city is 100 miles away or more and how in the world do you plan to move these poorer people into electric vehicles? Is a 400 mile cheap pack needed today/tomorrow to make the next million or so cars sell? Of course not. But to think that they won't be needed at all is not thinking about transitioning EVERYONE to electric. I am not looking at this from the 1% either... It is a considerable number of people who live greater than 100 miles from a major metropolitan area.

 

[FANGO]

How about the sentiment "Choice is good" in the range discussion? Granted, Tesla did not find enough buyers for the 40kwh version of the car to justify its continued production, but I bought one because of price point and it serves my needs well on an island that is about 40 miles long. Can a 200 mile range work fine for most drivers if superchargers are plentiful and quick? Yep, I suspect so. Should Tesla some day offer a 400 mile range car for those who want or need (Alaska, Northern Canada, etc.) it? Yep. Choice is good.

Choice would be wonderful, except that there are some people on this board who seem to think that there shouldn't be choice, and who are constantly arguing against lighter packs and reasonably sized packs, as if they will never be of any use to anybody. Note that my original post said that "100-200 mile packs with fast charging are more than enough for most people," and that we did not need 400+ mile packs for "most people" to have their needs met - which means, in fact, that "most people" could get along fine with the cars currently on offer (which have 90-265 mile packs and all have quick charging). This is a fairly simple and true statement which nonetheless was overreacted to, as usual.

As for canceling the 40kWh - which was being anti-sold and delayed and it wasn't clear that it would ever come out (surprise, it didn't) and the mix of buyers at the time skewed high since it included a disproportionate amount of Signatures and got just as many sales as Tesla allowed it to. If it weren't for the fact that the company is still supply constrained and the larger packs have a bit higher GM, it would have been Tesla's worst decision. As it is, it's fine enough. But it certainly didn't help adoption, which is the explicit goal of Tesla.

We are still completely in the early adopter phase, so saying it's the best selling EV isn't really saying anything. In fact much of the public clearly does not understand that 100 miles and quick charging takes care of most of their needs, since most of the public are not buying LEAF's, or any other EV.

So I presume that when the Roadster comes out with it's 400 mile battery, and isn't all of a sudden the best-selling car ever, it's going to mean that we need to add more range, because 400 isn't enough in the eyes of the public? Or might there be other issues related to supply, selling constraints, choice, price, and consumer education happening gradually instead of immediately that limit those sales? The last of which is something that we can certainly discourage, and some of us seem to actively do. "The public" doesn't even look at EVs, doesn't have any idea what sort of choice is on offer, because the only people who could be selling them, us, often aren't doing so. Nobody's running ads (except Nissan), nobody's dealers actually try to sell them (except Tesla), and the public in general is completely ignorant of what they can do. And yet the Leaf still makes up more than 50% of pure EV sales.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

As for canceling the 40kWh - which was being anti-sold and delayed and it wasn't clear that it would ever come out (surprise, it didn't) and the mix of buyers at the time skewed high since it included a disproportionate amount of Signatures and got just as many sales as Tesla allowed it to. If it weren't for the fact that the company is still supply constrained and the larger packs have a bit higher GM, it would have been Tesla's worst decision. As it is, it's fine enough. But it certainly didn't help adoption, which is the explicit goal of Tesla.

I disagree that it didn't help adoption. I think the reality would have been an expensive, limited-range (with no Supercharger access) large car with no significant amenities and with underwhelming performance and it would not have sold well at all. Had Tesla been making the battery with the same cells it might have been worth continuing, but with the different cells the low take rate and high demand for other models made it more hassle than it was worth.

 

[JRP3]

So I presume that when the Roadster comes out with it's 400 mile battery, and isn't all of a sudden the best-selling car ever, it's going to mean that we need to add more range, because 400 isn't enough in the eyes of the public?

When you continue to argue from absurdity it rather points out the weakness of your arguments. How can a car that is no longer sold become the best selling car ever? How can a car that retailed for $110K+ become the best selling car ever? What does any of that have to do with the range of the car? Answer: Nothing.

Or might there be other issues related to supply, selling constraints, choice, price, and consumer education happening gradually instead of immediately that limit those sales? The last of which is something that we can certainly discourage, and some of us seem to actively do. "The public" doesn't even look at EVs, doesn't have any idea what sort of choice is on offer, because the only people who could be selling them, us, often aren't doing so. Nobody's running ads (except Nissan), nobody's dealers actually try to sell them (except Tesla), and the public in general is completely ignorant of what they can do. And yet the Leaf still makes up more than 50% of pure EV sales.

What the public "knows" about EV's is they have limited range and cant fuel up quickly. Until the public "knows" at least one of those is no longer true adoption will be slow. The only affordable EV for the general public is the LEAF, and considering it's price point compared to the Model S, the LEAF sales volumes are frankly quite poor. The fact that the Model S at three times the price, only on sale for about 2 years, is at about half the sales volume of the LEAF, which has been on sale for about 3 years, speaks volumes. Not to mention that plenty of LEAF owners complain quite a big about the limited real world range of the vehicle.

 

[FANGO]

When you continue to argue from absurdity it rather points out the weakness of your arguments. How can a car that is no longer sold become the best selling car ever? How can a car that retailed for $110K+ become the best selling car ever? What does any of that have to do with the range of the car? Answer: Nothing.

You know, if you actually bothered to read the things you were responding to, you'd see that the next couple sentences addressed that. It's almost like there's some considerations other than range! Does this mean you've finally come around to reason? Or were you just trying to be contrary and accidentally agreeing, without actually thinking about what you were saying?

What the public "knows" about EV's is they have limited range and cant fuel up quickly.

Yes, and thanks to the tireless advocacy of knowledgeable people like yourself, they will continue to "know" this (thanks for the quotation marks there, they're very applicable), and continue not to buy EVs no matter how suitable they are, just as you seem to want.

 

[JRP3]

Yes, my rational discussion of range reality on this enthusiast forum is killing EV sales. I should be telling them that the 80 mile range LEAF, which can drop below 50 miles under many conditions, is really all the vehicle they need, because FANGO said so. When they say 50 miles of range in the worst conditions isn't enough I should tell them they are wrong. And when they drive 26 miles to work and can't make it home I'll tell them to call FANGO so he can tell them they really are sitting at home in their living room, not stuck on the side of the road.

 

[FANGO]

Is that the same rational discussion where you make up numbers (100 = 26? how interesting) and don't read the things you're responding to? Just making sure we're reading the same discussion here.

 

[NigelM]

Ahem! Step back please folks before it all ends up in snippiness. First and final warning.

 

[Krugerrand]

As for canceling the 40kWh - which was being anti-sold and delayed and it wasn't clear that it would ever come out (surprise, it didn't) and the mix of buyers at the time skewed high since it included a disproportionate amount of Signatures and got just as many sales as Tesla allowed it to. If it weren't for the fact that the company is still supply constrained and the larger packs have a bit higher GM, it would have been Tesla's worst decision. As it is, it's fine enough. But it certainly didn't help adoption, which is the explicit goal of Tesla.

That's not how I remember the events. Regardless, in the end not enough people ordered the 40. It was that simple. 4% was the stat Tesla gave. The decision to then cancel the 40 was easy for Elon/Tesla to make, since Elon already considered it (and I quote) 'hobbled'. Clearly buyers didn't want to pay the price for the amount of mileage. The Model S wasn't a compelling purchase unless it had at least the 60kWh battery and even then the 85kWh battery is the clear preference for buyers. Some of that popularity can likely be attributed to performance.

 

[chickensevil]

That's not how I remember the events. Regardless, in the end not enough people ordered the 40. It was that simple. 4% was the stat Tesla gave. The decision to then cancel the 40 was easy for Elon/Tesla to make, since Elon already considered it (and I quote) 'hobbled'. Clearly buyers didn't want to pay the price for the amount of mileage. The Model S wasn't a compelling purchase unless it had at least the 60kWh battery and even then the 85kWh battery is the clear preference for buyers. Some of that popularity can likely be attributed to performance.

Indeed the same people who would have bought a 40 would have caved for a 60 since that was all that was on offer... And clearly even with the demand of two groups the 60 barely justifies its existance.

 

[Twiddler]

I came here for long term fundamentals. What I got was.....something else.

 

[FANGO]

That's not how I remember the events.

How do you remember them? Because those were the events. When a company actively tries to tank a product, the product tanks. Not surprising. As a short-to-mid-term business decision maybe it was fine. But if they end up doing the same thing to the Model 3 it will not turn out well at all. So I hope Tesla realizes that.

 

[Krugerrand]

How do you remember them? Because those were the events. When a company actively tries to tank a product, the product tanks. Not surprising. As a short-to-mid-term business decision maybe it was fine. But if they end up doing the same thing to the Model 3 it will not turn out well at all. So I hope Tesla realizes that.

I think I already explained what I remember happening. But...okay, if you insist we'll go along with the actively tries to tank a product for the sake of moving along. How does the active tanking of an expensive, premium, large sedan that was mileage and performance hobbled have anything to do with the Model 3, which is intended to fall in a totally different and much larger segment that is far more price and efficiency (mileage) sensitive connect? Oh, never mind.

 

[FANGO]

How does the active tanking of an expensive, premium, large sedan ... have anything to do with the Model 3, which is intended to fall in a totally different and much larger segment that is far more price and efficiency (mileage) sensitive?

Like I said, "As a short-to-mid-term business decision maybe it was fine. But if they end up doing the same thing to the Model 3 it will not turn out well at all. So I hope Tesla realizes that." It sounds like you agree.

 

[Krugerrand]

Like I said, "As a short-to-mid-term business decision maybe it was fine. But if they end up doing the same thing to the Model 3 it will not turn out well at all. So I hope Tesla realizes that." It sounds like you agree.

No, I don't agree. I believe Tesla was correct in not producing the hobbled Model S 40, just as I believe Tesla would be correct in not producing a similarly hobbled Model 3, ie. a Leaf, a Volt, any 'city only' EV.

 

[FANGO]

No, I don't agree. I believe Tesla was correct in not producing the hobbled Model S 40, just as I believe Tesla would be correct in not producing a similarly hobbled Model 3, ie. a Leaf, a Volt, any 'city only' EV.

So one post ago you said that things would be completely different, and now you say that things would be completely the same? Do you think the Model 3 should start at 45k, then? And that the significant price hike would have no effect on the "far more price sensitive segment" which it targets?

 

[Krugerrand]

So one post ago you said that things would be completely different, and now you say that things would be completely the same? Do you think the Model 3 should start at 45k, then? And that the significant price hike would have no effect on the "far more price sensitive segment" which it targets?

No, a post ago I was trying to connect the dots for you on what I thought and failed.

Where does the 45k come from for the Model 3? I'm still hearing 35k from Elon/Tesla before incentives. Do I think most people will buy the 35k base Model 3? Nope, probably not. I think the majority (more than 50%) will option out the Model 3. There's a difference between a more price sensitive segment and the 'most' price sensitive segment. Tesla is aiming for the former and always has been. The car will be compelling enough that I believe they will pull buyers from the latter segment as well, just as they've pulled buyers from lower price segments already for the Model S (and likely Model X).

I believe Tesla will make the right decisions needed to reach their end goal, and I believe they've shown more understanding of what it's going to take to electrify the industry than anyone else. I understand you don't.

 

[FANGO]

The 45k comes from raising the base price of the car by 10k, which is what happened with the Model S (in fact, more than that, but we'll stick with 10k for now, just discussing the 40kWh elimination). What I said is that if they did the same thing to the 3 as they did to the S, things would not work out nearly as well.

Do you think that raising the base price of the Model 3 by 10k is a good idea?

I understand you don't.

Fantastic, then we're in agreement once again! Because I understand that you don't.