Model 3 Battery size

[JeffK]

Actually, GM and Tesla will run out at similar times.

Since Tesla is likely to have a larger volume of cars per quarter, many more TM3s are likely to get the rebate than the GM Bolts.

Chart is from: When Will The $7,500 US Credit Expire For The Tesla Model 3...And Everyone Else?

The graphic assumes Model 3 misses all deadlines.

If Model 3 achieves a volume of 100,000 by the end of Q4 2017 then they will have hit 200,000 US deliveries in Q4 2017 which is three quarters earlier than that graphic shows. If not, and the ramp up is still fairly quick then they hit the 200,000 in Q1 2018... still two quarters earlier than the graphic.

The graphic is 11 months old. Since then we've learned that the Model 3 ramp up will be significantly faster and the Bolt will be sold in lower volume than expected.

Here's the newer graphic:

If it's correct then you may be right!

 

[Model 3]

he's wavered on the "very" affordable car.

No, he did not. It was "... and the third model will be even more affordable".

 

[3Victoria]

Here's the newer graphic

Thanks, that's the one I remembered ... thought GM and Tesla were neck and neck. Also, note that Tesla has said they would play the numbers to maximize the rebates.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

No, he did not. It was "... and the third model will be even more affordable".

No.....the MORE affordable car....as in BEYOND Model 3....

Master Plan, Part Deux


Seems to have been abandoned in favor of "sharing", and he's even said as much.

 

[Model 3]

No.....the MORE affordable car....as in BEYOND Model 3....

Master Plan, Part Deux


Seems to have been abandoned in favor of "sharing", and he's even said as much.

Well, it is definitely not there now, and I read that when the it was first published, looking especially for clues to any future even more affordable models, and I cant remember ever reading what you say. Sure it was there at all any time?

Now it is at least:

Today, Tesla addresses two relatively small segments of premium sedans and SUVs. With the Model 3, a future compact SUV and a new kind of pickup truck, we plan to address most of the consumer market. A lower cost vehicle than the Model 3 is unlikely to be necessary, because of the third part of the plan described below.

 

[daniel]

No.....the MORE affordable car....as in BEYOND Model 3....

Master Plan, Part Deux

Seems to have been abandoned in favor of "sharing", and he's even said as much.

Fascinating read. Thanks for posting that link. So the vision is that with fully autonomous cars. Tesla can become Uber: When you're not driving your car you can choose to send it out to earn money for you, maybe even enough to make your lease payments. This means that anyone who cannot afford a $35,000 car can use the Tesla (Uber-style) app to call for a ride. (In spite of the fact that Uber drivers make very little money and are effectively making well below minimum wage.)

This seems overly-optimistic to me. Uber exists right now. I could use them instead of driving my own car today. But I don't, except when there's a reason I cannot drive, because it's more convenient to drive my own car. And there are some trips where Uber would not be practical, such as long road trips. People want a car for road trips. And they don't want to have to wait for an Uber to arrive.

The market for $15,000 cars will continue to exist. Tesla can ignore that market and be very successful in the upscale car market. But I don't see the autonomous ride-share model eliminating the demand for less-expensive cars.

I think it would have been more reasonable if the article had said that, having spurred so many other automakers into building electric cars, Tesla would leave the Civic-class and econobox market to them in favor of innovation at the high end to push the development of better and more efficient technologies.

 

[JeffK]

In spite of the fact that Uber drivers make very little money and are effectively making well below minimum wage.

This depends on location... in large cities they can make between $20-30/hr. They're also allows to work 10-12 hour days if they wanted. (people don't seem to care about safety)

The point of the network would be to give a choice to either own a car or simply use one. If you can't afford the $35,000 car but you wish to own it, then you could still do that if the car made sufficient money. If you live in a downtown apartment with no parking then you might wish to only use a car instead of owning it. This might be cheaper in the long run than the cost of actually owning the car (no maintenance, no new tires, no waiting for charging, no full time car insurance, etc).

You also wouldn't have to worry about creepy uber drivers following you home and stalking you afterwards.

Many companies see a future world where vehicle ownership declines due to congestion and lack of space. Most cars sit idle for the majority of the day, doing absolutely nothing. In many cities, parking is a premium.

 

[Model 3]

I could use them instead of driving my own car today. But I don't, except when there's a reason I cannot drive, because it's more convenient to drive my own car.

Remember that there is a new generation that is less likely to have "my own car", and will be depended on public communications and taxi/Uber/whatever the few times it isn't any public alternatives, or they want the comfort/privacy of a car.

 

[WarpedOne]

This seems overly-optimistic to me.

There are two possibilities:
- it is overly-optimistic
- you don't understand it full

Which will it be?

FSD cars enable much more than just an Uber like service. They enable very efficient private car pooling/sharing. Say 5 people go and buy themselves two M3. Each pays only $14k and gets right to use one (or both) of those cars anytime he wishes so.
If those 5 people find that having just two cars is not enough, they can buy themselves another one for $7k per person. If they have very different schedules they can start off with just one car for $7k per person.

FSD enables the car to come in-front of your house or condo in a few minutes after you wished to go somewhere.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

As for me, I'm fully onboard with FSD...but not sharing. The car can sit at home until summoned by my wife or myself, but that's about it.

 

[dsvick]

This depends on location... in large cities they can make between $20-30/hr. They're also allows to work 10-12 hour days if they wanted. (people don't seem to care about safety)

Keep in mind too that if, several years from now, there are a couple thousand Teslas available for sharing in a city, that each person's income would be greatly reduced.

 

[JeffK]

Keep in mind too that if, several years from now, there are a couple thousand Teslas available for sharing in a city, that each person's income would be greatly reduced.

They might want to start looking for jobs or new education opportunities now. We know Uber wants to go the self driving route themselves eventually.

 

[arnis]

Here's the newer graphic:

I'm not sure GM will be able to push LG that far that fast. Tesla needs Gigafactory to break the limit that fast. Can LG offer that many 60kWh packs? It requires double the capacity compared to, let's say, 30kWh Leaf pack. Tesla was pushing Panasonic really hard with Model S. And it took years to get that far.
Also I read somewhere that GM is not planning to produce that many Bolts. And... EU will get Ampera-E which is "totally different vehicle" that will also require capacity from LG.

At the same time, I also expect Tesla to play with 200 000 limit for longer. One quarter maybe. Redirect more sales to overseas for example Keep 199 for one more quarter

 

[SpiceWare]

I'm not sure GM will be able to push LG that far that fast. /QUOTE]

Have Volt sales tanked? They've sold quite a few of those in the US over the past 6 years, and those count towards the 200K to trigger the phaseout.

 

[MP3Mike]

I'm not sure GM will be able to push LG that far that fast. Tesla needs Gigafactory to break the limit that fast. Can LG offer that many 60kWh packs? It requires double the capacity compared to, let's say, 30kWh Leaf pack. Tesla was pushing Panasonic really hard with Model S. And it took years to get that far.

I think people keep forgetting that each Volt sold uses up a credit too, and it doesn't have a 60kWh pack.

 

[JeffK]

only 24.7k US sales in 2016

 

[Rashomon]

Tesla will not have the capacity for a massive scale ecobox for many years. Tesla is building a bunch of little building in Fremont because they don't even have the capital to start constructing a second car factory.

At the rate orders are going, the M3 will be among the largest production quantity auto models in the world. Even at the reduced costs expected initially from the Gigafactory, battery cost is still likely to be upward of 40 percent of total vehicle cost. As battery costs drop further, there will be room for price reductions on base model M3. Between the M3 and the MY from the same platform, there is likely a conceivable annual market for 1M+ units a year, and perhaps more. It's enough to keep Tesla busy for awhile, while leaving zero margin econoboxes to companies that need them for compliance.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm not sure GM will be able to push LG that far that fast. Tesla needs Gigafactory to break the limit that fast. Can LG offer that many 60kWh packs? It requires double the capacity compared to, let's say, 30kWh Leaf pack. Tesla was pushing Panasonic really hard with Model S. And it took years to get that far.
Also I read somewhere that GM is not planning to produce that many Bolts. And... EU will get Ampera-E which is "totally different vehicle" that will also require capacity from LG.

At the same time, I also expect Tesla to play with 200 000 limit for longer. One quarter maybe. Redirect more sales to overseas for example Keep 199 for one more quarter

As others mentioned, the Volt counts towards GM's total, that's why GM has used up a considerable amount of their quota already (more than Tesla did). Given Tesla has a considerable amount of overseas demand, you are right that they can play the allocation game (less focus on US deliveries to maximize how long the credit lasts). GM doesn't have as much flexibility given the Volt is largely a US vehicle.

 

[Blissedout]

Let me quote a simple reply to that



So essentially that article is just clickbait, Elon isn't going anywhere.

One person's clickbait is another person's lunch. Your point is well taken. But giving up his CEO position means that some of his attention will go elsewhere. I think his greatest desire is to colonize Mars. To me that means more of his attention will go to Space X.

However, you may well ask, what is this post doing in a Model 3 battery size thread? Beats me.

 

[Red Sage]

While I agree with the above and it is certainly plausable I think the everything under 35k market is too big to ignore. Time will tell

There is a video on YouTube of a guy (who was apparently banned in these forums, so I won't link to it) that reasoned why a Tesla Model ≡ will be comparable in ownership cost to a Toyota Corolla already. The presentation is on a whiteboard and the guy is perhaps on the skittish side, but his principles seem sound. A Model ≡ will not be as financially frugal to own as a newly purchased Ford Fiesta, Kia Rio, Hyundai Accent, Nissan VERSA, or Chevrolet SONIC, but it doesn't have to be.

The average sale price of a new car in the U.S. is over $33,000. And the base Model ≡ will be comparable in ownership cost to a $22,000 car over five years. The Accord, Camry, 6, MALIBU, Altima, Sonata, Fusion, and Optima all have configurations that exceed $30,000 despite being 'normal' or 'ordinary' cars. So the Model ≡ is perfectly placed for NEW car sales.

In 2015 the average sale price for used cars was over $18,000 and in 2016 the selling price for used vehicles cleared $19,000. That is another reason why Tesla doesn't need to race to the bottom of the market. Because the 'average person' buys a used car, and the 'bottom' is continually rising.