Model 3 Dimensions

[Frank99]

Whenever I find myself getting a wee bit antsy about the wait, I refer back to this (especially the first two bullets):
Thoughts From an Old Timer

Oh, man, I missed that one. It's got to be even more true now with the 3 than it was with the S/X!

 

[BluestarE3]

Whenever I get antsy about the M3....I go out and buy another MS because that's what us rich people do.

Given the subject of discussion in this thread is "Model 3 Dimensions", can we assume yours will be longer than everyone else's?

 

[Garlan Garner]

Given the subject of discussion in this thread is "Model 3 Dimensions", can we assume yours will be longer than everyone else's?

I don't understand. That went over my head.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Maybe they could do without the shareholders and investors. Maybe they could stay afloat without any investment or shareholders. If that's true......then imagine what they would be able to do IF they now had shareholders. <-------- I'm being semi-sarcastic.

His point is that the fickleness of investors doesn't really affect the company until the company is doing a funding round. However, what customers think has a direct continuous effect on the company in terms of sales. As a company, you can't ignore shareholders and investors (after all, they are part owners in the company), but keeping customers happy is far more important to keeping afloat than keeping shareholders happy.

A lot of the general public have the misconception that when the stock price goes down, companies actually are losing that amount of money. The reality is it doesn't really affect the company until there is a funding round (other than smaller points like stock-based compensation to employees). The stock market can be very fickle and there can be large changes in the price for no apparent reason.

 

[ohmman]

His point is that the fickleness of investors doesn't really affect the company until the company is doing a funding round. However, what customers think has a direct continuous effect on the company in terms of sales. As a company, you can't ignore shareholders and investors (after all, they are part owners in the company), but keeping customers happy is far more important to keeping afloat than keeping shareholders happy.

A lot of the general public have the misconception that when the stock price goes down, companies actually are losing that amount of money. The reality is it doesn't really affect the company until there is a funding round (other than smaller points like stock-based compensation to employees). The stock market can be very fickle and there can be large changes in the price for no apparent reason.

Thanks for reading my post exactly as I intended it. You've done a good job clarifying as well.

For reference, here's Elon's take on being public (his letter to SpaceX employees about going public). It touches on some of the challenges Tesla has faced due to being a publicly owned company.

From: Elon Musk

Date: June 7, 2013, 12:43:06 AM PDT

To: All [email protected]

Subject: Going Public

Per my recent comments, I am increasingly concerned about SpaceX going public before the Mars transport system is in place. Creating the technology needed to establish life on Mars is and always has been the fundamental goal of SpaceX. If being a public company diminishes that likelihood, then we should not do so until Mars is secure. This is something that I am open to reconsidering, but, given my experiences with Tesla and SolarCity, I am hesitant to foist being public on SpaceX, especially given the long term nature of our mission.

Some at SpaceX who have not been through a public company experience may think that being public is desirable. This is not so.Public company stocks, particularly if big step changes in technology are involved, go through extreme volatility, both for reasons of internal execution and for reasons that have nothing to do with anything except the economy. This causes people to be distracted by the manic-depressive nature of the stock instead of creating great products.

It is important to emphasize that Tesla and SolarCity are public because they didn't have any choice. Their private capital structure was becoming unwieldy and they needed to raise a lot of equity capital. SolarCity also needed to raise a huge amount of debt at the lowest possible interest rate to fund solar leases. The banks who provide that debt wanted SolarCity to have the additional painful scrutiny that comes with being public. Those rules, referred to as Sarbanes-Oxley, essentially result in a tax being levied on company execution by requiring detailed reporting right down to how your meal is expensed during travel and you can be penalized even for minor mistakes.

YES, BUT I COULD MAKE MORE MONEY IF WE WERE PUBLIC

For those who are under the impression that they are so clever that they can outsmart public market investors and would sell SpaceX stock at the "right time," let me relieve you of any such notion. If you really are better than most hedge fund managers, then there is no need to worry about the value of your SpaceX stock, as you can just invest in other public stocks and make billions of dollars in the market.

If you think: "Ah, but I know what's really going on at SpaceX and that will give me an edge," you are also wrong. Selling public company stock with insider knowledge is illegal. As a result, selling public stock is restricted to narrow time windows a few times per year. Even then, you can be prosecuted for insider trading. At Tesla, we had both an employee and an investor go through a grand jury investigation for selling stock over a year ago, despite them doing everything right in both the letter and the spirit of the law. Not fun.

Another thing that happens to public companies is that you become a target of the trial lawyers who create a class action lawsuit by getting someone to buy a few hundred shares and then pretending to sue the company on behalf of all investors for any drop in the stock price. Tesla is going through that right now even though the stock price is relatively high, because the drop in question occurred last year.

It is also not correct to think that because Tesla and SolarCity share prices are on the lofty side right now, that SpaceX would be too. Public companies are judged on quarterly performance. Just because some companies are doing well, doesn't mean that all would. Both of those companies (Tesla in particular) had great first quarter results. SpaceX did not. In fact, financially speaking, we had an awful first quarter. If we were public, the short sellers would be hitting us over the head with a large stick.

We would also get beaten up every time there was an anomaly on the rocket or spacecraft, as occurred on flight 4 with the engine failure and flight 5 with the Dragon prevalves. Delaying launch of V1.1, which is now over a year behind schedule, would result in particularly severe punishment, as that is our primary revenue driver. Even something as minor as pushing a launch back a few weeks from one quarter to the next gets you a spanking. Tesla vehicle production in Q4 last year was literally only three weeks behind and yet the market response was brutal.

BEST OF BOTH WORLDS

My goal at SpaceX is to give you the best aspects of a public and private company. When we do a financing round, the stock price is keyed off of approximately what we would be worth if publicly traded, excluding irrational exuberance or depression, but without the pressure and distraction of being under a hot public spotlight. Rather than have the stock up during one liquidity window and down during another, the goal is a steady upward trend and never to let the share price go below the last round. The end result for you (or an investor in SpaceX) financially will be the same as if we were public and you sold a steady amount of stock every year.

In case you are wondering about a specific number, I can say that I'm confident that our long term stock price will be over $100 if we execute well on Falcon 9 and Dragon. For this to be the case, we must have a steady and rapid cadence of launch that is far better than what we have achieved in the past. We have more work ahead of us than you probably realize. Let me give you a sense of where things stand financially: SpaceX expenses this year will be roughly $800 to $900 million (which blows my mind btw). Since we get revenue of $60M for every F9 flight or double that for a FH or F9-Dragon flight, we must have about twelve flights per year where four of those flights are either Dragon or Heavy merely in order to achieve 10% profitability!

For the next few years, we have NASA commercial crew funding that helps supplement those numbers, but, after that, we are on our own. That is not much time to finish F9, FH, Dragon V2 and achieve an average launch rate of at least one per month. And bear in mind that is an average, so if we take an extra three weeks to launch a rocket for any reason (could even be due to the satellite), we have only one week to do the follow-on-flight.

MY RECOMMENDATION

Below is my advice about regarding selling SpaceX stock or options. No complicated analysis is required, as the rules of thumb are pretty simple. If you believe that SpaceX will execute better than the average public company, then our stock price will continue to appreciate at a rate greater than that of the stock market, which would be the next highest return place to invest money over the long term. Therefore, you should sell only the amount that you need to improve your standard of living in the short to medium term. I do actually recommend selling some amount of stock, even if you are certain it will appreciate, as life is short and a bit more cash can increase fun and reduce stress at home (so long as you don't ratchet up your ongoing personal expenditures proportionately).

To maximize your post tax return, you are probably best off exercising your options to convert them to stock (if you can afford to do this) and then holding the stock for a year before selling it at our roughly biannual liquidity events. This allows you to pay the capital gains tax rate, instead of the income tax rate.

On a final note, we are planning to do a liquidity event as soon as Falcon 9 qualification is complete in one to two months. I don't know exactly what the share price will be yet, but, based on initial conversations with investors, I would estimate probably between $30 and $35. This places the value of SpaceX at $4 to $5 billion, which is about what it would be if we were public right now and, frankly, an excellent number considering that the new F9, FH and Dragon V2 have yet to launch.

Elon

 

[Red Sage]

I don't believe Tesla is ever lying about what they are trying to do. What I don't understand is why they seem to struggle to do what they say they are going to do. Such as meeting dates and deadlines. I'm not a large shareholder by any means, but what keeps a company such as Tesla afloat are their shareholders/investors. Tesla couldn't be where they are without them. Sooo.....there is a level of public honesty and information owed to shareholders. I suppose no one will know if they are on track or not until they miss/make a date associated with their goals and public promises.

Well, most of the issues they tackle are typically described as 'impossible' by laymen. True enough, the impossible happens every day, and it is the improbable that most people can't seem to wrap their minds about... But that doesn't mean that impossible comes easily either.

 

[patreeko]

No it isn't. They are completely different vehicles. That has been the intent all along.

Only if you are thinking in traditional automobile production terms. I fail to see any part of Tesla's infrastructure that remotely resembles what came before. Traditional automobiles don't have an integrated battery-pack/drivetrain/suspension skateboard unit that defines their wheelbase. There's a big difference between chopping or extending inches on a steel tube frame and making the same adjustment to a skateboard. The Model X is 0.2 inches longer wheel base than the S. The slight difference suggests that it was necessary for some reason, but that a longer extension wasn't cost effective.

Most of the estimates have been that the Model 3 will be only a few inches shorter wheelbase than the S and X. Now consider the costs of ramping up parallel manufacturing for the most expensive part of these automobiles for the sake of 3 inches. That just makes no logical sense. We know Tesla will very likely also build a hatchback model of the 3, so this is more than just another car, it's a new platform. Does 3 inches in wheelbase a whole new platform make? I'm skeptical. Epecially considering that the Roadster had a whopping 24-inch shorter wheel base... it's obviously not going to be the platform for the next gen Roadster unless the Model 3 is dramatically shorter than current estimates or the next gen Roadster is going to be a monster longer than a Corvette. Which IMO doesn't really seem likely. If it was really going to have a shorter wheelbase, why not make it more like 10 inches shorter, which would make the design of the 3 more like a traditional small car, and be more within the range of a sports car for the Roadster? If the goal here is making the Model 3 as cheaply as possible, then having a separate production line for the most expensive part of the vehicle really doesn't sound like the best way to meet that goal.

What makes more sense than 3 inches shorter, is a wheelbase within the margins of the S and X on a new skateboard that in turn becomes the basis for the planned S and X redesign in the next few years. Remember that the relatively long S/X wheelbase makes it a contender for a pickup or light duty box truck. And then the Roadster could have it's own custom platform that it's high cost would pay for. That follows closer with what they've been doing so far... which is developing mechanical parts in the way that software has been designed for decades. They improve one model and those improvements get shared with the other models. That is vastly different than the kind of thinking that drives traditional automotive manufacturing.

 

[patreeko]

Oh, but you are entirely wrong about the wheelbase thing. There is no way the Model ☰ has the same wheelbase as the Model S. When I was a kid and my Mom would decide to change the furniture around, I was her work mule. She'd say, "Put the couch over there." I'd say, "It won't fit!" She'd say, "I wanna see it!" So I'd move the couch, and it wouldn't fit, and she'd see it didn't fit, and she'd ask me to move it somewhere else.

Found this photo floating around. Even taking into account the perspective effects... the two big things I'm seeing in this photo is that the 3 is taller than the S and the wheels are larger (assuming a stock 19-inch-rim on the S). Those two factors act together to make the car look smaller than it really is. We see the proportion of the wheels to the height and in our heads we make it smaller, because we are used to seeing cars of this layout with tiny little wheels on them.

This animation makes my point pretty plainly... the animator has assumed that the cars are the same height, but the result is dramatically smaller tires on the 3, which we know isn't true.

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/model-s-to-3-side-flip-gif.176122/

 

[melindav]

Model 3 (MT estimate)....184"L x 74"W x 56 ½"H 113"WB with 20" wheels
Model S: ...........................196"L x 77"W x 57" H 116.5"WB

 

[JoRey]

Im good, so long as there is a specious frunk and same or better cargo and space as a gen 2 prius.

 

[Red Sage]

Only if you are thinking in traditional automobile production terms. I fail to see any part of Tesla's infrastructure that remotely resembles what came before. Traditional automobiles don't have an integrated battery-pack/drivetrain/suspension skateboard unit that defines their wheelbase. There's a big difference between chopping or extending inches on a steel tube frame and making the same adjustment to a skateboard. The Model X is 0.2 inches longer wheel base than the S. The slight difference suggests that it was necessary for some reason, but that a longer extension wasn't cost effective.

Most of the estimates have been that the Model 3 will be only a few inches shorter wheelbase than the S and X. Now consider the costs of ramping up parallel manufacturing for the most expensive part of these automobiles for the sake of 3 inches. That just makes no logical sense. We know Tesla will very likely also build a hatchback model of the 3, so this is more than just another car, it's a new platform. Does 3 inches in wheelbase a whole new platform make? I'm skeptical. Epecially considering that the Roadster had a whopping 24-inch shorter wheel base... it's obviously not going to be the platform for the next gen Roadster unless the Model 3 is dramatically shorter than current estimates or the next gen Roadster is going to be a monster longer than a Corvette. Which IMO doesn't really seem likely. If it was really going to have a shorter wheelbase, why not make it more like 10 inches shorter, which would make the design of the 3 more like a traditional small car, and be more within the range of a sports car for the Roadster? If the goal here is making the Model 3 as cheaply as possible, then having a separate production line for the most expensive part of the vehicle really doesn't sound like the best way to meet that goal.

What makes more sense than 3 inches shorter, is a wheelbase within the margins of the S and X on a new skateboard that in turn becomes the basis for the planned S and X redesign in the next few years. Remember that the relatively long S/X wheelbase makes it a contender for a pickup or light duty box truck. And then the Roadster could have it's own custom platform that it's high cost would pay for. That follows closer with what they've been doing so far... which is developing mechanical parts in the way that software has been designed for decades. They improve one model and those improvements get shared with the other models. That is vastly different than the kind of thinking that drives traditional automotive manufacturing.

Found this photo floating around. Even taking into account the perspective effects... the two big things I'm seeing in this photo is that the 3 is taller than the S and the wheels are larger (assuming a stock 19-inch-rim on the S). Those two factors act together to make the car look smaller than it really is. We see the proportion of the wheels to the height and in our heads we make it smaller, because we are used to seeing cars of this layout with tiny little wheels on them.

This animation makes my point pretty plainly... the animator has assumed that the cars are the same height, but the result is dramatically smaller tires on the 3, which we know isn't true.

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/model-s-to-3-side-flip-gif.176122/

Tesla Motors has only been saying exactly what I wrote for over a year. You don't have to believe me, but it's true. There is basically NOTHING being carried over untouched from Generation II to Generation III vehicles. There will be no parts, components, or fixtures that are shared from Model S and Model X with Model ☰. The Model ☰ is a completely different platform from the ground up. It will not use the same battery cells, or the same battery modules, or the same battery packs -- at all. I predicted the Model ☰ would have dimensions practically equivalent to the Motor Trend estimates over two years ago. I also predicted that the Model ☰ would be classified as a Midsize car by the EPA, despite having a general footprint that was about the same size as the Compact cars it will compete against directly. The Model ☰ will be built on completely different assembly lines than either Model S or Model X because it makes perfect sense. You don't have to believe me, but it's true. It is very late for me, so I'm going to bed now. G'night.

 

[garsh]

Now consider the costs of ramping up parallel manufacturing for the most expensive part of these automobiles for the sake of 3 inches. That just makes no logical sense.

Ummm... the whole point of the Model 3 is that - unlike the S/X - it has been designed to be easier to manufacturer, especially in an automated fashion.

Tesla has absolutely no plans to re-use the same assembly lines/methods when manufacturing the Model 3. They ARE planning on ramping up additional manufacturing lines for the Model 3. I don't claim to know why the Model 3 would be only 3 inches shorter than the S, but I feel pretty confident that it has nothing to do with building 3's on the same production lines as the S/X.

 

[Zoomit]

Found this photo floating around. Even taking into account the perspective effects... the two big things I'm seeing in this photo is that the 3 is taller than the S and the wheels are larger (assuming a stock 19-inch-rim on the S). Those two factors act together to make the car look smaller than it really is. We see the proportion of the wheels to the height and in our heads we make it smaller, because we are used to seeing cars of this layout with tiny little wheels on them.

This animation makes my point pretty plainly... the animator has assumed that the cars are the same height, but the result is dramatically smaller tires on the 3, which we know isn't true.

To set the record straight, there are a few inaccuracies in this post.
- The reveal Model 3's have 20" wheels, the Model S pictured has 21" wheels
- The 3 and S are very similar in height
- The side pictures of both cars were taken by Motor Trend from the same location, with the same camera/lens, and with the cars in matched locations.

Here is my morphing version of the side pictures. This in no way manipulates the relative sizes of each vehicle.
View media item 114951

 

[ecarfan]

@Zoomit 's remarkable "morphing version" makes clear that the 3 is the same height as the S, the 3 front end is shorter ahead of the front axle and the rear end is significantly shorter. It also shows that the 3 wheelbase is slightly shorter, as would be expected.

But the most remarkable thing I notice is that the door handles are in the same location relative to the rest of the car yet the leading edge of the front door is much more forward compared to the S and the rear edge of the back door is just about the same location as the S. That tells me that the 3 passenger cabin space is at least the equal of the S but the length of the front and back doors is slightly longer meaning the 3 will have easier ingress/egress than the S. Which is amazing. The sacrifice the 3 design makes to achieve that is in smaller front and rear trunks.

 

[Snow Drift]

Model 3 (MT estimate)....184"L x 74"W x 56 ½"H 113"WB with 20" wheels
Model S: ...........................196"L x 77"W x 57" H 116.5"WB

These estimates put it properly in relation to the Audi A4 and BMW 340, which are the Tesla M3's benchmarks.

 

[AudubonB]

As appropriate here as in any other Model 3 thread:

Although this afternoon's (Sunday, 23 Oct 2016) AMA Q&A with Mr Musk was supposed to be limited to SpaceX, one Tesla question managed to sneak itself in and get answered -

(paraphrasing the Q).....reveal anything that we don't yet know about the Model 3?

A: It won't look like any other automobile.

 

[BluestarE3]

(paraphrasing the Q).....reveal anything that we don't yet know about the Model 3?

A: It won't look like any other automobile.

Basically the same answer he gave a year or so ago before the reveal.
But now that we know what the exterior looks like, could he be referring to the interior? Or is this just a snarky answer (any car model won't exactly look like any other automobile) because he didn't appreciate getting a Tesla Motors question in a Space X AMA?

 

[AudubonB]

My immediate assumption was that yes, he indeed was referring to the interior. There has been a LOT of speculation, raised to near-fever pitch in the past week or so, and especially since the Musk "non"-announcment about "Model 3 Release 2", of HUD, Level 5 controls, and more, coming to the Model 3. Sure, why not?!?!

 

[Red Sage]

Or is this just a snarky answer (any car model won't exactly look like any other automobile) because he didn't appreciate getting a Tesla Motors question in a Space X AMA?

Hi. Have you met Toyota?