No AWD for Model 3 until next year confirmed

[ohmman]

No, it's really not going to be a free-for-all. I'm surprised this idea is persisting despite direct evidence and past precedent to the contrary.

Elon Musk has clearly and unambiguously stated your place in line matters for AWD. This happened just 3 weeks ago, so we know their plans won't have changed since then.

Tim Shelton on Twitter


Elon Musk on Twitter

I'm definitely open to being wrong on this - in fact, I'd welcome it since it would work out for me. I tried to make it clear that it was my guess.

Configuration with the Model X was truly a bit of a free-for-all. They opened the design studio in blocks, but they were large blocks relative to the number of reservations (about 5000 reservations per week out of ~22k reservations, increasing at the end). If one used the same ratio for Model 3, and note that I'm not saying this is realistic, it would be something like 80k reservations getting design studio access every week. If you're undecided for a week, in would come another 80k reservation holders who could pull the trigger faster than you. With the X, there were open questions and many owners who had reservations for years wound up in line behind the general public.

My point is mostly that we shouldn't expect it to be entirely orderly. With Model X, Tesla was willing to give you approximate access to your spot in line, but you had to be ready to pull the trigger on a vehicle unseen with outstanding questions (hidden charger options, for instance). I foresee similar situations with the Model 3 that could upset certain people if they don't meter their expectations.

 

[smac]

Indeed, I can see it turning out exactly the way you say.

Then again, if Tesla does post AWD, they can collect deposits for those AWD orders and honor early reservationists queue better/easier. There would be some upsides (and precedent) to that as well. After all, Tesla did post Model X five-seater around a year before availability...

AnxietyRanger, it certainly would be a good "tell" on which optic they are trying to maximise. Cash flow or volume. I think they've set the scene for poor cash flow and margins initially, so the markets are expecting it. If volume is sub-par however that would be a bigger problem.

Also given the importance on quarterly number reporting, holding off the AWD deposit book gives them scope to manage the timing better, opening the AWD to further juice things at a manageable time.

(All IMHO)

 

[AnxietyRanger]

And of course the international order of things was even less ordely. Just as with Model S, Model X Signature orders and deliveries to outside of U.S. came well after U.S. general public sales and at the same time as regular deliveries to outside of U.S... the only place where Signature status only really mattered was in the U.S. and this was the same for both Model S and Model X.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

AnxietyRanger, it certainly would be a good "tell" on which optic they are trying to maximise. Cash flow or volume. I think they've set the scene for poor cash flow and margins initially, so the markets are expecting it. If volume is sub-par however that would be a bigger problem.

Also given the importance on quarterly number reporting, holding off the AWD deposit book gives them scope to manage the timing better, opening the AWD to further juice things at a manageable time.

(All IMHO)

No arguments from me, all very plausible. Still, I can't completely shake the idea that AWD might be offered from the start with a "Deliveries start in 2018" warning (sufficiently vague to rush RWD orders but still lure in those for whom AWD is the only choice)...

 

[boaterva]

No arguments from me, all very plausible. Still, I can't completely shake the idea that AWD might be offered from the start with a "Deliveries start in 2018" warning (sufficiently vague to rush RWD orders but still lure in those for whom AWD is the only choice)...

Agree, I would hope they've learned and improved and with the magnitude of the number of rezs this time, would code the 'deferred' options (AWD, P) appropriately and open everything up. If you have to have one of those, you are scheduled for starting 2018 or whenever. If you want ASAP, an option for that would be a good idea: for any constrained options, delete if needed, same for wheels/color. I want it literally ASAP, do what needs to happen to make it so.

 

[smac]

@boatevra I'm sure they have learned.

Unfortunately, and it's somewhat inevitable by the way Tesla are funded, that the "end customers" are less important than the "markets".

My experience has been that if you view Tesla's actions under the light of what will please the markets best, then broadly speaking that is more likely to happen than catering to any one individual customer's hopes. (Personally I'd be far better off having put my 18+ month $5k deposit down into TSLA, than as a deposit on my Model S, which was superseded weeks after delivery by AP cars).

(Please take this as matter of fact rather than a sleight on Tesla, it is the world we operate in )

 

[daniel]

I'm definitely open to being wrong on this - in fact, I'd welcome it since it would work out for me. I tried to make it clear that it was my guess.

Configuration with the Model X was truly a bit of a free-for-all. They opened the design studio in blocks, but they were large blocks relative to the number of reservations (about 5000 reservations per week out of ~22k reservations, increasing at the end). If one used the same ratio for Model 3, and note that I'm not saying this is realistic, it would be something like 80k reservations getting design studio access every week. ...

It makes far more sense that block size would be based on the capacity of their servers to handle the traffic, than on preserving the ratio of block size to total advance reservations of the Model X. If their servers had trouble handling the traffic on Model X ordering, they might well reduce the block size for Model 3. It seems ridiculous that they would use the same ratio with a car that has 400,000 reservations that they used for a car that had 22,000 reservations. I think they'll look at how the Model X ordering and delivery went, and try to improve on it, rather than sticking with the previous method. Tesla is nothing if not innovative.

 

[daniel]

@boatevra I'm sure they have learned.

Unfortunately, and it's somewhat inevitable by the way Tesla are funded, that the "end customers" are less important than the "markets".

But they need happy customers in order to keep selling cars, and they need to sell cars to keep the market happy. I've always been treated extremely well by Tesla.

FWIW, my first new car was a 1976 CJ5 Jeep. I was treated like sh!t.
My next car was a 1989 Honda Civic. I was treated like royalty.
Next was the 2004 Toyota Prius. I was treated okay. Not great, not terrible.
The dealer who sold me the Zap Xebra did the best he could.
Tesla has been great. Zero-pressure sales experience, great service.

 

[smac]

@daniel Completely agree, a great customer service is a huge metric. One thing I'm worried about is rather than it being an ethos, it is a performance metric. I recently sold my business, and one thing we missed in retrospect is some of the metrification of customer service scoring (from a valuation POV). The acquiring company was far more focused on NPS scores etc. (They were listed, we weren't)

Unfortunately mine has been the worst of any car I've ever owned (To the point I've received government fines for Tesla's ineptitude)

My last 4 cars, got dropped off at my office, got picked up for service annually (or in some cases once every 2 years), then picked up and swapped for my next choice. I just shopped around online (or by phone) for 3 year BCH maintenance deals and that was it.

Best service was from Lotus. Sent me pictures of my car leaving the factory, arriving at the dealership, constant updates, and no "punch lists" post delivery. I'm not expecting this from Tesla btw, it's not scalable, it's just the difference from caring about the customers and caring about your NPS score.

 

[S3XY]

It makes far more sense that block size would be based on the capacity of their servers to handle the traffic, than on preserving the ratio of block size to total advance reservations of the Model X. If their servers had trouble handling the traffic on Model X ordering, they might well reduce the block size for Model 3. It seems ridiculous that they would use the same ratio with a car that has 400,000 reservations that they used for a car that had 22,000 reservations. I think they'll look at how the Model X ordering and delivery went, and try to improve on it, rather than sticking with the previous method. Tesla is nothing if not innovative.

It would make the most sense if the block size were based on lead time. Assuming this is the case then they might determine they need to have say, a pool of 10 or 12 weeks of production configurations in the queue so that batches can be determined and to ensure that part inventories are available when a particular batch hits the line. Whatever they determine is a sufficient lead time will then equate to how many reservation holders the configuration page is opened to. Using simple math, this means as production capacity increases so will the size of each block of reservation holders that are given access to the configuration page. So if at the beginning they think they can average 2,000 cars per week over the first 12 weeks, then they would open the page up to around 24,000 reservation holders. In December of 2017 when they're expecting to average around 4,000 cars per week they would open the page to an additional 4,000 people each week, or 8,000 every other week or maybe 16,000 every 4 weeks. This is of course in a nearly perfect world. There are many other factors, like part availability, that could throw a wrench into the process.

tl;dr The amount of people that are given access to the configuration page will likely be based on a pre-determined production lead time and will vary/increase in proportion to the production capacity as it increases.

 

[S3XY]

My expectation is that when the design studio opens, it'll open in reservation blocks the way they did with the Model X. You can choose to configure and order at that time or wait (defer). This is the way Tesla gives you priority, and choosing to wait means that you're waiving your reservation priority. Again, precisely how they handled the Model X.

I am assuming that when the design studio first opens, it will not have AWD as an option. The options available for configuration will be the options available for immediate builds. So that implies that a lot of people who are ordering RWD vehicles, but who reserved after me and are not current owners/California residents/etc., will jump in front of me as their design studios open.

At the time AWD is available for configuration, I'll be able to place my order and it will be put in queue.

Again, that's my guess as to how it will work, informed to some degree by how they handled Model X.

Agreed. They can't build cars for which they do not have configurations. In other words, you snooze you lose. I also think that AWD might not be an option from the start but I think it will be added fairly soon after the first few blocks of configurations. It would be in Tesla's interest to know how many front motors they will need to have in inventory weeks in advance of actually installing them into cars. Sure, there will be many line jumpers but there should be a big enough pool of reservations holders, both those wanting RWD and AWD, to not have the build queue be way out of whack from the order of reservations. Early on I would obviously expect region to play a large part in the order of builds. But I also expect that to wane fairly quickly as they find problems and are able to respond to them.

Also, the number of early S and X reservation holders were orders of magnitude smaller than that for the Model 3. Given that, and having tier 1 instead of tier 3 or 4 suppliers should allow Tesla to produce the configurations in the order that they want to rather than out of necessity (parts being unavailable or defective). So although I'm not naive enough to think that everything will go swimmingly, I do expect production to be much smoother than it was for the S and X. /rose colored glasses

 

[juanmedina]

I wonder why the performance version takes longer than the regular AWD?

I understand why going from RWD to AWD takes more time but the performance version taking more times doesn't make sense

 

[JeffK]

I wonder why the performance version takes longer than the regular AWD?

I understand why going from RWD to AWD takes more time but the performance version taking more times doesn't make sense

I'd imagine that there are greater forces generated, therefore higher chance of mechanical failure, and different driving dynamics with more weight in the back. Of course, this testing is probably already done, it's a matter of configuring the manufacturing line... RWD is probably the highest demand following by AWD then P AWD.

 

[daniel]

@daniel[...] Unfortunately mine has been the worst of any car I've ever owned [...]

it's just the difference from caring about the customers and caring about your NPS score.

I'm really sorry that you've had so much trouble with your car.

But isn't NPS just a way to measure customer satisfaction? In a mom and pop store it's meaningful to talk about caring about their customers. But in a huge corporation, the only way the CEO can gauge whether his employees are treating his customers well is the metric. A corporation is not a feeling entity that can care or not care. It's a collection of thousands of employees and executives.

It would make the most sense if the block size were based on lead time. [...snip...]

tl;dr The amount of people that are given access to the configuration page will likely be based on a pre-determined production lead time and will vary/increase in proportion to the production capacity as it increases.

Still, rather than opening the design studio to 4,000 buyers per week, they could open it to 570 per day. That would reduce the traffic jam on the servers. And they could still maintain your place in the queue by reservation date as long as you didn't wait too long to order. Not everybody would jump in on the same day they get the invitation, but enough would to help reduce the overload.

And with AWD already announced, I would seem very odd to say, "Sorry, if you want AWD you cannot even indicate your preference now. Come back when you hear that we've announced availability. Oh, and you lose your place in line if you want to wait for AWD." Much more likely would be a note, "AWD not available yet. If you order AWD your car will be delivered when it becomes available."

ETA: Whether they maintain the queue by reservation date, or by the date you manage to get in to the design studio, is just a decision they will make. There's no reason it must be one or the other, other than the promise they've made that it will be by reservation date. That's assuming you order the car within a reasonable time of getting the invitation. If the difference is a few days or a week, I don't really care. If it's a month or more, I do care.

 

[dsvick]

I could see a block size of maybe ten thousand or so each month for the first few months. I think that that would give them a sufficient pool or orders to be able to continuously build only RWD for a few months and still give them a healthy sampling of what everyone wants so they can plan future production. Then, as they get closer to the end of the year, they'll start letting larger and larger groups in, until they're at over 20K per month.

As far as AWD vs FWD, I'm hoping AWD is available for everyone when they first configure, so you can choose it and keep your relative place in the production queue.

 

[JeffK]

I could see a block size of maybe ten thousand or so each month for the first few months. I think that that would give them a sufficient pool or orders to be able to continuously build only RWD for a few months and still give them a healthy sampling of what everyone wants so they can plan future production. Then, as they get closer to the end of the year, they'll start letting larger and larger groups in, until they're at over 20K per month.

As far as AWD vs FWD, I'm hoping AWD is available for everyone when they first configure, so you can choose it and keep your relative place in the production queue.

If Elon was saying that there's a good chance an early preorder might get an AWD model before the end of the year, I'd say that it'll be on the site when people first configure.

 

[daniel]

I could see a block size of maybe ten thousand or so each month for the first few months. I think that that would give them a sufficient pool or orders to be able to continuously build only RWD for a few months and still give them a healthy sampling of what everyone wants so they can plan future production. Then, as they get closer to the end of the year, they'll start letting larger and larger groups in, until they're at over 20K per month.

As far as AWD vs FWD, I'm hoping AWD is available for everyone when they first configure, so you can choose it and keep your relative place in the production queue.

Emphasis mine.

This is a very good reason for them to include AWD and P-AWD in the design studio right from the start, so they know how many people are waiting for what options.

 

[smac]

I wonder why the performance version takes longer than the regular AWD?

I understand why going from RWD to AWD takes more time but the performance version taking more times doesn't make sense

Because AWD is a pre-requisite for P. Time has moved on since the original RWD P, and to be credible on 0-60 metrics we are now in a place where AWD is needed (at least in 4 door sedans).

Even the BMW 3 series diesel cars are in the 4 second range now. (I know my S60 got smoked by one by one the other day )

 

[eisbock]

I highly doubt they would take a deferral approach for any option they plan to release with, delays or not.

If you're going to use the Model X as a comparison, look no further than the 5 seat option. When the Model X opened to the first configurations (after Founder/Signature) it had a 5 seat option that could be selected. It just had the message "available mid 2016" (this was late 2015).

Just like AWD for the 3, Tesla communicated prior to release that a 5 seat option would be available for the X. They had it available for people to select when orders opened, but didn't fulfill the option until later. I see no reason to believe they would do anything different for the 3.

See, this is the opposite situation though. Tesla wanted to sell highly optioned cars first with S/X, so it made sense to include all the options. With the 3, I can see them playing coy and holding cards close to the chest in an attempt to get people to make a decision now, not wait. It's harder to plan for the future if you don't know the future, and based on Tesla's track record, that's exactly the position they want you in.

 

[gregincal]

Because AWD is a pre-requisite for P. Time has moved on since the original RWD P, and to be credible on 0-60 metrics we are now in a place where AWD is needed (at least in 4 door sedans).

Even the BMW 3 series diesel cars are in the 4 second range now. (I know my S60 got smoked by one by one the other day )

That just explains why it wouldn't be earlier than AWD. He's asking why it would be later than AWD instead of at the same time.