Lol, the good ol days.... and what ever happened to all those free hardware upgrades for Signature S holders?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Shocked by the new Roadster rolling out of the Tesla Semi!
- Thread starter rudholm
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Roadster 2020
Lol, the good ol days.... and what ever happened to all those free hardware upgrades for Signature S holders?
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
No, I'm describing corporate accounting and what CFO Deepak Ahuja said
I'm saying it isn't kept separate from all Tesla funds in individual little buckets for every liability but it is kept in a large pooled reserve fund for liabilities. That has nothing to do with escrow or trust fund for a single reservation. It isn't separated from funds for value guarantees or wasn't separated from funds for undeveloped autopilot features or any other liability they had to hold reserves for. It is one huge fund for Tesla to manage to keep the SEC and investors happy that they aren't in jeopardy financially due to obvious possible risks.
The gist of the quote was something about how any deferred revenue for was kept separate from funds used for day to day operations and separate from funds used for expansion. And it was only released to the rest of the company if the liability that offset it didn't exist. When AP1 finally went live well after it was supposed to they still didn't release those funds to offset possible AP1 refunds. I think they finally freed up AP1 funds within the last few quarters. But that still leaves AP2 EAP funds, FSD funds, reservations, and any other liabilities they are covering in that fund.
Go listen to the conference calls if you don't believe me. I sure don't feel like listening to every quarterly call until I find the quote(s) I'm looking for.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Tesla is selling $80+ cars, basically. But with the mass scale of Model 3, they could make a very similar car, without the cut down front and back, at basically the same cost as Model 3. Would I want a much cheaper version that is basically the car? Euhm, yeah...!
In my openion, Model 3 is too big and too expensive. What would it could Tesla extra, seriously, to have a mode Model S front with huge old style frunk? It's just not the best car they can make with their cost structure (cheaper batteries than anyone). But my opinion usually takes a number of years to get mainstream acceptance
Your opinion doesn't make any sense. You say the Model 3 is too big, then you say you want it to have a larger front end like the Model S. Then you wonder why Tesla, who is struggling to make a profit, doesn't make what would be a cheaper Model S right now. Your argument fails on a number of levels.
It's OK that you feel this way, but I won't invest too much into explaining you my seemingly contradictive opinion.
In my [OT] opinion, Model 3 is not a smaller car, but they did make the cargo space needlessly smaller. Mondeo, Focus, or less of a difference for cabin size? Just a huge chop off the extremities. Now you have a somewhat large Model 3 which gets a lower price, but not the big battery that would have fit if they just wanted it badly enough (case in point, Roadster).
To be blunt, Model S and X are long overdue a 2170 inpired pack update. We lost frunk space to an air filter and front motor, why not to batteries? People seem to want it. Look how much one pays extra for 100 over 75. And really, Tesla can do a lot with batteries, they're he cheapest on the market, right? Promise was of benefits to reach buyers, but I don't see that too much. A Bolt pack is just over $15K for 63kWh. The 25kWh upgrade in Model 3 (cost: mostly $2.5K in cells), is $9K. Another 20kWh for $8 would surely sell well to have a 400 mile car.
Currently delivered Model 3's are barely cheaper than the extinct Model S60 RWD, and the 5 year degression in cell cost is barely if at all reflected. Yes, more range. And half a decade on. The SR Model 3 is a decent deal, but all the hot Tesla tech adds so much in price while the costs were already booked.
Hugh Mannity
Mediocre Member
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
You keep ignoring the fact that Tesla is still largely production constrained. There is no need to change the S and X, plenty of people want the products they are already producing.
Just because you're production restrained doesn't mean you should sell cars below your capabilities to people who as yet have no options to spend that kind of money. There is a difference between being the best and the best you can be. The former may abruptly end if nothing changes with S and X. A Roadster with weird stats doesn't really change anything for now. Even for 2020. Until we learn better (magic new cells ready for mass production?), the Roadster looks to be a huge compromize to boost the brand image more than do something for the million+ customers they intend to serve before the semi and Roadster are to be delivered.
Moderator note: thread title was changed to something more informative. This thread is, after all, about the new Roadster and how stunned the OP was to see it roll out of the rear of the Tesla Semi.
So those who want to discuss whether or not the S/X are overdue for major changes can start a thread in a different forum better suited to that topic. Thanks.
So those who want to discuss whether or not the S/X are overdue for major changes can start a thread in a different forum better suited to that topic. Thanks.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Since the Roadster seems to beat almost every other vehicle on the planet in acceleration, speed, range, and in general performance per dollar, I find you characterizing it as a "compromise" is quite odd, to say the least. Additionally I suspect Tesla has a very good reason for releasing it and the semi at this point in time. You'll have to excuse me if I think they have a better idea of what their business needs than you.
The stat is just a stat. Other brands don't make a car for 0-60 only. Exception, the Demon.
If Tesla genuinely wanted, they could make a stripped version of Model 3 with the same wheels under it, a 100-120kWh battery and 2 big motors. It would probably achieve it also. That would not warrant $250K, though.
Many assume they will use standard cells, and over 10,000 of them, to makee up tthe battery pack that can deliver the power. Other cells would not need such a large pack. Saving the weight, still getting the power.
Elon is opposed to more than 100kWh in a car supposely. But builds a Roadster thatt has double. Seems it was just needed to make the dash happen.
Even though it's spendid if true, 200kWh and 1.9 seconds, it's a higher markup on Tesla's side. $20K in cells, $250K car. And it looks...not expensive. Just a Tesla poser car.
Love the brand, but not all is perfect.
You're definitely going to need a citation on that one. Musk has consistently pushed the envelope on "putting more batteries in vehicles than others thought plausible" throughout his entire career in Tesla. And Tesla lives and dies on scale; one of their primary objectives is to sell as many batteries as possible to as many markets as possible so as to get the unit cost on their batteries down.
As for "$20K in cells, $250K car", an EV is not just a battery pack and motors. A vehicle built to handle "250+ mph" without killing the occupants is not a trivial task. Nor is "adding lightness" needed to get the acceleration specs. This car will not be cheap to build, regardless of how much the battery costs.
Yes, Tesla will have a healthy margin. But not as much as you're playing it up to be.
I'm not even going to comment on the concept of calling the world's fastest accelerating car (by huge margins) and one of the fastest (if not the fastest) top speed car, in its base version, a "poser car". That comment is so absurd that it stands on its own.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
The strongest argument for me for a smaller Roadster battery would be weight. Given Tesla knows that better than me, all I can do is assume the large battery is needed for high and sustained current/power demands.
As for cars flipping over, GTPs did not. It was only the move to flat bottom WSC where we started the acrobatics. Roadster's rear (and likely front) diffuser should insure there is negative lift even in yaw ( :0 if you get yaw at 150 mph plus, you have other problems) so the flipping example earlier in this thread should not apply.
As for cars flipping over, GTPs did not. It was only the move to flat bottom WSC where we started the acrobatics. Roadster's rear (and likely front) diffuser should insure there is negative lift even in yaw ( :0 if you get yaw at 150 mph plus, you have other problems) so the flipping example earlier in this thread should not apply.
For time being Elon does not need to make a better miata.
He wants/needs to kill "the best car uses gas" meme - i.e. Bugatti Chiron is not the king anymore.
EV is the king.
He wants/needs to kill "the best car uses gas" meme - i.e. Bugatti Chiron is not the king anymore.
EV is the king.
There were a whole string of tweets on the topic in the spring - here's one I found in two minutes with Google:
I'm not sure I'd interpret it as definitively as the prior poster, though. I don't think it means they will never go over 100 kWh or that he's somehow personally opposed to the idea - just that 9 months ago they didn't have an active plan to get those cars there.
(And, of course, there's a huge risk of Osbourning here - if he said anything else some folks would hold off on ordering, so while I don't think he'd lie to get orders, it's in his best interest not to speculate or announce anything he doesn't have to.)
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
The car is likely mostly carbon fiber, which is not cheap to use, especially in small volume production. You don't seem to have a good grasp of automotive production or a good understanding of Tesla.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Both points are correct:
I always assumed they will eventually go above that, certainly if some other OEM's start pushing higher.
We have differing opinions, your insult is just that. I'd advise you keep such to yourself next time, towards whomever. We're anonymous here.
I'd love for Tesla to suddently adopt hypercar technology and stick it in a relatively cheap car considering the loads and loads of carbon it's got. REalistically, I'm not holding my breath. I have my own ideas and estimations for a light chassis with heavy battery and very strong motors.
Assuming Tesla made a light car with 120kWh extra at a fracttion the cost, they'd be bitch slapping Rimac around the room. For 0-60, they do seem to have them covered, for now. Although car making is very much a secundary activity for Rimac now.
I want to believe, but recently Tesla has been quite disappointing.
This event was just a few fast accelerations (it's trademark circus trick, and they're the best at it for sure) and throwing out very high batttery specs. Until we know which exact cells make up for the 200kWh (they will be silent about it with reason), and what the total vehicle mass is, we cannot expect that Tesla really made Christmas arrive 3 years early last week.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
It was an observation based on your comments. How you took it is not in my control.
This makes no sense and relates to my initial comment above. Thus I feel there is nothing to be gained pursuing this line of discussion with you and I will abandon it.
It does imply, if for a business saloon or SUV 1000kWh is sufficient for range, that the 200kWh in the Roadster is there eitther because of a Concorde momentt in batteries, or the distinct lack thereof, Tesla using 10,000 of the bigger cells to come up with the power and thermal mass to not feel clumsy coming out of the third corner on a race track.
