[Spoiler Alert + Mild Speculation] Tesla has created a monster!

[3Victoria]

The absolute profit from the larger number of 3 will bigger than the smaller number of S. The S retains the cachet as the flagship car. Its larger and flashier.

 

[insaneoctane]

If you halve the gross margin of a product that is half the price, you can make the same profit by quadrupling the volume. The model 3 is about half the price of the S... Tesla has NO intention of halving the margin, but they do plan to more than quadruple the volume. Make no mistake, the model 3 is going to rocket Tesla's bottom line once they get into the "S" curve of production. Notice the stock price? Even the naysayers are having to come to terms with this.

Tesla conveniently has some time before they introduce the P version. That time will be used to further differentiate the S line and try to build an even more compelling case for that demographic. Their ability to do this will dictate how good the P is allowed to be. If Tesla introduces HUD, more premiums, etc to further make the S worth it, then that green lights the P M3 to live up to it's potential....

 

[SageBrush]

But margins are supposed to be thinner on the Model 3, so they'll have to sell more

20% instead of 25%, right ? So 25% more sales
Then instead of 50% more Model 3 sales than Model S based on ASP, 50*25/20 = 62.5% more sales

The point is that if Tesla comes anywhere near the Model 3 volumes they hope for, net revenue will dwarf Model S and X combined.
Paying for the Gigafactory etc is another story.

 

[SageBrush]

If you halve the gross margin, you can make it up by quadrupling the volume.

Why does the volume have to quadruple rather than just double ?

 

[SarahsDad]

I don't think buyers are cross shopping the BMW M3 with the Tesla Model 3.

I for one am cross shopping the M3 and Model 3. I came from an M5 before my current P85+. I'm looking to downsize, so I'd love to have the same performance of an M3 in my Model 3 (day 1 reservation holder).

 

[insaneoctane]

Why does the volume have to quadruple rather than just double ?

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't very clear. I fixed my post to be clearer.... I am also considering that the average model 3 sale price is roughly half the S. If the products are equally priced it would be double. I should have included that little detail.

 

[SageBrush]

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't very clear. I fixed my post to be clearer.... I am also considering that the average model 3 sale price is roughly half the S. If the products are equally priced it would be double. I should have included that little detail.

Gotcha. You had me thinking my already pedestrian arithmetic skills were in severe decline.

Let's see:
If Model 3 ASP is 50% of the Model S and margin is reduced 20%, then
Volume has to equal 1/0.4 = 2.5x to equal the gross profit of the Model S.

 

[3Victoria]

Half-price has got to increase volume by more than 4x -- I would guess 10x.

 

[Ulmo]

Really? On the charge-depleting highway test, it had an average system voltage of 351 with a integrated amp hours (aka, scaled to match the voltage) of 221,81. That's 77,9kW. The recharge energy event is 89,41kWh, which would be 87% efficiency, which is certainly plausible.

How do we know the "Average System Voltage" of 351 is from the battery pack and not to the motor?

Kind of off topic, but interesting nonetheless is the EPA data from the Rimac.

https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/datafiles/CSI-HRMAV0.00MDP.PDF

The power this car makes is nuts, but the range is pretty awful even though it has a larger pack than the 3 LR.

Just enough to get me to work: I'll take one. (How much, though?)

Exactly why they are doing away with the kWh labeling and go for the rated range, so they don't have people scream at them for battery difference.

That could have been corrected by not lying in the first place.

My experience is Tesla rating pretty close to reality. All ICE cars way underperform EPA mileage ratings if driven hard. EPA is based on prudent acceleration and driving at limit. My BMW X1 gets about half its EPA if driven "normally". My P85 gets much closer to EPA, probably within 15%, driven same way. YMMV is true. But I find it is MUCH further off EPA in my ICE.

I've always found range measurements to be woefully useless. I live in and commute through hills.

kWh measurements were a fair approximation during the early years of competent EV's. Too bad Tesla lied about them, but at least we had a basis to start from.

I think a better measure would be a combination of standardized tests, which is what the EPA numbers are, and something that could indicate how far it could go under some portion of loading (such as climbing a hill, with a headwind, in the cold, with a trailer, going fast, with the heater on at 82º, with a bunch of cargo, or anything like that).

 

[Model 3]

I think a better measure would be a combination of standardized tests, which is what the EPA numbers are, and something that could indicate how far it could go under some portion of loading (such as climbing a hill, with a headwind, in the cold, with a trailer, going fast, with the heater on at 82º, with a bunch of cargo, or anything like that).

I do not think this is a good idea. To much numbers would just confuse people.

Not to say that the EPA test is perfect, but something like that is good enough. Then local sales-personnel or user-groups/forums/experience could tell the customers "In this climate except 2/3 range in the wintertime", "in this road/weather conditions reduce range by 10%" and "With my load/speed usage reduce range by 20%" - or something like that. So the test shows the result for some standardized ideal conditions, and the customer will have to adjust it to their own climate/usage case. But this could easily be clearer communicated by EPA and/or the manufacturer/sales force.

 

[McRat]

I for one am cross shopping the M3 and Model 3. I came from an M5 before my current P85+. I'm looking to downsize, so I'd love to have the same performance of an M3 in my Model 3 (day 1 reservation holder).

At this stage in EV development, no mass produced EV can keep up with a track focused ICE in their native habitat. Soon, but not yet.

If you are buying an M3 for the badging (that is not a slam, most people buy track editions and never track them. Ever), perhaps.

For $75k, you can buy a car a Ferrari 488, Enzo, and most 911 turbos cannot hang with. Nor can a P100D on a track, or at speed. ZL1 1LE. A track specific V8 pony car.

So if you're looking to low lap times, EV's are not the answer yet. The M310 stripper will come the closest, but without help from Tesla's parts catalog, and an LSD, it's not going to be competitive at all.

 

[voip-ninja]

I for one am cross shopping the M3 and Model 3. I came from an M5 before my current P85+. I'm looking to downsize, so I'd love to have the same performance of an M3 in my Model 3 (day 1 reservation holder).

The BMW M3 is far more performance oriented than anything Tesla will be doing with their Model 3 anytime soon.

The M3 for sure will be much faster both 0-60 and in the 1/4 mile. It will also have a track optimized suspension and much better brakes (assuming one springs for the ceramic performance brakes).

You also won't have to look off to the side for telematics information while you are driving it at speed on a tight track.

Finally, Tesla can't hang on a track since the cooling system for the batteries is not capable of sustained thrashing and after a few laps the car will be overheated. At least this is the case with the Model S and I'm not sure what the racing community can do to fix it since Tesla doesn't allow/endorse aftermarket solutions.

For a track car? M3 by a mile if you are doing a head to head comparison.

 

[JeffK]

The BMW M3 is far more performance oriented than anything Tesla will be doing with their Model 3 anytime soon.

The M3 for sure will be much faster both 0-60 and in the 1/4 mile. It will also have a track optimized suspension and much better brakes (assuming one springs for the ceramic performance brakes).

You also won't have to look off to the side for telematics information while you are driving it at speed on a tight track.

Finally, Tesla can't hang on a track since the cooling system for the batteries is not capable of sustained thrashing and after a few laps the car will be overheated. At least this is the case with the Model S and I'm not sure what the racing community can do to fix it since Tesla doesn't allow/endorse aftermarket solutions.

For a track car? M3 by a mile if you are doing a head to head comparison.

I feel that for the young male with too much money market, they are going to gravitate toward the Performance Model 3 next year simply due to the 0-60 times. The vast majority will never see a track, but impromptu street races are almost a certainty.

BMW should be concerned.

 

[landis]

That could have been corrected by not lying in the first place.

Seriously?
Since when does 'rounding' (more or less) to the nearest five qualify as lying.
And not rounding would have been completely ridiculous.
It's not like the badges actually included 'kWh' or there was any warranty on an exact capacity.

Moving to 'standard' and 'long range' is a great idea.
If they had started there they wouldn't have needed to 'round' the numbers in a way you prefer to call lying.
But of course these labels need to be qualified with a least a model year, since the actual range capacities will continue to evolve.

So the [EPA] test shows the result for some standardized ideal conditions, and the customer will have to adjust it to their own climate/usage case. But this could easily be clearer communicated by EPA and/or the manufacturer/sales force.

Exactly.

 

[voip-ninja]

I feel that for the young male with too much money market, they are going to gravitate toward the Performance Model 3 next year simply due to the 0-60 times. The vast majority will never see a track, but impromptu street races are almost a certainty.

BMW should be concerned.

There's no question that an AWD performance Model 3 would be faster than anything that any of the Germans are doing in the sub $100K space.

So yes, for the well heeled young lad that measures self worth by stop light drag racing it would be the top choice.

 

[SageBrush]

I think a better measure would be a combination of standardized tests, which is what the EPA numbers are, and something that could indicate how far it could go under some portion of loading (such as climbing a hill, with a headwind, in the cold, with a trailer, going fast, with the heater on at 82º, with a bunch of cargo, or anything like that).

Your need to get out more. To the average American the EPA number is mumbo-jumbo, part of a conspiracy orchestrated via the dyno by the liberal elite to take away our freedoms.

Or something like that.

 

[Ulmo]

Moving to 'standard' and 'long range' is a great idea.
If they had started there they wouldn't have needed to 'round' the numbers in a way you prefer to call lying.
But of course these labels need to be qualified with a least a model year, since the actual range capacities will continue to evolve.

Moving to a new way of describing distance capacity is a good idea. Both "Standard vs Long" Range & Model Year are both too low resolution for future versions, but the "Standard & Long" for now is just fine for the Model 3 since it's new and there's only two range versions on the table; Tesla has many more changes to their vehicles than annually, and many more range estimates than two, for Model S & X, so I expect that might be true for Model 3, too, but might not be. For now, Standard and Long is good for marketing, but as soon as Tesla introduces new varieties, I'm sure they'll start marking the different varieties with something other than the current low bandwidth language-type model names. They have lots of options of what to do, for instance, a "Very Long Range" if they introduce a 500 mile version (unlikely), or a "More Long Range" if they bump up the higher one, or they could go to just saying the EPA estimate, but I think even Tesla realizes that going to an "Intermediate Range", "More Range", and "More than Intermediate Range" model naming would become confusing, burdensome and lack information.

One thing Tesla could decide to do is always sell a Standard and Long Range Model 3 for ever, for the next 70 years, but that both of them keep rising or dropping in capacity over the changes they put in, and you'd have to look up the VIN (or guess from the manufacturing date) to figure out what specs it has. Even a screen on the dash could just tell you.

They could even start some sort of naming strategy that is alphabetical or something, like using the names of the moons of planets or something. I'm not sure if there's enough moons with first letters rising in the alphabet for that to work, but it's one idea at least. The alphabetical would either be in order of introduction or of capacity, but if it's just a version # type (timeline type thing), then people would be forced to look at the specs, and while that's inconvenient, it's OK, as others in this thread have pointed out, and I think they're right. Specs say a lot more for those who care to look at them. Buyers on a lot can look at the Monroney stickers with EPA numbers and squabble about what that means in the rain.

 

[JeffK]

One thing Tesla could decide to do is always sell a Standard and Long Range Model 3 for ever, for the next 70 years, but that both of them keep rising or dropping in capacity over the changes they put in, and you'd have to look up the VIN (or guess from the manufacturing date) to figure out what specs it has. Even a screen on the dash could just tell you.

You had it correct right here...

They could sell standard and long range indefinitely and increase range as they make improvements. Looking up a VIN or trying to see what the range was as-new would be irrelevant to the current range, which is undoubtedly more important. Two vehicles 10 years old might have different ranges due to abuse etc.

If the range of both newer models goes up by 10 miles then why call it something different? I love the simplicity they are aiming for instead of weird model names and acronyms which don't mean anything and only serve to confuse buyers. SR, LS, LX, TLX, RS, etc

 

[insaneoctane]

I do have a question for you EV gurus (sorry if this was covered somewhere in the past 17 pages of this thread) ....

If the Bolt's EPA CSI report shows 364.4 City / UDDS and 310.63 Highway isn't the calculation for Monroney sticker:
(364 * 0.7)*0.55 + (310 * 0.7)*0.45 = 238?

If so, wouldn't the LR be:
(495 * 0.7)*0.55 + ( 454 * 0.7)*0.45 = 334?

Just curious...

 

[WarpedOne]

If so, wouldn't the LR be:

It could be but it does not have to be.
Tesla is free to choose any number below 0.7.