-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wolverinegeoff
Member
Wonder if that means you'll have to pay extra or if it's just a checkbox. Probably easier for them to glue on glass than weld or glue aluminum there plus a liner.
alseTrick
Active Member
That has to be exactly the reason. C-suite Tesla people were stating on record the base 3 battery would be "less than 60 kWh" last year. Only thing that has changed was the Bolt's official EPA range rating, which blew away even the GM fans' expectations.
There would be no way Elon could release any version of a Model 3 with less rated range than the Bolt. They probably tried to match/exceed the Bolt's range with their original <60 kWh battery size, but found they couldn't, so they added the extra 5 kWh.
All Model 3 reservation holders wanting a smaller battery 3 should thank GM for forcing Tesla to up the kWh count.
edit: oh, also, many people also thought that the Bolt's 60 kWh battery size was the overall pack size, with less actually being usable. Now we've found out the usable capacity is 60, with the overall size being a few kWh more (64-65 kWh from owner estimates).
Well, no. That doesn't have to be the reason. But it's possible.
alseTrick
Active Member
Same here. Model 3 is aiming squarely at entry level luxury (3 series, A4, IS, C-class). Remember, the value proposition is that even the base model 3 will have tech features that are only found in highest trim luxury such as navigation, remote entry and app access.
How different a world looks to the apologist and the hater - to exaggerate our positions a little for effect.
Both lists have changed, so they did not just add a Model 3 list. They updated both, for whatever reason.
5.6 sec 0-60 and 215+ miles of range remain unchanged, we shall see how accurate a perception those give.
To me the late addition of that list is simply proof the original version was misleading. It should never have been used they way it had - not being completed yet is no excuse to mislead. For all we know, these additions are a response to the critique that it was misleading (which it was). Listing separate entries of Glass Roof and Panoramic roof for Model S and nothing for Model 3 was definitely misleading. Still today Aluminum + Aluminum/Steel is misleading - both actually are Aluminum/Steel.
Last edited:
Well, truth be told, Tesla features are more Volkswagen than Audi on anything but the drivetrain and the software system (which, granted, are very innovative on all recent Teslas). The comfort, customizability and other functions are rather lagging for a premium car...
Good point. Option doesn't have to mean extra fee. Could just be one or the other.
I also noticed the S says optional sunroof, and the 3 doesn't.
-smak-
Tesla has been gravitating towards vast, immobile glass surfaces (and they don't have a very good history with electric comfort accessories anyway - see e.g. sunshades), and diminishing number of options, so I am not surprised by that.
Whether or not a sunroof for Model 3 comes at all, who knows, but I would not be suprised by a lack of it. Actually, were it not for the need to differentiate Model S from Model 3, I would not be surprised to see Model S panoramic sunroof discontinued...
I love opening sunroofs, btw. It is one major thing I miss on the Model X. I would have swapped its stupid windshield to any kind of factory sunroof (even a tilt-only one) in a heartbeat...
Here is the first version of the "Premium Features/Features" listing and the updated one, courtesy of Electrek.
It is not hard to see how the old list was a teensy tiny bit misleading... I still find the body wording misleading (both actually are aluminum + steel), but at least this is miles better than the old one. Had this been the original (instead of a week with the first one), I'd have had much less issue with it.
We shall see if the 5.6 sec/215+ mile listing is giving the right impression or not later on I guess, the range comparison is still a thing I wonder about.
It is not hard to see how the old list was a teensy tiny bit misleading... I still find the body wording misleading (both actually are aluminum + steel), but at least this is miles better than the old one. Had this been the original (instead of a week with the first one), I'd have had much less issue with it.
We shall see if the 5.6 sec/215+ mile listing is giving the right impression or not later on I guess, the range comparison is still a thing I wonder about.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
To use the same "apologist vs hater" exaggeration, a hater would probably see some fault in that comparison no matter what they put. The way I see it is they are putting as much information as they are publicly comfortable in releasing before the actual unveiling, not that they are intentionally being misleading as you were implying previously (why would they update the list if that was the goal?). That was my biggest argument against you for the "215+ mile" line also. I look at things from perspective that Tesla has a non-sinister motive.How different a world looks to the apologist and the hater - to exaggerate our positions a little for effect.
Both lists have changed, so they did not just add a Model 3 list. They updated both, for whatever reason.
5.6 sec 0-60 and 215+ miles of range remain unchanged, we shall see how accurate a perception those give.
To me the late addition of that list is simply proof the original version was misleading. It should never have been used they way it had - not being completed yet is no excuse to mislead. For all we know, these additions are a response to the critique that it was misleading (which it was). Listing separate entries of Glass Roof and Panoramic roof for Model S and nothing for Model 3 was definitely misleading. Still today Aluminum + Aluminum/Steel is misleading - both actually are Aluminum/Steel.
As for the line on aluminum, the Model S body is 97% aluminum, with some high strength steel components used in some key areas as necessary. The Model 3 will use a lot more steel, even in areas that doesn't need it (primarily to save cost).
Last edited:
I used the exaggerations intentionally and IMO fairly. I do not consider either of us on those edges of the spectrum, but the point was, apparently the same thing can look very different depending on whether or not you come to it from an understanding or a critical place. I did NOT see this updated list the same you did it, absolutely opposite. For you it was validation of no misleading, for me it was validation of misleading. Funny that.
Fixing a misleading communique after being called out on it does not mean original intent was not there. After all, they got a week's worth of publicity and Model S orders with the original wording. Had this been a mistake, why not fix it immediately on Monday. I'm not saying the intent necessary was corporation-wide, it could have been an overzealous marketing person making that list. Be that as it may, it is obvious the original list was misleading and that misleading list was used by Tesla for a week - that is a fact. Whether the backstory is closer to your speculation or my speculation really doesn't change that.
I am glad to see it corrected and think the critical feedback may have contributed to it getting corrected.
There is an entire class of people, in middle and some upper management, at Tesla who do not recognize that Tesla relies heavily on goodwill. They have a weak concept of cooperation when compared to their concept of manipulation (to meet metrics).
Elon needs to reinforce that "Tesla relies on the goodwill of our customers" internally about 3.5 times more often than he does today.
Last edited by a moderator:
dhrivnak
Active Member
Absolutely not. To me it is nothing more than a gimmick.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
One thing to note with the (lack of) premium features......
So far, it would seem that those of us who were thinking a P75D-L might not be any more than $75,000 were right.
And if the vehicle does have a price point approaching that....no one is going to want to buy it with such a glaring lack of features. (ok, not NO ONE....but not enough to make it a profitable venture)
So far, it would seem that those of us who were thinking a P75D-L might not be any more than $75,000 were right.
And if the vehicle does have a price point approaching that....no one is going to want to buy it with such a glaring lack of features. (ok, not NO ONE....but not enough to make it a profitable venture)
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Extremely concerned about this for three main reasons:
- The frunk doesn't look any bigger without it in the alphas.
- It's a major selling point as they look to increase their footprint in Asian markets, providing both clean air to the driver and even cleaning the air around the car.
- Lastly, I want it.
Wolverinegeoff
Member
He made a big deal about how much smaller the wiring harness is in the 3. I bet no sunroof eliminates another complicated human-involved wiring and installation, which fits with the emphasis on speed.
Another possible non-sinister factor is not wanting to show their cards to the competition until they absolutely have to. Ford/Audi/vw etc are all trying to design their EVs currently and still have no idea what real world mileage they will need to compete with. Could be 215 at $35k, could be 240. That makes their calculations for how much battery space they need and the overall car design much harder if they don't know what to aim for! Delaying them even a few months gives more time to get Model Y out there before their 2020 targets and having an entire line of mature EV options when the other companies are introducing V1. Just a thought!
