That would boost demand (and wait times), not sales. Tesla sells every Model 3 it can make.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I'd say the major structural redesign and added complexity in manufacturing are the main reasons. Return on investment would be low.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Nah, there is not a lot of work on re-design for hatchback on the 3. The design already accommodates it with only a few changes (glass size and placement, trunk vs. hatch, etc.). Manufacturing complexity would not be that high either, it could be done on the existing lines with few changes. Remember, the S/X are built on the same line and they are vastly different. A 3 +/- a hatchback would not be a big deal.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Yeah, that spike just results from all the pre-orders placed before 8 am for people who aren't allowed access to the market until then.
The 5-min running average vol for TSLA from 8:01 to 8:06 was just 2.7K per minute (quite light).
Cheers!
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Disagree. Tesla didn't do a hatchback with the 3 for specific reasons, the roof beam needed for hatch attachment would protrude too far into the interior and reduce headroom or require a higher roof line. Plus it would require a new roof glass plus the hatch glass. I can see them doing a redesign in the future maybe with all Model 3's going to a hatch, they'd have to lower the rear seat or go with a higher less efficient roof line, but I can't imagine them running two versions, one hatch and one trunk. And definitely forget doing a convertible and a stretch, not enough demand for either.
Krugerrand
Meow
Because it adds complexity, which is the enemy of fast and efficient. F&E rules the day until Tesla no longer needs to grow and expand at breakneck speed.
You want something different, that’s what all the other OEMs are here for. Not Tesla’s fault the OEMs are failing miserably at their assigned task.
Cause it's already supply limited, not sales limited and wouldn't result in any more sales. Otherwise a stretch/cargo/van-like version would be a dream come true for me.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Imagine them doing it for sales reasons vs. technical complexity are VERY different. You originally said "I'd say the major structural redesign and added complexity in manufacturing are the main reasons." That, is 100% wrong.
A hatch for the 3 is NOT hard to do. Structurally, these changes would all be behind the C-pillar, and that makes it very "easy" to change without changing the rigidity of the car. A cross-bar for hatch attachment is not a huge change, it's a single steel member, and does not have to nearly as thick as you make it out to be.
Glass is glass, also not hard to design different size pieces.
The seats would NOT need to move either to accommodate this kind of change.
Do I think Tesla will do it, and remove the current super-simple manufacturing process they have for the 3? No, because the current car sells very well. But the changes are not radical and could be done without much fuss and change to the manufacturing line.
I'll even ask my contact at Tesla, but I would bet they already have this design modeled out, as one of the original variations back in 2016 before the traditional sedan was chosen as the final production version.
Krugerrand
Meow
Wrong. It is extremely time consuming and expensive to redesign even a portion of a vehicle and bring it to market. Just from a die set perspective it’s a year AFTER the design to be able to make the parts. Then there’s fitting it all together, which means revamping of production cells/lines, changes in supply chain...
Nope. Bad idea and not even a little bit easy to do. It took a long time for Tesla to integrate the S and X line. It’s taken a huge amount of time to intro Plaid and model refreshes.
@Lycanthrope Check out selling NIO options for this week. The stock has rallied quite significantly already and the IV is through the Tesla glass Roof 
.
Tesla relevance? For all the Tesla option investors, it would be a very good learning experience to watch NIO price actions this week. Watch how IV will fall after tomorrow's earnings call.
.Tesla relevance? For all the Tesla option investors, it would be a very good learning experience to watch NIO price actions this week. Watch how IV will fall after tomorrow's earnings call.
Last edited:
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
No redesign in this case. I'll ask my contact, but a conversation with him years ago let me to recall that Tesla already modeled and designed out this variant, they just didn't want to do a "mini Model S" and went with the sedan design.
Will Tesla do it when they can sell every 3 that they make? No.
But the "complexity" that people are claiming as required to do this is greatly over-stated. It's not that large a change to accommodate, relatively speaking.
Agreed. Fast and efficient is the name of the game for Tesla right now. If you want a 3 with a hatch, get a Y, that's what I did.
You are correct, it is not complicated. But is it the most efficient, profitable allocation of human and financial capital at this time? I doubt it, otherwise Tesla would already be doing it. I question whether the mission is more easily achieved by making a 3 with a hatch.
Capping games again this a.m. What a surprise! (-;
Whack-a-mole at $406/$406.50. Since a bit before 10:00 a.m. EST, each time Tesla dares to try to pop above $406, or get near those #s, heavy selling comes in to bring it down. Hopefully, TSLA crushes the game-players soon.
Whack-a-mole at $406/$406.50. Since a bit before 10:00 a.m. EST, each time Tesla dares to try to pop above $406, or get near those #s, heavy selling comes in to bring it down. Hopefully, TSLA crushes the game-players soon.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
We know the shorts want to drop the price, but for those not out to short the stock, what is the point of this? Is it to keep the price within a certain range so that they can buy up shares in anticipation of S&P inclusion? Keep price around max pain for max profitability for the day traders?
Nice little break-out just after I posted - nice to see at least some of the games fail, even if it is just short-term.
@Lycanthrope Check out selling NIO options for this week. The stock has rallied quite significantly already and the IV is through the Tesla glass Roof
Tesla relevance? For all the Tesla option investors, it would be a very good learning experience to watch NIO price actions this week. Watch how IV will fall after tomorrow.
wow the returns are crazy on the puts compared to Tesla even if they are down a lot today
Probably already reported
The EU Commission under the lead of Ursula van der Leyen (German CDU) has requested a study that came to the conclusion that the CO and NOx emissions need to drop drastically and emission regulation should be tightened strongly and earlier. The plan is to put that new regulation into effect in 2025 and experts state that ICE vehicles are unable to comply therefore if put into effect it would mean that ICE cannot be sold anymore after 2025. It's literally a ban for new ICE vehicles.
Porsche and VW made statements last week before the news broke about regulations are too tough and tried to reduce demands.
The implications for BEV manufacturers are severe and the German car Association VDA already declined to comply and to agree but that the regulations are hard enough already.
Merkel and van der Leyen worked many years as peers in the same Party and Government hence I expect they find a compromise.
As a side effect the new regulation even if only implemented half would required ICE manufacturers to purchase ZEV credits from e.g. Tesla
This is big news and can accelerate the transition. VW but in particular Daimer, BMW and Porsche need to do much more and will be forced to.
Its the start of negotiations but will lead very likely to stronger emission regulation in 2025
The EU Commission under the lead of Ursula van der Leyen (German CDU) has requested a study that came to the conclusion that the CO and NOx emissions need to drop drastically and emission regulation should be tightened strongly and earlier. The plan is to put that new regulation into effect in 2025 and experts state that ICE vehicles are unable to comply therefore if put into effect it would mean that ICE cannot be sold anymore after 2025. It's literally a ban for new ICE vehicles.
Porsche and VW made statements last week before the news broke about regulations are too tough and tried to reduce demands.
The implications for BEV manufacturers are severe and the German car Association VDA already declined to comply and to agree but that the regulations are hard enough already.
Merkel and van der Leyen worked many years as peers in the same Party and Government hence I expect they find a compromise.
As a side effect the new regulation even if only implemented half would required ICE manufacturers to purchase ZEV credits from e.g. Tesla
This is big news and can accelerate the transition. VW but in particular Daimer, BMW and Porsche need to do much more and will be forced to.
Its the start of negotiations but will lead very likely to stronger emission regulation in 2025
While S and X use the same general assembly line, they have separate body lines. Any body change would require retooling at least a portion of the line, or duplicating it.
@elasalle
If they made in distinct variations at specific plants, they would be back to cross shipping across oceans, the very thing they are avoiding with localized production.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
