Of the current colours, red would be the obvious choice, given that it's the most expensive and the most time-consuming to paint. However, the Chinese market prefers white, so maybe pearl white multicoat, or something new. Should probably have a base white as well.
-
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
Of the current colours, red would be the obvious choice, given that it's the most expensive and the most time-consuming to paint. However, the Chinese market prefers white, so maybe pearl white multicoat, or something new. Should probably have a base white as well.
ZachF
Active Member
I suspect in the future, since Fremont is close to the R&D, that it will be the development line, and the process will be copy/pasted to the other lines around the world.
This is something I have wondered about since the announcement of GF3. Would someone fact check this statement from @Fact Checking
.
ZachF
Active Member
I agree.
What this probably means is that the M3 SR for China will be built in China.
China has the largest auto market in the world, but a much lower average sales price than in the west, so this all makes sense. A much larger share of their M3 sales will likely be the SR.
OTThanks for that, that's a very recent change. Still just tacks. But I suspect that it's all going to be welded together once the thing is fully assembled; I can't imagine these tacks holding during launch. Given that they're going so far as to cosmetically clad the bottom part, then they probably will polish the seams (it's a lot less work intensive to polish seams out than whole sheets).
That said, it's still not going to look like an optical mirror like in the rendering.
A curious process for the bottom portion - assembling the loadbearing structure and then cladding it. I guess they can't get the sort of optical qualities they want (which are not just about aesthetics, but also heat rejection) with their structural steel alone?
ED: Something just occurred to me. And it really should have been obvious, but... the reason for the bottom portion being built so much more sturdy than the top is... this is a Starship hopper they're making, not Super Heavy. Starship's passenger / cargo volume is huge. That whole** "flimsy" part on the top is the passenger / payload enclosure. Tanks are only on the bottom, aka the "sturdy" part. The final Starship will have bigger tanks, but both the test and final version are having a full-sized passenger / cargo area. Geez that's a lot of cargo space....
** - Even if you assume that the upper bulkhead will arch upward from the bottom structure and eat up part of the space.
This should have been obvious, but it just now occurred to me as to why tanks wouldn't fill up a lot more of the structure: the cargo section is sized the same as in the final version, and it's monstrous.
That rocket, (apologies if mentioned in the 3-400 future postings) is quite reminiscent of Chesley Bonestell’s drawings of rockets from 50-60+ years ago. Very classic.
HG Wells
Martian Embassy
Looks like Exon may be in trouble for public climate change denilles while internally accepting it.
The Supreme Court refused Monday to take up a case in which Exxon Mobil Corp. is trying to stop Massachusetts’s demand for documents from it in a climate change investigation.
Supreme Court rejects Exxon appeal in climate case
The end of the ICE age.
Jumpin Yimini Look at that stock GO !
The Supreme Court refused Monday to take up a case in which Exxon Mobil Corp. is trying to stop Massachusetts’s demand for documents from it in a climate change investigation.
Supreme Court rejects Exxon appeal in climate case
The end of the ICE age.
Jumpin Yimini Look at that stock GO !
I think this is huge! I mean that the high end versions stay ouside of China. I guess the locally sourced cells woun't have the quality as the Tesla/Panasonic cells. Just the pack level is Tesla-tech. China can't copy the cell chemistry and production as quick.
They can and have already foot-dragged. Tesla and the Chinese already are almost certainly will continue to be the biggest market forces pushing them as they drag just about as much as they can.
Take a look at the linked thread. With 15 or so global incumbents, it’s effectively an oligopoly to a very large extent. They all can see what each other is doing, and if everyone sees everyone else dragging their feet they can kick down the road the daunting reality of diving into a disruption they have something like a 50/50 chance of surviving. Look how little pressure EV startups (outside of China and Tesla) are exerting on the market. I think we first heard of Faraday Future and a few other apparent Tesla coat tail startups in about 2013. I don’t think any have sold a car. Tesla itself will get to perhaps 3-5% market share in 2025. Except where Tesla is taking maximum market share... BMW, etc... the giant automakers can take the approach this Toyota exec put out there.
It basically comes to- at some point we need to take a 50% existential risk that will completely turn our lives upside down with change/stress in the process whether we make it or not. However, we have the option of doing it now or in 10 years when it turns into a 60% existential risk. What do you think professional management of massive corporations paid in accordance to quarterly and annual results will do.
The advent of autonomous vehicles has the potential to reset these dynamics. There’s a number of different scenarios of the playing field being reset by AVs... including a scenario where the ICE makers bacon is saved by AVs.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
I totally agree with your intelligent assessment here. Good move by Elon. However, I would be willing to bet if the US goes back into a full on trade war with China again, the goals of GF3 manufacturing would change as a result. Remember what sales of the MS and MX were like when the trade war was in effect. One thing I really like about Tesla as a company is its ability to be agile as circumstances change.
Closing the gap provoked by the fake headline , Tesla missed 4th qtr numbers.
Great price action
Great price action
ZachF
Active Member
Perhaps we are in the beginning stages of a new channel formation?
Yeah I doubt that as well. His safety desires aside, pictures of crashed Chinese M3s with fatalities would reflect poorly on the brand. Chinese buyers can already buy cheap/unsafe vehicles. I'd also suggest that the effort to redesign the 3 to make it cheaper/more dangerous would offset a lot of the potential cost savings.
Krugerrand
Meow
We really shouldn't whitewash history there:
So it was a miss. The good news: it's up from here.
- original Model 3 timeline was indeed 2018,
- but then Tesla got a lot of pre-orders, raised billions of dollars to increase volume and accelerate the timeline to 2017,
- then missed the 2017 timeline and missed the "10k/week by end of 2018" timeline, despite spending those billions
Nope. Originally timeline was pushed up by TWO years and ended up being ONE year early.
Disagree, local sourcing and production won’t compromise quality or safety, I don’t think Tesla would ever do that. (Although it’s a widely accepted conspiracy theory that all other OEM does that)
Reduced logistics, turnaround time, and labor cost would be enough to bring the overall cost down to be very competitive.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
