Correct, except for V2 with 150+ miles to the next SC--even then you have to bring your own food because the restaurant wait will take too long.I don’t have enough time as it is for a bio break and a bite of lunch when I stop at a supercharger.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Correct, except for V2 with 150+ miles to the next SC--even then you have to bring your own food because the restaurant wait will take too long.I don’t have enough time as it is for a bio break and a bite of lunch when I stop at a supercharger.
Yeah but that potentially affects retained values across the fleet whereas releasing a model that simply has software-locked range creates some differentiationInstead as someone suggested they could have reduced the price by $7k and given the full range instead of nerfing it.
90% is normal for me unless the ambient temperatures is 40+ C, then 80. And yes, I can count the number of times I've been lower than 20% on both hands (over 10+ years).Always many ways to look at things...
The option to pay less will make sense for some people...and it won't for others. No harm for the consumer to have more options...
- You can say, glass half empty: "I'm lugging around all this battery weight but only allowed to use 80% of it!"
- Or, glass half full: "I paid $10K less for the same car...I just accelerate a little less quickly and don't have access to the full battery, but probably wouldn't have used the full battery range anyway."
The wording choice you used is also a little tricky, since a software locked battery wouldn't be disabling 200 lbs of cells...it is just restricting all the cells from reaching 100% charge or draining down to 0%. So, perhaps removing 20% of the potential usefulness of 1000 lbs of cells. So the price difference and the consumer decision should be on how useful that extra 20% would be fore an individual.
And, to be fair, for most of the battery chemistries, isn't charging to 80% for daily use typical? And I'd bet few folks regularly drain down below 20%. So, in a way, most EV drivers are already dragging around a whole battery but normally only using 60% of it....they just have the option to use it if they need it.
This time two years ago, in 2021, we were all very happy with the results of TSLA. In 2023, I read a sense of frustration, despair, and laughter on this forum.
It's basically the same price point in mid-August 2021 and mid-August 2023.
In the first 2 quarters of 2021...leading in to mid-August 2021...$22.4B in revenue. In 2023? $48.2B.
Net income in mid-August 2021 from the first 2 quarters? $1.58B. In 2023? $5.22B.
That's more than 2x the revenue! That's more than 3x the net income! What's changed?
Will the real Model 3 killer please stand up?
Jaguar to stop production of the I-Pace in 2025
Instead as someone suggested they could have reduced the price by $7k and given the full range instead of nerfing it.
Agreed but charging times is still presumably one of the top reasons for not buying an ev. Additional demand would be guaranteed.I don’t have enough time as it is for a bio break and a bite of lunch when I stop at a supercharger.
Treasury yields likely need to start heading in the other direction againDear MM's,
Please let us know when you are done pushing $TSLA down so the kids can eat again.
Thanks in advance.
Instead as someone suggested they could have reduced the price by $7k and given the full range instead of nerfing it.
This really has nothing to do with MM's. There was clear incentive for them to prop up the stock based on open interest and volume with Puts at the beginning of this week and last week...and the week before that but there's been zero buying support. Just like back in Nov/Dec, MM's are not bothering to step in and volume has dried up and gone anemic.Dear MM's,
Please let us know when you are done pushing $TSLA down so the kids can eat again.
Thanks in advance.
I’m not enthusiastic about these kinds of announcements. We could all be dead by 2030. Make these announcements and then put the screws to people/stick aThese little victories pile up daily. I'm increasing my odds that we will see an even greater push into green tech due to awareness and weather related events.
If that includes taxis when that's around 250-300k vehicles just in NYC that need replacement. (numbers per the NYT)
View attachment 965498
Everything and nothing.What's changed?
Wow! You really said it.Because we have a short term demand issue with S/X and it's cheaper for Tesla to nerf them with software than to build new packs.
It would be nice if those with white interiours were available in Canada. That and bring back a true towing package where one can install a brake controller and have an active charge line on the 7 pin trailer connector. Those both went away with the change to a 15.5 volt lithium battery. Not sure why they didn’t address that. Weird.Not just CT sightings. We're starting to see (at least I do in videos), Model Y's with white interiors. Previously Austin was only doing the black interior.
When did Tesla start worrying about resale values?. And why should they? If they did that will be the wrong strategy.Yeah but that potentially affects retained values across the fleet whereas releasing a model that simply has software-locked range creates some differentiation
at least I assume that's the strategy
Plummeting retained values aren't great for your customer base or likely volumes as people who are looking at big depreciation (or worse yet are underwater on a loan) will be less inclined to upgrade, as we've seen anecdotally in this thread.When did Tesla start worrying about resale values?. And why should they? If they did that will be the wrong strategy.
When they slashed Model Y prices in Q1 did they worry about resale values? If they want to be a niche player like Porsche that makes sense. A volume player should only focus on moving metal at decent sustainable profit.