Tesla: Sales, Marketing, and Financial News
12-28-2017, 11:12 AM
#121
Moderator
Typical truck owners were V8 > *, too. The EcoBoost has definitely changed that.
Can't imagine the Tesla Truck is going to be a price competitor with your average $30-45k F150 though.
Can't imagine the Tesla Truck is going to be a price competitor with your average $30-45k F150 though.
04-11-2018, 04:08 PM
#122
Moderator
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/tesl...g-sources.html
Tesla is targeting November 2019 as the start of production for its Model Y sport utility vehicle, with production in China to begin two years later, two sources told Reuters this week, shedding some light on the electric vehicle maker's next project that could tax its resources and capacity.
Reuters has learned the Silicon Valley company led by Chief Executive Elon Musk is accepting preliminary bids for supplier contracts on the Model Y, a compact crossover companion to the Model 3 sedan. Tesla has given suppliers scant details about the program and had not provided a production time frame, but has now indicated the vehicle would begin to be built at its Fremont, California, plant in November of next year, the two sources with knowledge of the supply chain said.
Tesla declined to comment.
The new Model Y details show that Tesla is pushing ahead on plans to build a new vehicle even as it struggles to produce the Model 3, which launched in July. Despite initially attracting about 500,000 advance orders in the form of refundable deposits, the sedan's launch has been plagued by delays and manufacturing bottlenecks, postponing Tesla's anticipated revenue stream and exacerbating a cash crunch for the money-losing company.
Earlier this month, Tesla tried to reassure investors, saying its weekly Model 3 output had doubled during the first quarter and that production rates would accelerate through the second quarter to 5,000 units per week, or about 250,000 vehicles per year.
Competitive bidding is a crucial early step in the complicated process of automotive manufacturing. After the automaker discloses its plans, suppliers compete based on factors including cost and technology.
Tesla issued to suppliers what is known as a "request for information," or RFI, which gives a directional view of what will be needed.
With a new car model, automakers normally choose parts suppliers two to two-and-a-half years before the start of production. At about one-and-a-half years away, a November 2019 start date for the Model Y would be considered "aggressive, but possible," said one of the sources. A shorter timeline is potentially feasible, the source said, as the Model Y will be built on the same platform as the Model 3.
Tesla is known for its aggressive timelines and high risk-tolerance in order to get cars to market quicker. To save time and cost, Tesla made the risky bet to skip a pre-production testing phase for the Model 3 in order to advance straight to production tooling, which is harder to fix if problems arise, as Reuters first reported last year.
Tesla has said it will not need to raise additional funds this year. But Moody's cited the likelihood of a capital raise of more than $2 billion in its downgrade of the company last month, spurred by concerns about cash reserves and Tesla's ability to meet production targets. The company burned through $3.4 billion last year.
Without giving a time frame, Musk in February told analysts the company would aim for production capacity of 1 million Model Ys per year.
The two sources said suppliers could be estimating an annual production of 500,000 vehicles in the United States, with much lower volume in China, likely in the tens of thousands. Building 500,000 Model Ys per year would be the equivalent of what Musk has planned for total production in Fremont by the end of this year, although the company is nowhere near that volume.
Suppliers generally use automakers' production targets to formulate a good guess on how many vehicles will actually be built, based on the individual automaker's capability to execute and consumer demand. One of the sources said Tesla's RFI was light on details compared with other automakers, and did not provide volume estimates for the Model Y.
Musk said in February that capital investments related to the SUV would begin toward the end of 2018. Tesla has said its current factory in Fremont could produce 10,000 vehicles a week - what the company hopes it will build in the Model 3 alone some time in 2018 - without the need for a new building, although some in the industry believe there is not enough room at the plant to support that volume.
Any major Model Y program would likely require a new facility, although low volume of the Model Y could be built on the existing Model 3 line, the sources said.
Reuters has learned the Silicon Valley company led by Chief Executive Elon Musk is accepting preliminary bids for supplier contracts on the Model Y, a compact crossover companion to the Model 3 sedan. Tesla has given suppliers scant details about the program and had not provided a production time frame, but has now indicated the vehicle would begin to be built at its Fremont, California, plant in November of next year, the two sources with knowledge of the supply chain said.
Tesla declined to comment.
The new Model Y details show that Tesla is pushing ahead on plans to build a new vehicle even as it struggles to produce the Model 3, which launched in July. Despite initially attracting about 500,000 advance orders in the form of refundable deposits, the sedan's launch has been plagued by delays and manufacturing bottlenecks, postponing Tesla's anticipated revenue stream and exacerbating a cash crunch for the money-losing company.
Earlier this month, Tesla tried to reassure investors, saying its weekly Model 3 output had doubled during the first quarter and that production rates would accelerate through the second quarter to 5,000 units per week, or about 250,000 vehicles per year.
Competitive bidding is a crucial early step in the complicated process of automotive manufacturing. After the automaker discloses its plans, suppliers compete based on factors including cost and technology.
Tesla issued to suppliers what is known as a "request for information," or RFI, which gives a directional view of what will be needed.
With a new car model, automakers normally choose parts suppliers two to two-and-a-half years before the start of production. At about one-and-a-half years away, a November 2019 start date for the Model Y would be considered "aggressive, but possible," said one of the sources. A shorter timeline is potentially feasible, the source said, as the Model Y will be built on the same platform as the Model 3.
Tesla is known for its aggressive timelines and high risk-tolerance in order to get cars to market quicker. To save time and cost, Tesla made the risky bet to skip a pre-production testing phase for the Model 3 in order to advance straight to production tooling, which is harder to fix if problems arise, as Reuters first reported last year.
1 million Model Ys?
The Model Y is just one of many projects in the pipeline for Tesla, which also launched a Tesla Semi and a new Roadster in recent months. It is spending to build out its Gigafactory battery factory in Nevada, where battery module assembly issues have contributed to Model 3 delays, and also expects to build a factory in China in the near future.Tesla has said it will not need to raise additional funds this year. But Moody's cited the likelihood of a capital raise of more than $2 billion in its downgrade of the company last month, spurred by concerns about cash reserves and Tesla's ability to meet production targets. The company burned through $3.4 billion last year.
Without giving a time frame, Musk in February told analysts the company would aim for production capacity of 1 million Model Ys per year.
The two sources said suppliers could be estimating an annual production of 500,000 vehicles in the United States, with much lower volume in China, likely in the tens of thousands. Building 500,000 Model Ys per year would be the equivalent of what Musk has planned for total production in Fremont by the end of this year, although the company is nowhere near that volume.
Suppliers generally use automakers' production targets to formulate a good guess on how many vehicles will actually be built, based on the individual automaker's capability to execute and consumer demand. One of the sources said Tesla's RFI was light on details compared with other automakers, and did not provide volume estimates for the Model Y.
Musk said in February that capital investments related to the SUV would begin toward the end of 2018. Tesla has said its current factory in Fremont could produce 10,000 vehicles a week - what the company hopes it will build in the Model 3 alone some time in 2018 - without the need for a new building, although some in the industry believe there is not enough room at the plant to support that volume.
Any major Model Y program would likely require a new facility, although low volume of the Model Y could be built on the existing Model 3 line, the sources said.
04-11-2018, 04:18 PM
#123
Azine Jabroni
If Musk says it's "aggressive, but possible", add three years to the schedule.
Is the Model Y the car we'll never see?
Is the Model Y the car we'll never see?
04-11-2018, 06:20 PM
#124
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 39
Posts: 63,178
Received 2,773 Likes
on
1,976 Posts
So we have a model S, model 3, model X and now a model Y??
S3XY.... SEXY?
S3XY.... SEXY?
04-13-2018, 02:26 PM
#125
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/13/tesl...or-rework.html
Tesla ships flawed parts from suppliers to a local machine shop for fixes, and they're piled up outside
Apr. 13, 2018
Tesla is struggling to manage and fix a significant volume of flawed or damaged parts from its suppliers, sending some to local machine shops for rework, according to several current and former Tesla engineers. The company said it also makes adjustments to the design of some parts after receiving them from suppliers.
On Friday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk promised the company would be profitable and cash-flow positive in the third and fourth quarter of this year. But a high volume of rework and design tweaks could cut into Tesla's margins and contribute to delays in the delivery of its cars.
Tesla said such work is being done on a small subset of parts from suppliers, and has not constrained or delayed its Model 3 build plan.
Tesla's future as a mass-market car company hinges on efficient, automated production of the Model 3. The Model 3 is currently the best-selling electric car in the U.S. So far more than 400,000 people have already reserved that vehicle, paying $1,000 refundable fees to do so.
In January, Tesla projected it would make 2,500 Model 3s per week by the end of the first quarter of 2018. On April 3, in a Vehicle Production and Deliveries report, Tesla revealed it had missed that quarterly target.
All automakers have to deal with some amount of defective or damaged parts, both from their own factories and from suppliers. But, as previously reported, current and former employees say that Tesla experiences a higher rate of defects than industry norms. A significant number of flawed parts, and parts in need of design changes, also come from Tesla's suppliers, they said.
Current and former employees from the company's Fremont, Calif. and Sparks, Nevada factories blame Tesla for spending less time to vet suppliers than is typical in auto manufacturing. These people said the company failed to comprehensively test "variance specs" with some vendors before embarking on Model 3 production.
Piles of parts
Evidence of Tesla's rework burden stands in plain view in San Jose, California, less than a half-hour drive from the company's main factory in Fremont. Towering racks and stacks of boxes emblazoned with Tesla's name stood in the lot beside a sheet metal and machine shop called JL Precision earlier this month.
Racks of Tesla parts awaiting rework or shipment at JL Precision in San Jose, California.
Current and former Tesla engineers explained that some of the flawed parts made by the company's suppliers will go to JL Precision, and other local shops including paint shops, for quality evaluation or rework. These people declined to be identified because they were not authorized to talk to the press.
Labels on the boxes and on racks at JL Precision indicated they contained parts and tooling used to make the Model S, Model X and most of all, the newest Model 3 vehicles. Parts awaiting rework and design tweaks included door frames, doublers, torque boxes, nodes and shock mounts.
Flawed door frames, made for Tesla by Hong Bang Die Casting, are stacked in boxes at a machine shop.
Vendors supplying these parts to Tesla included a manufacturing equipment producer, Hongbang Die Casting; Ningbo Tuopu Group, an auto parts maker that's publicly traded on the Shanghai stock exchange; and Shiloh Industries, an Ohio company that makes lightweight car parts and materials. JL Precision and these suppliers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A box full of Tesla car parts awaiting shipment or repairs at JL Precision in San Jose, Calif.
There were also racks of castings, used to make tooling for Tesla's own manufacturing operation.
Once the "non-conforming" parts are analyzed and fixed, they can be used either for spare parts or in final vehicle assembly. Outsourcing some rework allows Tesla to avoid wasting materials they've paid for already, and frees up space in its Fremont factory, where all of its electric vehicles are now produced.
Auto manufacturing expert Steve Finch, a former GM plant manager with about 40 years of industry experience, said automakers typically deal with some flawed parts from suppliers.
Finch said that mass-market car companies normally will take a year or more to vet a prospective supplier. This is to ensure the supplier's factory follows ISO quality management standards and other processes that are on par with the automaker's own.
Former and current employees said Tesla took less time before signing on new suppliers. Tesla employees tasked with vetting suppliers were also not always experienced with ISO quality management standards, said these people.
Finch said outsourcing some rework to outside suppliers is "not an unreasonable thing," however automakers "will want to avoid having to make decisions that are hugely expensive or could delay production."
He added automakers usually try to make sure their parts suppliers "are able to make quality parts not just one time, but every time well ahead of the start of vehicle production."
Hanging on to flawed parts from vendors, and reworking them locally, makes sense when an automaker is constrained by supply or time, Finch said. Sending rework off-site to shops near a factory can help a car company avoid the wait and cost associated with overseas shipping.
Employees attributed outsourcing of rework to the company's cycles of production. Tesla typically ramps up production at the end of each quarter, with all hands working overtime to make the numbers. Just prior to and after these pushes, more work is outsourced, they said.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has publicly acknowledged that the company is fighting hard to perfect mass-market vehicle production, but said in April that it's been in "production hell."
Apr. 13, 2018
Tesla is struggling to manage and fix a significant volume of flawed or damaged parts from its suppliers, sending some to local machine shops for rework, according to several current and former Tesla engineers. The company said it also makes adjustments to the design of some parts after receiving them from suppliers.
On Friday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk promised the company would be profitable and cash-flow positive in the third and fourth quarter of this year. But a high volume of rework and design tweaks could cut into Tesla's margins and contribute to delays in the delivery of its cars.
Tesla said such work is being done on a small subset of parts from suppliers, and has not constrained or delayed its Model 3 build plan.
Tesla's future as a mass-market car company hinges on efficient, automated production of the Model 3. The Model 3 is currently the best-selling electric car in the U.S. So far more than 400,000 people have already reserved that vehicle, paying $1,000 refundable fees to do so.
In January, Tesla projected it would make 2,500 Model 3s per week by the end of the first quarter of 2018. On April 3, in a Vehicle Production and Deliveries report, Tesla revealed it had missed that quarterly target.
All automakers have to deal with some amount of defective or damaged parts, both from their own factories and from suppliers. But, as previously reported, current and former employees say that Tesla experiences a higher rate of defects than industry norms. A significant number of flawed parts, and parts in need of design changes, also come from Tesla's suppliers, they said.
Current and former employees from the company's Fremont, Calif. and Sparks, Nevada factories blame Tesla for spending less time to vet suppliers than is typical in auto manufacturing. These people said the company failed to comprehensively test "variance specs" with some vendors before embarking on Model 3 production.
Piles of parts
Evidence of Tesla's rework burden stands in plain view in San Jose, California, less than a half-hour drive from the company's main factory in Fremont. Towering racks and stacks of boxes emblazoned with Tesla's name stood in the lot beside a sheet metal and machine shop called JL Precision earlier this month.
Racks of Tesla parts awaiting rework or shipment at JL Precision in San Jose, California.
Current and former Tesla engineers explained that some of the flawed parts made by the company's suppliers will go to JL Precision, and other local shops including paint shops, for quality evaluation or rework. These people declined to be identified because they were not authorized to talk to the press.
Labels on the boxes and on racks at JL Precision indicated they contained parts and tooling used to make the Model S, Model X and most of all, the newest Model 3 vehicles. Parts awaiting rework and design tweaks included door frames, doublers, torque boxes, nodes and shock mounts.
Flawed door frames, made for Tesla by Hong Bang Die Casting, are stacked in boxes at a machine shop.
Vendors supplying these parts to Tesla included a manufacturing equipment producer, Hongbang Die Casting; Ningbo Tuopu Group, an auto parts maker that's publicly traded on the Shanghai stock exchange; and Shiloh Industries, an Ohio company that makes lightweight car parts and materials. JL Precision and these suppliers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A box full of Tesla car parts awaiting shipment or repairs at JL Precision in San Jose, Calif.
There were also racks of castings, used to make tooling for Tesla's own manufacturing operation.
Once the "non-conforming" parts are analyzed and fixed, they can be used either for spare parts or in final vehicle assembly. Outsourcing some rework allows Tesla to avoid wasting materials they've paid for already, and frees up space in its Fremont factory, where all of its electric vehicles are now produced.
Auto manufacturing expert Steve Finch, a former GM plant manager with about 40 years of industry experience, said automakers typically deal with some flawed parts from suppliers.
Finch said that mass-market car companies normally will take a year or more to vet a prospective supplier. This is to ensure the supplier's factory follows ISO quality management standards and other processes that are on par with the automaker's own.
Former and current employees said Tesla took less time before signing on new suppliers. Tesla employees tasked with vetting suppliers were also not always experienced with ISO quality management standards, said these people.
Finch said outsourcing some rework to outside suppliers is "not an unreasonable thing," however automakers "will want to avoid having to make decisions that are hugely expensive or could delay production."
He added automakers usually try to make sure their parts suppliers "are able to make quality parts not just one time, but every time well ahead of the start of vehicle production."
Hanging on to flawed parts from vendors, and reworking them locally, makes sense when an automaker is constrained by supply or time, Finch said. Sending rework off-site to shops near a factory can help a car company avoid the wait and cost associated with overseas shipping.
Employees attributed outsourcing of rework to the company's cycles of production. Tesla typically ramps up production at the end of each quarter, with all hands working overtime to make the numbers. Just prior to and after these pushes, more work is outsourced, they said.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has publicly acknowledged that the company is fighting hard to perfect mass-market vehicle production, but said in April that it's been in "production hell."
04-15-2018, 11:56 AM
#126
Banned
Vendors supplying these parts to Tesla included a manufacturing equipment producer, Hongbang Die Casting; Ningbo Tuopu Group
05-02-2018, 08:35 AM
#127
Moderator
Tesla Sued By Nikola Motor In $2 Billion Patent Infringement Lawsuit | Fortune
Hydrogen truck startup Nikola Motor has hit Tesla (TSLA, +2.27%) with a $2 billion patent infringement lawsuit that accuses the company run by CEO Elon Musk of stealing certain aspects of its semi truck design.
Nikola filed the lawsuit Tuesday in Arizona federal court. The lawsuit claims that Tesla’s electric semi, which was unveiled in November 2017, infringes on several of its patents, including Nikola’s mid-entry door, fuselage, and wrap windshield that is designed to give the driver an unobstructed view of the road.
Nikola Motor is designing and building its own driverless, hydrogen fuel cell–powered Class 8 truck. The company posted a design of its Nikola One freight truck in May 2016. The company unveiled the Nikola One in December 2016. It is also developing a Nikola Two day-cab, which will begin testing in fall 2018. It’s expected to go into full production in 2021.
In January, Nikola Motor announced plans to build a $1 billion hydrogen-electric semi truck factory in a suburb of Phoenix.
“It’s patently obvious there is no merit to this lawsuit,” a Tesla spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
Four months after Nikola first published its design, Aaron Hoyos, a recruiter for Tesla, reached out to Nikola’s chief engineer Kevin Lynk, the lawsuit alleges. In that email, the lawsuit alleges that Hoyos told Lynk that “Tesla is building a new team to focus on development heavy Class A trucks” and said his background would be a “good fit.”
Tesla released a teaser image of its Tesla Semi in April 2017. Six months later, just days before Tesla would reveal its Tesla Semi truck at a splashy event, Nikola sent a letter demanding the company not proceed with the unveiling until the patent infringement was resolved, the lawsuit says. Nikola says in the lawsuit that Tesla never responded.
The lawsuit highlights an increasingly heated competition in the trucking industry. Dozens of other companies, from truckmakers like Daimler, Navistar, and Volkswagen to startups like Peloton and Embark as well as Uber’s Otto and Waymo, the erstwhile Google self-driving project, are pursuing what they believe is the next generation of trucking.
Nikola filed the lawsuit Tuesday in Arizona federal court. The lawsuit claims that Tesla’s electric semi, which was unveiled in November 2017, infringes on several of its patents, including Nikola’s mid-entry door, fuselage, and wrap windshield that is designed to give the driver an unobstructed view of the road.
Nikola Motor is designing and building its own driverless, hydrogen fuel cell–powered Class 8 truck. The company posted a design of its Nikola One freight truck in May 2016. The company unveiled the Nikola One in December 2016. It is also developing a Nikola Two day-cab, which will begin testing in fall 2018. It’s expected to go into full production in 2021.
In January, Nikola Motor announced plans to build a $1 billion hydrogen-electric semi truck factory in a suburb of Phoenix.
“It’s patently obvious there is no merit to this lawsuit,” a Tesla spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
Four months after Nikola first published its design, Aaron Hoyos, a recruiter for Tesla, reached out to Nikola’s chief engineer Kevin Lynk, the lawsuit alleges. In that email, the lawsuit alleges that Hoyos told Lynk that “Tesla is building a new team to focus on development heavy Class A trucks” and said his background would be a “good fit.”
Tesla released a teaser image of its Tesla Semi in April 2017. Six months later, just days before Tesla would reveal its Tesla Semi truck at a splashy event, Nikola sent a letter demanding the company not proceed with the unveiling until the patent infringement was resolved, the lawsuit says. Nikola says in the lawsuit that Tesla never responded.
The lawsuit highlights an increasingly heated competition in the trucking industry. Dozens of other companies, from truckmakers like Daimler, Navistar, and Volkswagen to startups like Peloton and Embark as well as Uber’s Otto and Waymo, the erstwhile Google self-driving project, are pursuing what they believe is the next generation of trucking.
05-22-2018, 05:40 PM
#128
Azine Jabroni
Tesla isn’t shipping its $35,000 Model 3. That’s a problem if Elon Musk wants the company to appeal to a mass market.
By Johana Bhuiyan
@JMBooyah May 22, 2018, 1:07pm EDT
But the company still isn’t shipping those entry-level, $35,000 models en masse.
Over the weekend, Elon Musk tweeted that Tesla will be shipping a more expensive version of its Model 3 starting at $78,000 before it ships the affordable mass-market car the public was promised.
The CEO — who announced the specs of this luxury-priced vehicle on Twitter — said the company would “lose money and die” if it started by shipping the lower-priced Model 3 that starts at $35,000. He also said he would need three to six months after achieving a production rate of 5,000 cars a week to ship the Model 3 if the company wanted to survive. Cutting losses to become profitable recently became a priority for the wildly outspoken CEO.How the Model 3 targets shifted
March 2016: Tesla unveiled its first mass-market car that starts at $35,000 with a 220-mile battery range.
July 2017: Musk began delivering the Model 3s. But, Musk said, the company would focus on producing a car with a longer battery range (310 miles) that would cost $44,000 to start. The more affordable Model 3 that started at $35,000 would not be available until later in the fall, he said. He also said he expected to produce 5,000 Model 3s a week by the end of 2017.
November 2017: Musk shifted his goal of producing 5,000 cars a week to the end of the first quarter of 2018.
February 2018: Musk said he expected to produce 2,500 Model 3s a week by the end of the first quarter and 5,000 cars a week by the end of the second quarter. The timeline for delivery of the standard, affordable vehicle shifted from the fall of 2018 to early 2019. He also said deliveries of a more expensive dual-motor all-wheel-drive Model 3 would start in mid to late 2018.
May 2018: Tesla fell short of its projected production rate of 2,500 cars a week by the end of the first quarter. Musk said he expects to produce 3,000 to 4,000 per week this month and 5,000 a cars by July.
May 2018: Over the weekend, Musk announced the specs of the more expensive version of the Model 3 — starting at $78,000 — which will ship before the more affordable sedan the public was promised.
For years, the cult of Musk persevered even as his electric vehicle company stuttered in its efforts to meet production and delivery deadlines for its limited-quantity luxury vehicles like the Model S and Model X. Now, as Tesla takes on its first mass-market vehicle, it’s facing the same difficulties it faced for previous vehicles — but with much more scrutiny than the company has ever faced before.
Part of that is because the Model 3 is an important marker for the electric vehicle manufacturer. According to Musk, his ultimate goal for Tesla is to aid in the transition from a carbon fuel economy to an electric one and in doing so help save the environment.
That can only be done if there is a wide swath of Tesla’s electric vehicles taking the place of combustion ones that are already on the road.
And achieving that rests heavily on making an affordable car. But the targets on the production and delivery of this electric vehicle for the masses are constantly shifting.
In addition to focusing on selling the higher-priced Model 3s, Tesla has pushed back deadline after deadline for the rate of production, causing many to question whether the company is capable of making the transition from being a limited-quantity luxury vehicle manufacturer to becoming one for the masses.
Originally, Musk aimed to produce 5,000 Model 3s a week by the end of 2017. He shifted that rate goal to 5,000 cars a week by the end of March 2018 and then later lowered it to 2,500. The company fell 250 short of that adjusted goal as of April, only producing 2,250 Model 3s a week.
The company is now finally ramping up from the car of the few to the car of the many — the company delivered 8,180 of the Model 3 sedans in the first quarter — but that process has put a great deal of strain on the company’s business as well as staffers.
As Tesla continues to navigate a longer-than-expected production hell, it has posted another quarter of record losses.
And Musk has lost some of his top people:
Confidence in Musk from Tesla’s following does not appear to be waning, however. As of the end of the first quarter of this year, Tesla still had more than 450,000 Model 3 reservations, and demand for the higher-priced vehicles, the Model S and Model X, reached record highs at the end of 2017, according to the company.
Musk says if Tesla ships the promised affordable version of the Model 3 first it will “lose money and die.”
By Johana Bhuiyan
@JMBooyah May 22, 2018, 1:07pm EDT
But the company still isn’t shipping those entry-level, $35,000 models en masse.
Over the weekend, Elon Musk tweeted that Tesla will be shipping a more expensive version of its Model 3 starting at $78,000 before it ships the affordable mass-market car the public was promised.
The CEO — who announced the specs of this luxury-priced vehicle on Twitter — said the company would “lose money and die” if it started by shipping the lower-priced Model 3 that starts at $35,000. He also said he would need three to six months after achieving a production rate of 5,000 cars a week to ship the Model 3 if the company wanted to survive. Cutting losses to become profitable recently became a priority for the wildly outspoken CEO.How the Model 3 targets shifted
March 2016: Tesla unveiled its first mass-market car that starts at $35,000 with a 220-mile battery range.
July 2017: Musk began delivering the Model 3s. But, Musk said, the company would focus on producing a car with a longer battery range (310 miles) that would cost $44,000 to start. The more affordable Model 3 that started at $35,000 would not be available until later in the fall, he said. He also said he expected to produce 5,000 Model 3s a week by the end of 2017.
November 2017: Musk shifted his goal of producing 5,000 cars a week to the end of the first quarter of 2018.
February 2018: Musk said he expected to produce 2,500 Model 3s a week by the end of the first quarter and 5,000 cars a week by the end of the second quarter. The timeline for delivery of the standard, affordable vehicle shifted from the fall of 2018 to early 2019. He also said deliveries of a more expensive dual-motor all-wheel-drive Model 3 would start in mid to late 2018.
May 2018: Tesla fell short of its projected production rate of 2,500 cars a week by the end of the first quarter. Musk said he expects to produce 3,000 to 4,000 per week this month and 5,000 a cars by July.
May 2018: Over the weekend, Musk announced the specs of the more expensive version of the Model 3 — starting at $78,000 — which will ship before the more affordable sedan the public was promised.
For years, the cult of Musk persevered even as his electric vehicle company stuttered in its efforts to meet production and delivery deadlines for its limited-quantity luxury vehicles like the Model S and Model X. Now, as Tesla takes on its first mass-market vehicle, it’s facing the same difficulties it faced for previous vehicles — but with much more scrutiny than the company has ever faced before.
Part of that is because the Model 3 is an important marker for the electric vehicle manufacturer. According to Musk, his ultimate goal for Tesla is to aid in the transition from a carbon fuel economy to an electric one and in doing so help save the environment.
That can only be done if there is a wide swath of Tesla’s electric vehicles taking the place of combustion ones that are already on the road.
And achieving that rests heavily on making an affordable car. But the targets on the production and delivery of this electric vehicle for the masses are constantly shifting.
In addition to focusing on selling the higher-priced Model 3s, Tesla has pushed back deadline after deadline for the rate of production, causing many to question whether the company is capable of making the transition from being a limited-quantity luxury vehicle manufacturer to becoming one for the masses.
Originally, Musk aimed to produce 5,000 Model 3s a week by the end of 2017. He shifted that rate goal to 5,000 cars a week by the end of March 2018 and then later lowered it to 2,500. The company fell 250 short of that adjusted goal as of April, only producing 2,250 Model 3s a week.
The company is now finally ramping up from the car of the few to the car of the many — the company delivered 8,180 of the Model 3 sedans in the first quarter — but that process has put a great deal of strain on the company’s business as well as staffers.
As Tesla continues to navigate a longer-than-expected production hell, it has posted another quarter of record losses.
And Musk has lost some of his top people:
- In the middle of what he called a critical moment in Tesla’s history, Doug Field, the SVP of engineering, took a leave of absence. Tesla says he is not leaving the company and is just taking time to “recharge.”
- As the company faces federal inquiries into the role its driver-assist feature, Autopilot, played in recent crashes, Tesla lost its main contact National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Matthew Schwaller who was the director of field performance engineering. Schwaller has gone to a purported competitor, Waymo, to join its safety team.
- Before him, Jim Keller who led the software efforts of Autopilot, left to join Intel.
- Another senior Autopilot staffer, Sameer Qureshi, was hired by Lyft to work on the ride-hail company’s self-driving efforts earlier this month.
Confidence in Musk from Tesla’s following does not appear to be waning, however. As of the end of the first quarter of this year, Tesla still had more than 450,000 Model 3 reservations, and demand for the higher-priced vehicles, the Model S and Model X, reached record highs at the end of 2017, according to the company.
05-25-2018, 09:07 AM
#129
AZ Community Team
^ alot of that sounds pretty bad. Talented yet egomaniac Musk must follow Job's approach to properly delegate. This whole extreme flattening of Tesla is worrisome to say the least.
05-25-2018, 11:33 AM
#130
Team Owner
$78k model 3? and we thought $50k was too much already...
The following users liked this post:
kurtatx (10-19-2018)
05-25-2018, 02:33 PM
#131
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/25/tesl...r-model-3.html
Tesla flies in equipment to speed up battery production for Model 3
Published 20 Mins Ago
Tesla has flown six planes full of robots and equipment from Europe to California in an unusual, high-stakes effort to speed up battery production for its Model 3 electric sedan, people familiar with the matter told Reuters this week.
Transporting equipment for a production line by air is costly and hardly ever done in the automotive industry, and the move underscores Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk's urgency to get a grip on manufacturing problems that have hobbled the launch of the high-volume Model 3 and pushed Tesla's finances deep into the red.
"As usual with Tesla, everything is being done in a massive hurry and money seems to be no obstacle," said one of the two sources.
Tesla on Friday declined to comment on whether it has shipped in any new production equipment from Europe.
Investors are closely watching Tesla and its high-profile, often brash CEO to see if the upstart electric vehicle maker can pull off high-volume production of the Model 3, a car with the potential to catapult the niche automaker to a mass producer and assure its financial stability.
But manufacturing missteps have led Tesla to repeatedly miss production targets for the sedan, and raised doubts about Musk's promises that the company will stop burning cash by the third quarter of this year. Tesla had free cash flow of negative $1 billion in the first quarter, and earlier this month disclosed that it could offer its Fremont, California, vehicle assembly plant as collateral for debt.
Engineers from Tesla's German engineering arm, Grohmann, are now reworking the battery production line at the Gigafactory near Reno, Nevada, in a bid to free up bottlenecks, the person said. The line will become more automated gradually over time, added the source, who was not authorized to speak for attribution.
Under time pressure to fix problems, Musk has now insisted the new production line should be a no-expenses-spared effort, the source said. That led to the decision to airlift the new production equipment to the United States from Europe, a step carmakers usually avoid by planning production equipment installations months or years ahead of a production launch.
The shipments of new equipment began arriving in Reno this week, the two sources told Reuters.
It is not clear when the new production system will be ready to start running. Robots frequently need to be recalibrated to adjust for minimal differences in the quality of raw materials they are working with or temperature and humidity differences. Steps to test the quality of materials and recalibrate robots have proven to be a bottleneck that Tesla managers had underestimated, the first source said.
Published 20 Mins Ago
Tesla has flown six planes full of robots and equipment from Europe to California in an unusual, high-stakes effort to speed up battery production for its Model 3 electric sedan, people familiar with the matter told Reuters this week.
Transporting equipment for a production line by air is costly and hardly ever done in the automotive industry, and the move underscores Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk's urgency to get a grip on manufacturing problems that have hobbled the launch of the high-volume Model 3 and pushed Tesla's finances deep into the red.
"As usual with Tesla, everything is being done in a massive hurry and money seems to be no obstacle," said one of the two sources.
Tesla on Friday declined to comment on whether it has shipped in any new production equipment from Europe.
Investors are closely watching Tesla and its high-profile, often brash CEO to see if the upstart electric vehicle maker can pull off high-volume production of the Model 3, a car with the potential to catapult the niche automaker to a mass producer and assure its financial stability.
But manufacturing missteps have led Tesla to repeatedly miss production targets for the sedan, and raised doubts about Musk's promises that the company will stop burning cash by the third quarter of this year. Tesla had free cash flow of negative $1 billion in the first quarter, and earlier this month disclosed that it could offer its Fremont, California, vehicle assembly plant as collateral for debt.
Engineers from Tesla's German engineering arm, Grohmann, are now reworking the battery production line at the Gigafactory near Reno, Nevada, in a bid to free up bottlenecks, the person said. The line will become more automated gradually over time, added the source, who was not authorized to speak for attribution.
Under time pressure to fix problems, Musk has now insisted the new production line should be a no-expenses-spared effort, the source said. That led to the decision to airlift the new production equipment to the United States from Europe, a step carmakers usually avoid by planning production equipment installations months or years ahead of a production launch.
The shipments of new equipment began arriving in Reno this week, the two sources told Reuters.
It is not clear when the new production system will be ready to start running. Robots frequently need to be recalibrated to adjust for minimal differences in the quality of raw materials they are working with or temperature and humidity differences. Steps to test the quality of materials and recalibrate robots have proven to be a bottleneck that Tesla managers had underestimated, the first source said.
06-12-2018, 02:49 PM
#132
Senior Moderator
Electric car maker Tesla is laying off about 3,600 white-collar workers as it slashes costs in an effort to become profitable.
Chief executive Elon Musk said in an email to workers Tuesday that the cuts amount to about 9 percent of the company’s workforce of 40,000.
The company did not say how much money the cuts would save.
The move will not affect factory workers, as Tesla continues to ramp up production of its lower-priced Model 3 compact car.
Musk said the company is motivated by turning a profit. The company has not posted an annual profit in its 15 years of business.
Musk said Tesla is making the move now so it never has to do it again. He said there’s still a significant need for additional production workers.
Chief executive Elon Musk said in an email to workers Tuesday that the cuts amount to about 9 percent of the company’s workforce of 40,000.
The company did not say how much money the cuts would save.
The move will not affect factory workers, as Tesla continues to ramp up production of its lower-priced Model 3 compact car.
Musk said the company is motivated by turning a profit. The company has not posted an annual profit in its 15 years of business.
Musk said Tesla is making the move now so it never has to do it again. He said there’s still a significant need for additional production workers.
Next step, moving the factory to the South.
06-12-2018, 03:08 PM
#133
AZ Community Team
+1
Beside getting perhaps a cheap lease on the old NUMMI Fremont facility which was way too big for Tesla anyway I never understood why they stayed in CA.
AL, KY, SC and other southern states would have been better labor cost, tax breaks, ....
Beside getting perhaps a cheap lease on the old NUMMI Fremont facility which was way too big for Tesla anyway I never understood why they stayed in CA.
AL, KY, SC and other southern states would have been better labor cost, tax breaks, ....
06-12-2018, 03:12 PM
#134
Team Owner
...Or did he imply Mexico?
06-12-2018, 05:37 PM
#135
Senior Moderator
06-25-2018, 08:40 AM
#136
Race Director
Tesla Inc. and General Motors lead the U.S. auto industry in sales of plug-in vehicles.
In a traditional vehicle segment, that would be cause for celebration. But in an emerging market for plug-ins, it has meant investing billions of dollars in vehicles that aren't yet profitable while also being first in line to lose sizable tax credits for their customers from Uncle Sam.
Tesla, perhaps as early as July, is expected to be the first automaker to hit a 200,000-unit sales mark that triggers a phaseout of the federal tax credit currently worth up to $7,500 toward the lease or purchase of a new plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle.
GM is expected to follow Tesla by early 2019. Nissan Motor Co. and Ford Motor Co. are the next closest to 200,000 and are still forecast to be years away from hitting the trigger. Barring an extension to the credits from Congress, the plug-in market is about to enter a period in which some brands are suddenly hindered by a considerable price disadvantage, and buyers could be surprised to receive less of a credit than they had been counting on.
The end of the credits was expected to occur years ago for large automakers such as GM. But adoption of the vehicles has not occurred as quickly as most expected when the program was created a decade ago.
Plug-ins represented 1.2 percent of U.S. sales in 2017, according to IHS Markit, which doesn't forecast them to surpass 5 percent of the domestic market until 2022. IHS predicts that by 2025 an influx of new models — the number of choices is expected to go from 49 last year to 258 in 2025 — will increase sales of plug-ins, including fuel cells. But even at 10.3 percent in 2025 they would still represent just a sliver of the overall market.
The alternative-fuel tax credit program started under the George W. Bush administration and was expanded under President Barack Obama. It was a point of contention for the Trump administration and Republican-led Congress last year, as they debated sweeping tax reform legislation that almost terminated the program.
Supporters, including many automakers, have touted the cash as a needed subsidy to help accelerate the development of next-generation electrified vehicles to reduce the country's dependency on fossil fuel and foreign oil.
Opponents of the credits have criticized the program for disrupting the free market and using tax dollars to back unwanted technology. Some say the government should not be subsidizing wealthy customers who would purchase $75,000-plus Teslas anyway.
And now, the program is about to effectively penalize companies that spent billions on research and development, built up supply chains and stimulated public interest, which rivals can now take advantage of as the plug-in market gets more competitive.
"The groundbreakers, the people who forged ahead and got these products out there first, could be at a significant disadvantage now," said Rebecca Lindland, executive analyst at Kelly Blue Book. "I don't think it's fair to reward a company that hasn't been as innovative with an incentive that begins when someone else's ends.
"We need to not penalize the companies that were innovative and early to market."
Tesla quiet, GM lobbying
Tesla and GM have accounted for 44 percent of the 853,500 plug-ins sold in the U.S. since the tax credits took effect Jan. 1, 2010, according to estimates by the Automotive News Data Center.
The two companies are likely to feel the end of the credits differently. Industry experts expect GM to take a bigger hit than Tesla. The federal incentive affects purchasing decisions for lower-priced vehicles such as the sub-$40,000 Chevrolet Volt more than a $75,000-plus Tesla Model S or X, according to research by the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California-Davis.
Mary Barra, GM CEO"We expect that GM will have much more impact or drop in sales," said Gil Tal, director of the Plug-in Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Research Center at UC-Davis. "The larger the share of the incentive, the higher the impact."
A 2016 study co-written by Tal found that 29 percent of plug-in sales in 2010 through 2014 can be attributed to the federal tax credit. Within that, 40 percent of Volt buyers would not have purchased one without the credit of up to $7,500, according to the study, but only 14 percent of Tesla buyers would have bought something else instead.
That's likely why Tesla and its outspoken CEO, Elon Musk, have been uncharacteristically quiet on the looming end of the credits, while GM and its executives have lobbied for an extension or expansion of the program, which is believed to be highly unlikely under the current administration.
Batey: "Great for the consumer""At the end of the day, we think having the benefits is great for the customer, because obviously it makes the EV adoption easier and more attractive," GM North America President Alan Batey told Automotive News this month.
GM, which currently offers two plug-ins in the U.S., plans to launch at least 20 all-electric and fuel cell vehicles globally by 2023. The company has said its next-generation EV platform — expected in 2021 — would be profitable.
A lot of GM's competitors don't have any EVs to offer, and Batey said there "should be a broader opportunity for those that have EVs to offer the consumer."
Despite its flaws, the federal tax credit is and has been "the most important incentive for the purchase" of plug-ins, said Michael Nicholas, senior researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation. The industry has been "able to get to more favorable economies of scale sooner" than it would have otherwise, he said.
'Mixed bag'
Nicholas, co-author of several studies on the topic, and others described the tax credit program as a "mixed bag."
"Will it make some consumers look at a brand that still has the tax credit eligible? Absolutely," said Rachel Shue, automotive consultant with IHS Markit. "But are some consumers going to return to the place where they bought their first EV because of new and exciting products? Absolutely as well."
Industry experts argue the federal tax credits should have been based on a period of time, not the number of units sold — creating a level playing field and more urgency among automakers.
"One of the really strange things about this program is it doesn't have a finite ending point," said Jeremy Acevedo, Edmunds' manager of industry analysis.
Some say the incentives also should be based on the price of the vehicle and only be available to first-time buyers, which would encourage consumers to actually purchase the vehicle instead of leasing. When plug-ins are leased, the finance company gets the credit and doesn't always pass along the full amount to the buyer.
KBB's Lindland, who participated in a 2015 National Academy of Sciences study on barriers to EV deployment, said the regulatory incentives essentially have helped more affluent, eco-conscious drivers who would have bought the cars regardless and are now running out "just when the mainstream market needs to be incentivized."
For a case study on what occurs when such credits end, look no further than sales of the Nissan Leaf after the state of Georgia — one of its prime markets — removed an incentive of $5,000 for plug-ins.
When the tax credit was replaced with an increased registration fee — to make up for the gasoline taxes that EV drivers don't pay — Leaf salesin the state reportedly dropped almost 90 percent.
Phaseout
The phaseout of the federal tax credits begins two quarters after the quarter during which a manufacturer crosses the 200,000 threshold. That means buyers can still get the full credit for up to six more months, depending on the timing.
If Tesla, for example, reaches the limit anytime from July 1 through Sept. 30, the full credit would remain available to buyers who take delivery of its vehicles by the end of the year. The credit would then be cut in half, to $3,750, for the following two quarters (January through June) and then halved again, to $1,875, for two more quarters (July through December) before going away for all Tesla buyers starting Jan. 1, 2020.
Tesla has said it expects to hit the 200,000 mark sometime this year, and reports on some Tesla online message boards suggest that the company has slowed U.S. deliveries to ensure it doesn't trigger the phaseout before July 1.
During Tesla's annual shareholders meeting this month, Musk said the company wouldn't start building the least-expensive version of the Model 3 until the first quarter of 2019.
That means consumers who have been waiting for the $35,000 base trim that Musk announced two years ago would finally get their car just as the credit drops by $3,750.
The credit applies to businesses as well as individuals, suggesting that Waymo, Google's self-driving technology affiliate, could reap credits totaling $465 million for a May agreement to buy up to 62,000 Chrysler Pacifica plug-in minivans. If so, that also would reduce the number of individual FCA US customers eligible to receive a credit by nearly one-third.
Plug-in advocates are quietly pressing lawmakers to raise the limits, although no legislation is imminent, said Genevieve Cullen, president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association.
In March, 36 utilities wrote House and Senate leaders seeking elimination of the 200,000-unit cap. Utilities are increasingly gearing up to provide charging infrastructure for EVs and say incentives still are necessary to help achieve economies of scale and provide certainty to automakers and consumers.
"We've continually reinforced the need to extend," GM CEO Mary Barra said earlier this month.
"As we believe in an all-EV future, we think there's still work to do to make sure customers understand the benefit as we continue to develop the marketplace."
In a traditional vehicle segment, that would be cause for celebration. But in an emerging market for plug-ins, it has meant investing billions of dollars in vehicles that aren't yet profitable while also being first in line to lose sizable tax credits for their customers from Uncle Sam.
Tesla, perhaps as early as July, is expected to be the first automaker to hit a 200,000-unit sales mark that triggers a phaseout of the federal tax credit currently worth up to $7,500 toward the lease or purchase of a new plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle.
GM is expected to follow Tesla by early 2019. Nissan Motor Co. and Ford Motor Co. are the next closest to 200,000 and are still forecast to be years away from hitting the trigger. Barring an extension to the credits from Congress, the plug-in market is about to enter a period in which some brands are suddenly hindered by a considerable price disadvantage, and buyers could be surprised to receive less of a credit than they had been counting on.
The end of the credits was expected to occur years ago for large automakers such as GM. But adoption of the vehicles has not occurred as quickly as most expected when the program was created a decade ago.
Plug-ins represented 1.2 percent of U.S. sales in 2017, according to IHS Markit, which doesn't forecast them to surpass 5 percent of the domestic market until 2022. IHS predicts that by 2025 an influx of new models — the number of choices is expected to go from 49 last year to 258 in 2025 — will increase sales of plug-ins, including fuel cells. But even at 10.3 percent in 2025 they would still represent just a sliver of the overall market.
The alternative-fuel tax credit program started under the George W. Bush administration and was expanded under President Barack Obama. It was a point of contention for the Trump administration and Republican-led Congress last year, as they debated sweeping tax reform legislation that almost terminated the program.
Supporters, including many automakers, have touted the cash as a needed subsidy to help accelerate the development of next-generation electrified vehicles to reduce the country's dependency on fossil fuel and foreign oil.
Opponents of the credits have criticized the program for disrupting the free market and using tax dollars to back unwanted technology. Some say the government should not be subsidizing wealthy customers who would purchase $75,000-plus Teslas anyway.
And now, the program is about to effectively penalize companies that spent billions on research and development, built up supply chains and stimulated public interest, which rivals can now take advantage of as the plug-in market gets more competitive.
"The groundbreakers, the people who forged ahead and got these products out there first, could be at a significant disadvantage now," said Rebecca Lindland, executive analyst at Kelly Blue Book. "I don't think it's fair to reward a company that hasn't been as innovative with an incentive that begins when someone else's ends.
"We need to not penalize the companies that were innovative and early to market."
Tesla quiet, GM lobbying
Tesla and GM have accounted for 44 percent of the 853,500 plug-ins sold in the U.S. since the tax credits took effect Jan. 1, 2010, according to estimates by the Automotive News Data Center.
The two companies are likely to feel the end of the credits differently. Industry experts expect GM to take a bigger hit than Tesla. The federal incentive affects purchasing decisions for lower-priced vehicles such as the sub-$40,000 Chevrolet Volt more than a $75,000-plus Tesla Model S or X, according to research by the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California-Davis.
Mary Barra, GM CEO"We expect that GM will have much more impact or drop in sales," said Gil Tal, director of the Plug-in Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Research Center at UC-Davis. "The larger the share of the incentive, the higher the impact."
A 2016 study co-written by Tal found that 29 percent of plug-in sales in 2010 through 2014 can be attributed to the federal tax credit. Within that, 40 percent of Volt buyers would not have purchased one without the credit of up to $7,500, according to the study, but only 14 percent of Tesla buyers would have bought something else instead.
That's likely why Tesla and its outspoken CEO, Elon Musk, have been uncharacteristically quiet on the looming end of the credits, while GM and its executives have lobbied for an extension or expansion of the program, which is believed to be highly unlikely under the current administration.
Batey: "Great for the consumer""At the end of the day, we think having the benefits is great for the customer, because obviously it makes the EV adoption easier and more attractive," GM North America President Alan Batey told Automotive News this month.
GM, which currently offers two plug-ins in the U.S., plans to launch at least 20 all-electric and fuel cell vehicles globally by 2023. The company has said its next-generation EV platform — expected in 2021 — would be profitable.
A lot of GM's competitors don't have any EVs to offer, and Batey said there "should be a broader opportunity for those that have EVs to offer the consumer."
Despite its flaws, the federal tax credit is and has been "the most important incentive for the purchase" of plug-ins, said Michael Nicholas, senior researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation. The industry has been "able to get to more favorable economies of scale sooner" than it would have otherwise, he said.
'Mixed bag'
Nicholas, co-author of several studies on the topic, and others described the tax credit program as a "mixed bag."
"Will it make some consumers look at a brand that still has the tax credit eligible? Absolutely," said Rachel Shue, automotive consultant with IHS Markit. "But are some consumers going to return to the place where they bought their first EV because of new and exciting products? Absolutely as well."
Industry experts argue the federal tax credits should have been based on a period of time, not the number of units sold — creating a level playing field and more urgency among automakers.
"One of the really strange things about this program is it doesn't have a finite ending point," said Jeremy Acevedo, Edmunds' manager of industry analysis.
Some say the incentives also should be based on the price of the vehicle and only be available to first-time buyers, which would encourage consumers to actually purchase the vehicle instead of leasing. When plug-ins are leased, the finance company gets the credit and doesn't always pass along the full amount to the buyer.
KBB's Lindland, who participated in a 2015 National Academy of Sciences study on barriers to EV deployment, said the regulatory incentives essentially have helped more affluent, eco-conscious drivers who would have bought the cars regardless and are now running out "just when the mainstream market needs to be incentivized."
For a case study on what occurs when such credits end, look no further than sales of the Nissan Leaf after the state of Georgia — one of its prime markets — removed an incentive of $5,000 for plug-ins.
When the tax credit was replaced with an increased registration fee — to make up for the gasoline taxes that EV drivers don't pay — Leaf salesin the state reportedly dropped almost 90 percent.
Phaseout
The phaseout of the federal tax credits begins two quarters after the quarter during which a manufacturer crosses the 200,000 threshold. That means buyers can still get the full credit for up to six more months, depending on the timing.
If Tesla, for example, reaches the limit anytime from July 1 through Sept. 30, the full credit would remain available to buyers who take delivery of its vehicles by the end of the year. The credit would then be cut in half, to $3,750, for the following two quarters (January through June) and then halved again, to $1,875, for two more quarters (July through December) before going away for all Tesla buyers starting Jan. 1, 2020.
Tesla has said it expects to hit the 200,000 mark sometime this year, and reports on some Tesla online message boards suggest that the company has slowed U.S. deliveries to ensure it doesn't trigger the phaseout before July 1.
During Tesla's annual shareholders meeting this month, Musk said the company wouldn't start building the least-expensive version of the Model 3 until the first quarter of 2019.
That means consumers who have been waiting for the $35,000 base trim that Musk announced two years ago would finally get their car just as the credit drops by $3,750.
The credit applies to businesses as well as individuals, suggesting that Waymo, Google's self-driving technology affiliate, could reap credits totaling $465 million for a May agreement to buy up to 62,000 Chrysler Pacifica plug-in minivans. If so, that also would reduce the number of individual FCA US customers eligible to receive a credit by nearly one-third.
Plug-in advocates are quietly pressing lawmakers to raise the limits, although no legislation is imminent, said Genevieve Cullen, president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association.
In March, 36 utilities wrote House and Senate leaders seeking elimination of the 200,000-unit cap. Utilities are increasingly gearing up to provide charging infrastructure for EVs and say incentives still are necessary to help achieve economies of scale and provide certainty to automakers and consumers.
"We've continually reinforced the need to extend," GM CEO Mary Barra said earlier this month.
"As we believe in an all-EV future, we think there's still work to do to make sure customers understand the benefit as we continue to develop the marketplace."
07-10-2018, 03:07 PM
#137
Race Director
Tesla is expanding its production overseas, and it's headed right for the largest EV and hybrid market. The automaker has reached a preliminary agreement with the government of Shanghai -- the city is an automaker hub -- to build a factory with a capacity to produce 500,000 vehicles a year, Bloomberg reports. The factory and its output are planned to dwarf Tesla's current U.S. production capabilities, and it comes after a year of negotiations between the electric automaker and Shanghai local government in China.
The advantages for Tesla for a large local production facility are pretty significant: China is banking heavily on "new energy" vehicles -- hybrids and electrics -- and demand for such vehicles is expected to grow substantially in the next decade. A factory in China would also allow Tesla to operate free of various tariffs and other current and future trade measures between China and the U.S., which are currently moving in the direction of a trade skirmish if not an outright trade war. Avoiding tariffs would deliver a significant boost for Tesla, as just last week the country's government raised the import duty on U.S.-made vehicles to 40 percent.
A plant in China would not only allow Tesla to cut vehicle manufacturing costs significantly but also to set up battery production, taking advantage of the proximity of China's massive mining and battery-production operations. Local production would also allow Tesla to reach a wider audience of buyers in China and in the Asia-Pacific region, offering lower prices and tailoring the vehicles' offerings to the tastes of the local market.
Last November Tesla CEO Elon Musk indicated that the automaker will probably produce the Model 3 and the upcoming Model Y crossover in China, rather than the more expensive models, aiming to offer volume models as opposed to pricey luxury models at the top end of its lineup.
News of a preliminary agreement in China comes just days after Tesla barely reached a crucial production milestone at its Fremont, California, plant that produces the Model 3, reaching the 5,000-cars-per-week target just hours after the self-imposed deadline. Model 3 production had gotten off to a significantly slower start than predicted 12 months ago when it began, delivering the most stressful (and expense-filled) year for the electric automaker.
Read more: Tesla plans factory in Shanghai, China with capacity of 500,000 cars per year
The advantages for Tesla for a large local production facility are pretty significant: China is banking heavily on "new energy" vehicles -- hybrids and electrics -- and demand for such vehicles is expected to grow substantially in the next decade. A factory in China would also allow Tesla to operate free of various tariffs and other current and future trade measures between China and the U.S., which are currently moving in the direction of a trade skirmish if not an outright trade war. Avoiding tariffs would deliver a significant boost for Tesla, as just last week the country's government raised the import duty on U.S.-made vehicles to 40 percent.
A plant in China would not only allow Tesla to cut vehicle manufacturing costs significantly but also to set up battery production, taking advantage of the proximity of China's massive mining and battery-production operations. Local production would also allow Tesla to reach a wider audience of buyers in China and in the Asia-Pacific region, offering lower prices and tailoring the vehicles' offerings to the tastes of the local market.
Last November Tesla CEO Elon Musk indicated that the automaker will probably produce the Model 3 and the upcoming Model Y crossover in China, rather than the more expensive models, aiming to offer volume models as opposed to pricey luxury models at the top end of its lineup.
News of a preliminary agreement in China comes just days after Tesla barely reached a crucial production milestone at its Fremont, California, plant that produces the Model 3, reaching the 5,000-cars-per-week target just hours after the self-imposed deadline. Model 3 production had gotten off to a significantly slower start than predicted 12 months ago when it began, delivering the most stressful (and expense-filled) year for the electric automaker.
Read more: Tesla plans factory in Shanghai, China with capacity of 500,000 cars per year
07-10-2018, 04:48 PM
#138
Team Owner
to avoid the tariff, you will see more and more US companies to open shops in China. It is such a counter-productive move instead of keep US businesses here, we are forcing them out.
No one could afford to lose China's market, so the solution is kinda obvious.
instead of keep US businesses here, we are forcing them out.No one could afford to lose China's market, so the solution is kinda obvious.
07-10-2018, 04:53 PM
#139
The inconvenient truth
Just saw one of those tesla roadsters on the road about 45 minutes ago. Pulled up next to it, looked at the guy and gave it a little gas. I got up to about 80 km/h (were on a 50km/h limit road) and that thing took off so fast. It must have reached at least 120km/h in an instant. Looked pretty cool until the guy almost plowed it into traffic that was stopped at a light. He swerved into the other lane to avoid an accident and then was gone. Lol those things are seriously quick.
07-10-2018, 05:15 PM
#140
Team Owner
One of those? are they on the road already?
07-10-2018, 05:22 PM
#141
The inconvenient truth
I swear thats what it was unless tesla has some other similar type model. Silver color roadster, looked a lot like a lotus from the back. Defiantly electric and said Tesla on the back. Couldn't see what the other badge on the back said. Thing was silent and crazy fast.
Edit: must have been the old tesla roadster not the new one. Still seemed quick doe.
Edit: must have been the old tesla roadster not the new one. Still seemed quick doe.
Last edited by dopeboy1; 07-10-2018 at 05:34 PM.
07-11-2018, 12:11 AM
#142
Punk Rocker
Am I the only one that simply can't stand Tesla? I mean, sure they look great and as far as EV's go, they work as well as current technology allows, but this ridiculous cult-like following they have achieved is just beyond absurd IMO. They are still cars built for rich people who want to brag about how much they care and their lemming-like following consists basically of the same kinds of people that spend the night outside of Apple stores before the launch of every new iPhone. I guess you could call me biased because I really just hate EV's with a passion, but I can't believe I'm the only one?
07-11-2018, 11:52 AM
#143
Team Owner
I dont like EV... maybe because my motion sickness would not allow me to drive one without feeling like being on a roller coaster for 30 mins.
The energy regen crap really fuck me up, every time i drive one.
The energy regen crap really fuck me up, every time i drive one.
07-11-2018, 12:48 PM
#144
Azine Jabroni
Am I the only one that simply can't stand Tesla? I mean, sure they look great and as far as EV's go, they work as well as current technology allows, but this ridiculous cult-like following they have achieved is just beyond absurd IMO. They are still cars built for rich people who want to brag about how much they care and their lemming-like following consists basically of the same kinds of people that spend the night outside of Apple stores before the launch of every new iPhone. I guess you could call me biased because I really just hate EV's with a passion, but I can't believe I'm the only one?
Model 3: $35,000? Please.
Good news for the Tesla people: The company name and brand is so valuable that when they inevitably go bankrupt a major auto manufacturer will come in and buy out the brand and technology.
07-12-2018, 12:21 AM
#145
Punk Rocker
Don't get me wrong, Tesla absolutely did some really neat things with their cars (like the fantastic styling of the Model S, the massive infotainment screens, the absurd acceleration, etc). I just hate the sheep mentality that goes along with the company and its products. The Chevy Bolt is arguably a better EV than the Model 3 and it actually does cost $35k, is actually widely available right now, and also has some pretty neat interior features. But its not "cool" like the Tesla so nobody buys the thing. It just goes to show that the EV craze is really more of a fashion fad since the Bolt offers all of the same supposed environmental advantages as the Model 3 but the hypocrites who are handing out $1k checks to Musk for the honor of getting on a 2 year waiting list just ignore it completely.
As for the Model 3 itself, one of the ER doctors I work with just recently got his and it does look pretty nice sitting in the parking lot. That's where GM erred with the Bolt; they needed to cater to the fashionistas and make it look cool on the outside. As-is it looks just like a run-of-the-mill Chevy hatchback. And how can you brag to all your elitist buddies about your rad new EV if it just looks like a nicely equipped Aveo?
As for the Model 3 itself, one of the ER doctors I work with just recently got his and it does look pretty nice sitting in the parking lot. That's where GM erred with the Bolt; they needed to cater to the fashionistas and make it look cool on the outside. As-is it looks just like a run-of-the-mill Chevy hatchback. And how can you brag to all your elitist buddies about your rad new EV if it just looks like a nicely equipped Aveo?
07-12-2018, 10:51 AM
#146
Race Director
Tesla Inc. has delivered 200,000 electric vehicles in the United States, a spokesperson said on Thursday, resulting in lower tax credits for future buyers.
Under a tax overhaul last year, tax credits are available for the first 200,000 EVs sold by an automaker. It is then reduced by 50 percent every six months until it is phased out.
From Jan. 1 next year, the current $7,500 tax credit will go down to $3,750 until the middle of the year, Tesla said on its website.
Tesla U.S. sales hit 200,00, lowering tax credit for future buyers ? Tech News
Under a tax overhaul last year, tax credits are available for the first 200,000 EVs sold by an automaker. It is then reduced by 50 percent every six months until it is phased out.
From Jan. 1 next year, the current $7,500 tax credit will go down to $3,750 until the middle of the year, Tesla said on its website.
Tesla U.S. sales hit 200,00, lowering tax credit for future buyers ? Tech News
The following users liked this post:
Legend2TL (07-12-2018)
07-12-2018, 10:52 AM
#147
Race Director
The following federal income tax credits are available to anyone who purchases a new Tesla Model S, Model X or Model 3:
Federal Tax Credit For Vehicles Delivered
$7,500 On or before December 31, 2018
$3,750 January 1 to June 30, 2019
$1,875J uly 1 to December 31, 2019
Several states and local utilities offer additional electric vehicle incentives for customers, often taking the form of a rebate. Rebates can be claimed immediately after purchase, while tax credits are claimed when filing income taxes.
Many states also offer non-cash incentives, such as carpool lane access in California and free municipal parking
All states $7,500 income tax credit (subject to phase out schedule above)
Arizona Reduced Vehicle License Tax, Carpool lane access and reduced rates for electric vehicle charging
California $2,500 rebate (based on income eligibility)
Connecticut $3,000 rebate for new vehicles with a base price under $60,000
Colorado $5,000 tax credit for purchase of a new vehicle, $2,500 tax credit for lease of a new vehicle
Delaware $1,000 rebate for new vehicles with a base price over $60,000, $3,500 rebate for new vehicles with a base price under $60,000
Hawaii Carpool lane access and reduced rates for electric vehicle charging
Louisiana $2,500 income tax credit
Maryland $3,000 Excise Tax Credit for new vehicles with a total price under $60,000, $700 rebate on wall connectors and installation
Massachusetts $1,000 rebate for new vehicles with a base price over $60,000, $2,500 rebate for new vehicles with a base price under $60,000
Nevada Reduced rates for electric vehicle charging
New Jersey Sales tax exempt
New York $500 rebate for new vehicles with a base price over $60,000, $2,000 rebate for new vehicles with a base price under $60,000
Pennsylvania $1,750 rebate for new vehicles with a base price under $50,000 and under(500 rebates available between January 1 and June 30, 2018)
Washington DC Excise tax exempt
Federal Tax Credit For Vehicles Delivered
$7,500 On or before December 31, 2018
$3,750 January 1 to June 30, 2019
$1,875J uly 1 to December 31, 2019
Several states and local utilities offer additional electric vehicle incentives for customers, often taking the form of a rebate. Rebates can be claimed immediately after purchase, while tax credits are claimed when filing income taxes.
Many states also offer non-cash incentives, such as carpool lane access in California and free municipal parking
All states $7,500 income tax credit (subject to phase out schedule above)
Arizona Reduced Vehicle License Tax, Carpool lane access and reduced rates for electric vehicle charging
California $2,500 rebate (based on income eligibility)
Connecticut $3,000 rebate for new vehicles with a base price under $60,000
Colorado $5,000 tax credit for purchase of a new vehicle, $2,500 tax credit for lease of a new vehicle
Delaware $1,000 rebate for new vehicles with a base price over $60,000, $3,500 rebate for new vehicles with a base price under $60,000
Hawaii Carpool lane access and reduced rates for electric vehicle charging
Louisiana $2,500 income tax credit
Maryland $3,000 Excise Tax Credit for new vehicles with a total price under $60,000, $700 rebate on wall connectors and installation
Massachusetts $1,000 rebate for new vehicles with a base price over $60,000, $2,500 rebate for new vehicles with a base price under $60,000
Nevada Reduced rates for electric vehicle charging
New Jersey Sales tax exempt
New York $500 rebate for new vehicles with a base price over $60,000, $2,000 rebate for new vehicles with a base price under $60,000
Pennsylvania $1,750 rebate for new vehicles with a base price under $50,000 and under(500 rebates available between January 1 and June 30, 2018)
Washington DC Excise tax exempt
Last edited by biker; 07-12-2018 at 10:58 AM.
10-19-2018, 02:28 PM
#148
Race Director
When Tesla introduced “Full Self-Driving Capability” for its Autopilot system as an optional Model S, Model 3, and Model X upgrade in October 2016, the automaker said it would roll out the autonomous mode via an over-the-air update after federal regulators gave it the green light. But today, two years after the upcharge’s debut, Tesla’s doing away with it to “prevent confusion.”
The move comes months after Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that Version 9 of Autopilot, which released through its early access program in September, would lay the groundwork for advanced driverless features. Previously, Musk pledged that most Tesla models would offer “full self-driving” capabilities by 2019.
The $8,000 option’s removal appears to be temporary. Earlier this year, Bloomberg reported that Tesla was seeking 100 employees to join an internal Autopilot testing program. Workers who agreed to share 300 to 400 hours of driving feedback with the company wouldn’t have to pay for full self-driving capabilities or a premium interior — a $13,000 savings.
Full Self-Driving Capability” has been controversial from the start.
Prior to the departure of several Autopilot executives including Sterling Anderson, former AMD chip designer Jim Keller, and Swift programming language architect Chris Lattner, Tesla owners filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Autopilot was “essentially unusable and demonstrably dangerous”; the company settled out of court in June. Separately, consumer advocacy groups including Consumer Watchdog have accused Tesla of “deceptive and unfair practices in advertising and marketing” regarding Autopilot.
Autopilot was determined to have been engaged in the moments leading up to a fatal Model X collision this spring — the second fatality involving Autopilot since a crash in May 2016. Separately, the driver-assistance system has been blamed for a number of fender benders, including one earlier this year in which a Tesla Model S collided with a parked Culver City fire truck.
In more bad news for Autopilot, this month, in its first-ever benchmark of automated driving systems, Consumer Reports put GM’s Super Cruise ahead of Tesla’s software, followed by Nissan’s ProPilot Assist and Volvo’s Pilot Assist.
Unlike autonomous cars from Google spinoff Waymo, GM’s Cruise Automation division, and others, Tesla’s Autopilot hardware omits lidars — the laser-based sensors that map surroundings from reflections. Musk, who’s called lidar “a crutch,” contends that its eight cameras, 12 ultrasonic sensors, and front-facing radar — in tandem with its onboard computer and software stack — is sufficient for full autonomy.
In October, Tesla released its first quarterly vehicle safety report, which detailed the number of accidents involving that occurred while Autopilot, Tesla’s advanced driver-assistance system, was engaged. According to Tesla, the past three months saw one accident or “crash-like” event — near miss — for every 3.34 million Autopilot miles, versus one for every 1.92 million miles driven by with Autopilot disabled.
“As we are working hard to make our cars the safest and most capable cars on the road in terms of passive safety, active safety, and automated driving, we must continue to encourage driver vigilance on the road — that is, by and large, the best way to prevent traffic accidents,” Tesla wrote.
This week, Musk said that a forthcoming in-house computer chip would improve Autopilot performance between 500 and 2,000 percent.
Update at 8:30 a.m. Pacific: “Full Self-Driving Capability” is still available for existing Tesla owners. It can be added as an upgrade through the Tesla Account page for $5,000.
The move comes months after Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that Version 9 of Autopilot, which released through its early access program in September, would lay the groundwork for advanced driverless features. Previously, Musk pledged that most Tesla models would offer “full self-driving” capabilities by 2019.
The $8,000 option’s removal appears to be temporary. Earlier this year, Bloomberg reported that Tesla was seeking 100 employees to join an internal Autopilot testing program. Workers who agreed to share 300 to 400 hours of driving feedback with the company wouldn’t have to pay for full self-driving capabilities or a premium interior — a $13,000 savings.
Full Self-Driving Capability” has been controversial from the start.
Prior to the departure of several Autopilot executives including Sterling Anderson, former AMD chip designer Jim Keller, and Swift programming language architect Chris Lattner, Tesla owners filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Autopilot was “essentially unusable and demonstrably dangerous”; the company settled out of court in June. Separately, consumer advocacy groups including Consumer Watchdog have accused Tesla of “deceptive and unfair practices in advertising and marketing” regarding Autopilot.
Autopilot was determined to have been engaged in the moments leading up to a fatal Model X collision this spring — the second fatality involving Autopilot since a crash in May 2016. Separately, the driver-assistance system has been blamed for a number of fender benders, including one earlier this year in which a Tesla Model S collided with a parked Culver City fire truck.
In more bad news for Autopilot, this month, in its first-ever benchmark of automated driving systems, Consumer Reports put GM’s Super Cruise ahead of Tesla’s software, followed by Nissan’s ProPilot Assist and Volvo’s Pilot Assist.
Unlike autonomous cars from Google spinoff Waymo, GM’s Cruise Automation division, and others, Tesla’s Autopilot hardware omits lidars — the laser-based sensors that map surroundings from reflections. Musk, who’s called lidar “a crutch,” contends that its eight cameras, 12 ultrasonic sensors, and front-facing radar — in tandem with its onboard computer and software stack — is sufficient for full autonomy.
In October, Tesla released its first quarterly vehicle safety report, which detailed the number of accidents involving that occurred while Autopilot, Tesla’s advanced driver-assistance system, was engaged. According to Tesla, the past three months saw one accident or “crash-like” event — near miss — for every 3.34 million Autopilot miles, versus one for every 1.92 million miles driven by with Autopilot disabled.
“As we are working hard to make our cars the safest and most capable cars on the road in terms of passive safety, active safety, and automated driving, we must continue to encourage driver vigilance on the road — that is, by and large, the best way to prevent traffic accidents,” Tesla wrote.
This week, Musk said that a forthcoming in-house computer chip would improve Autopilot performance between 500 and 2,000 percent.
Update at 8:30 a.m. Pacific: “Full Self-Driving Capability” is still available for existing Tesla owners. It can be added as an upgrade through the Tesla Account page for $5,000.
11-08-2018, 11:13 AM
#149
Moderator
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/11...hell-stay-ceo/
Tesla has announced a new chair of its board of directors: Robyn Denholm. The move is part of the deal with the Securities and Exchange Commission to settle claims that CEO Elon Musk misled investors. The deal prohibits Musk from serving as chairman of the company for three years. He will remain CEO of Tesla.
Denholm, who has served on Tesla’s board since 2014, will leave her role as CFO of Telstra, the Australian telecom giant, in six months.
Prior to working at Telstra, Denholm spent seven years at Toyota in Australia, where she was a senior financial manager. Prior to that she worked at Sun Microsystems and Juniper Networks in Silicon Valley.
Tesla's conflict with the SEC began in August, when Musk tweeted that he was taking the electric vehicle company private and had "funding secured" at $420 a share. The company’s share price soared, and then plummeted when it turned out there was no such funding after all.
Musk did not comment about the move on Twitter, but he did laud his colleague in a company statement.
"Robyn has extensive experience in both the tech and auto industries, and she has made significant contributions as a Tesla Board member over the past four years in helping us become a profitable company," Musk said. "I look forward to working even more closely with Robyn as we continue accelerating the advent of sustainable energy."
Meet Robyn Denholm: She'll take the new job as Tesla's chair in May 2019.
Tesla has announced a new chair of its board of directors: Robyn Denholm. The move is part of the deal with the Securities and Exchange Commission to settle claims that CEO Elon Musk misled investors. The deal prohibits Musk from serving as chairman of the company for three years. He will remain CEO of Tesla.
Denholm, who has served on Tesla’s board since 2014, will leave her role as CFO of Telstra, the Australian telecom giant, in six months.
Prior to working at Telstra, Denholm spent seven years at Toyota in Australia, where she was a senior financial manager. Prior to that she worked at Sun Microsystems and Juniper Networks in Silicon Valley.
Tesla's conflict with the SEC began in August, when Musk tweeted that he was taking the electric vehicle company private and had "funding secured" at $420 a share. The company’s share price soared, and then plummeted when it turned out there was no such funding after all.
Musk did not comment about the move on Twitter, but he did laud his colleague in a company statement.
"Robyn has extensive experience in both the tech and auto industries, and she has made significant contributions as a Tesla Board member over the past four years in helping us become a profitable company," Musk said. "I look forward to working even more closely with Robyn as we continue accelerating the advent of sustainable energy."
01-31-2019, 06:50 AM
#150
Race Director
More changes are afoot in the Tesla lineup after the partial demise of the $7,500 federal tax credit prompted the electric automaker to cut prices and further simplify the model range. The new naming and pricing structure for the Model S and Model X will give buyers an easier way of buying extra range, or extra performance.
The changes concern only the Tesla Model S and Model X: 75-kWh battery versions of both vehicles are no longer offered, making the 100-kWh battery pack the sole option for these cars. This means that the base versions of the Model S and the Model X will have the longer-range 100-kWh batteries, but their battery capacities will be locked through software. Tesla will simply lock out the extra range, like that radio in your 1990s car for which you didn't have a dealer code. There is a method behind this madness: One battery type will further simplify production for Tesla, following similar variety-cutting efforts on the Model 3 months prior.
This means that the base Model S will have a range of 310 miles, while the base Model X will have a range of 270 miles. If you want to unlock the extra range (that you already have in your battery pack) you'll have to pay an extra $8,000, which will bring the range of the Model S up to 335 miles and the range of the Model X up to 295 miles. And you won't be able to buy this extra range over the phone if you're stranded in your car and need a few extra miles -- that juice won't magically appear.
The base battery-locked Model S will start at $86,200, while the Model X will start at $89,200, respectively. Performance versions of the Model S (which will now be called Model S Performance) and the Model X will start at $103,950 and $118,200, respectively. Performance with Ludicrous Mode will offer even quicker launches for an extra $20,000: 0-60 mph in 2.4 seconds for the Model S and 2.8 seconds for the Model X if you really need to get to work quicker.
The good news is that Tesla is cutting another $1,000 off the base prices of all trim levels, following $2,000 cuts instituted earlier this year. You have the upcoming demise of the federal tax credit to thank(?) for this; even though these price cuts won't compensate for the complete disappearance of the tax credit, it's a little something to soften the blow.
Overall, the lineup naming changes for the Model S and Model X will mirror the naming scheme of the Model 3, making the lineup ladder a little easier to visualize. Tesla has already updated the configurators for both models.
Read more: https://autoweek.com/article/green-c...#ixzz5eBmM5Y4v
The changes concern only the Tesla Model S and Model X: 75-kWh battery versions of both vehicles are no longer offered, making the 100-kWh battery pack the sole option for these cars. This means that the base versions of the Model S and the Model X will have the longer-range 100-kWh batteries, but their battery capacities will be locked through software. Tesla will simply lock out the extra range, like that radio in your 1990s car for which you didn't have a dealer code. There is a method behind this madness: One battery type will further simplify production for Tesla, following similar variety-cutting efforts on the Model 3 months prior.
This means that the base Model S will have a range of 310 miles, while the base Model X will have a range of 270 miles. If you want to unlock the extra range (that you already have in your battery pack) you'll have to pay an extra $8,000, which will bring the range of the Model S up to 335 miles and the range of the Model X up to 295 miles. And you won't be able to buy this extra range over the phone if you're stranded in your car and need a few extra miles -- that juice won't magically appear.
The base battery-locked Model S will start at $86,200, while the Model X will start at $89,200, respectively. Performance versions of the Model S (which will now be called Model S Performance) and the Model X will start at $103,950 and $118,200, respectively. Performance with Ludicrous Mode will offer even quicker launches for an extra $20,000: 0-60 mph in 2.4 seconds for the Model S and 2.8 seconds for the Model X if you really need to get to work quicker.
The good news is that Tesla is cutting another $1,000 off the base prices of all trim levels, following $2,000 cuts instituted earlier this year. You have the upcoming demise of the federal tax credit to thank(?) for this; even though these price cuts won't compensate for the complete disappearance of the tax credit, it's a little something to soften the blow.
Overall, the lineup naming changes for the Model S and Model X will mirror the naming scheme of the Model 3, making the lineup ladder a little easier to visualize. Tesla has already updated the configurators for both models.
Read more: https://autoweek.com/article/green-c...#ixzz5eBmM5Y4v
02-01-2019, 10:53 AM
#151
This means that the base Model S will have a range of 310 miles, while the base Model X will have a range of 270 miles. If you want to unlock the extra range (that you already have in your battery pack) you'll have to pay an extra $8,000, which will bring the range of the Model S up to 335 miles and the range of the Model X up to 295 miles.
$8,000 ÷ 25 miles = $320 per mile
02-01-2019, 11:11 AM
#152
Azine Jabroni
02-06-2019, 01:18 PM
#153
More changes are afoot in the Tesla lineup after the partial demise of the $7,500 federal tax credit prompted the electric automaker to cut prices and further simplify the model range.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/te...ain-2019-02-06
Tesla lowers Model 3 price again
Feb 6, 2019
Tesla Inc. cut the price of its Model 3 sedan for the second time this year as the car maker tries to stay one step ahead of dwindling U.S. tax credits.
Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk announced the move on Twitter in the early hours of Wednesday:
To a Twitter user who referred to the $35,000 promised Model 3 price without any credits, Musk responded that “we are doing everything we can to get there. It’s a super hard grind.”
“Primarily as a result of ending the referral program, which cost far more than we realized, Tesla is able to lower the price of Model 3 by $1,100,” a Tesla spokesperson said Wednesday.
Musk announced the end of the referral program last month, effective Feb. 1, suggesting it was hurting margins.
Tesla’s website now shows the cheapest Model 3 available, one with a mid-range battery, at $34,850, which the company says is $42,900 minus $3,750 in “potential incentives” and $4,300 in “gas savings” over six years.
The car’s “performance” version starts at $60,900 before any incentives. The site still shows the promise that a Model 3 with “standard battery,” or at or close to $35,000, will be available in four to six months.
Feb 6, 2019
Tesla Inc. cut the price of its Model 3 sedan for the second time this year as the car maker tries to stay one step ahead of dwindling U.S. tax credits.
Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk announced the move on Twitter in the early hours of Wednesday:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1093042991994830849
Model 3 starting cost now ~$35k (after ~$8k of credits & fuel savings)
Model 3 starting cost now ~$35k (after ~$8k of credits & fuel savings)
“Primarily as a result of ending the referral program, which cost far more than we realized, Tesla is able to lower the price of Model 3 by $1,100,” a Tesla spokesperson said Wednesday.
Musk announced the end of the referral program last month, effective Feb. 1, suggesting it was hurting margins.
Tesla’s website now shows the cheapest Model 3 available, one with a mid-range battery, at $34,850, which the company says is $42,900 minus $3,750 in “potential incentives” and $4,300 in “gas savings” over six years.
The car’s “performance” version starts at $60,900 before any incentives. The site still shows the promise that a Model 3 with “standard battery,” or at or close to $35,000, will be available in four to six months.
02-06-2019, 03:21 PM
#154
Team Owner
That is BS... you can't count fuel saving into part of your MSRP....
By their logic...Lexus could market their car with another $10k off - "We are more reliable, we think you will save another 10k in the life time of the car in repair when compare to BMW and Mercedes"
By their logic...Lexus could market their car with another $10k off - "We are more reliable, we think you will save another 10k in the life time of the car in repair when compare to BMW and Mercedes"
02-06-2019, 03:22 PM
#155
Senior Moderator
That is BS... you can't count fuel saving into part of your MSRP....
By their logic...Lexus could market their car with another $10k off - "We are more reliable, we think you will save another 10k in the life time of the car in repair when compare to BMW and Mercedes"
By their logic...Lexus could market their car with another $10k off - "We are more reliable, we think you will save another 10k in the life time of the car in repair when compare to BMW and Mercedes"
02-06-2019, 04:44 PM
#156
What would the Model 3 compare to? I would say it's fair to say 3-series/C-Class/A4 archetype.
How do the sales compare? I said it before, lot of tech companies around but I see a ton of newer Teslas driving around every single day. Like stopping at an intersection and seeing one next to me and another in front of me somewhere happens often.
How do the sales compare? I said it before, lot of tech companies around but I see a ton of newer Teslas driving around every single day. Like stopping at an intersection and seeing one next to me and another in front of me somewhere happens often.
02-06-2019, 06:43 PM
#157
Team Owner
^ they literally have no real competition... when 300 miles+ range EV cars become a norm, with VW and BMW i can see that happen very soon, Tesla will no longer be the only luxury brand that offers full range of EV cars = their sale will suffer.
and you think their finance and supply chain issues are bad now, just wait when the big players to stir things up...
That is the same shit happening over and over in every industry...
and you think their finance and supply chain issues are bad now, just wait when the big players to stir things up...
That is the same shit happening over and over in every industry...
02-06-2019, 06:44 PM
#158
Senior Moderator
wow thanks for the insight
Right now, Teslas are alternatives to ICE cars.. Tesla welcomes other manufacturers to join the EV fray because as more people adopt it, more infrastructure will be created (i.e. more charging stations) and it'll just be better for everyone involved. They released their patents ffs, they don't care about competition.
02-06-2019, 07:00 PM
#159
Team Owner
wow thanks for the insight
Right now, Teslas are alternatives to ICE cars.. Tesla welcomes other manufacturers to join the EV fray because as more people adopt it, more infrastructure will be created (i.e. more charging stations) and it'll just be better for everyone involved. They released their patents ffs, they don't care about competition.
and you really think Tesla welcome competitions? If these car companies' goal is to help with global warming, more green and world peace, then yah sure they will play nice and it will be better for everyone.
Sadly the reality is the big players will always use whatever leverage they have to gain market shares and eventually buy them off if they can't beat them.
02-06-2019, 07:09 PM
#160
Senior Moderator
well... thx for the sarcasm. My reply was for Costco to explain why there are so many Tesla... I can see 4 parking outside my window right now. Is that because they are great cars or lack of competition?
and you really think Tesla welcome competitions? If these car companies' goal is to help with global warming, more green and world peace, then yah sure they will play nice and it will be better for everyone.
Sadly the reality is the big players will always use whatever leverage they have to gain market shares and eventually buy them off if they can't beat them.
and you really think Tesla welcome competitions? If these car companies' goal is to help with global warming, more green and world peace, then yah sure they will play nice and it will be better for everyone.
Sadly the reality is the big players will always use whatever leverage they have to gain market shares and eventually buy them off if they can't beat them.