Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #651  
Old 01-15-2018, 03:10 PM
jz78817 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 11,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
maybe someone posted this but I read a review that said the model 3 most people want is more like $50k than $35k when you add options. But maybe that is just one guys 2 cents.

My son works for the solar part of Tesla so he could get one early on but he has no interest.
they're only building high-option Model 3s right now.
  #652  
Old 01-15-2018, 03:12 PM
echoreply's Avatar
echoreply is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
maybe someone posted this but I read a review that said the model 3 most people want is more like $50k than $35k when you add options. But maybe that is just one guys 2 cents.

My son works for the solar part of Tesla so he could get one early on but he has no interest.
The only version of the Model 3 available at the moment includes the long range ($9000) and premium ($5000) options, so the current base prices is $49,000 instead of $35,000. The long range option is pretty clear, as it's a bigger battery for a 310 mile range, instead of 220. I'm less sure about the premium option, because I've seen multiple contradictory lists of what it includes. It most likely adds the glass roof, premium sound system, fake leather seats, and rear heated seats. Depending on the list, it might also add some of the following: rear USB charging ports, front USB charging ports, heated front seats, and other things I'm not remembering.
  #653  
Old 01-15-2018, 04:42 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,122
from what I've seen on other cars these add on packages are way overpriced but people must be willing to pay that cost. I guess I have not followed the car closely so the $49k number is a surprise to me. I guess 220 vs. 310 miles depends on how many out of town trips you take since 220 is plenty for around town.
  #654  
Old 02-02-2018, 04:33 PM
echoreply's Avatar
echoreply is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 825
Saw a Model 3 for the first time today. It was in downtown Boulder, so I'm going to assume it was Kimbal Musk's. It was blue and dirty. It took in other cars' exhaust and emitted unicorn fart rainbows.
  #655  
Old 02-02-2018, 04:41 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,433
Well, like I said earlier in this thread, you can buy a bottom line Ford Fusion for $17k or a top of the line for more than twice that. No part of this is unique to Tesla.

Last edited by Chimera; 02-02-2018 at 04:45 PM.
  #656  
Old 02-02-2018, 05:27 PM
echoreply's Avatar
echoreply is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 825
I just checked craigslist. I can get a 2001 Taurus for $1200. What's your point?
  #657  
Old 02-02-2018, 05:41 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,433
The point was the "complaint" that a Tesla 3 with more options costs more than the base advertised price.
  #658  
Old 02-02-2018, 05:52 PM
jz78817 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 11,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
The point was the "complaint" that a Tesla 3 with more options costs more than the base advertised price.
no, the "complaint" is that they spent so much time talking up their "$35,000 EV" but aren't actually making any at that price point yet.
  #659  
Old 02-02-2018, 08:05 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
from what I've seen on other cars these add on packages are way overpriced but people must be willing to pay that cost.
To be clear, the $49k comes from:
$35k base cost
+$9k long-range battery
+$5k premium package

Whether the premium pack is worth it depends on how you value the features--the "leather" seats and the glass roof in particular. It doesn't seem like a bad price to me, but then, I really like the glass roof. Sunroofs are generally at least a couple grand and the glass roof is a significant upgrade from that.

The battery is definitely "overpriced" in the sense that Tesla makes a huge profit margin on it. The pack size difference is roughly 25 kWh (55 vs. 80). That's $360/kWh. But Tesla is probably paying around $150/kWh for the cells, and pack assembly costs shouldn't be all that different between the two. It's almost certainly >50% profit margin for them.

The big battery has benefits aside from range. The car is faster for one. It also charges faster (in miles charged/hour). Some people are seeing some really impressive charge rates. That's 125 miles in 15 min, 215 miles in 30 min, 265 miles in 45 min, and 267 in an hour. For short bursts, that's a charge rate of over 500 mph! And the 215 mi in 30 min is significantly better than the 170 mi that was estimated earlier. This is faster than any other (production) EV, Tesla or no.

The small battery won't hit these charge rates--it'll likely take around 50% longer (scales with battery capacity). Still much better than any non-Tesla EV, though.
  #660  
Old 02-03-2018, 04:22 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by echoreply View Post
Tesla has released their 2017 4th quarter production and delivery statistics. They delivered 1,550 Model 3s, with another 860 currently in transit (2018 Q1 delivery).

In the last seven working days of the year they built 793 Model 3s, and in the last three working days were at a rate to make 1000 per week.

The current estimates are to ramp up and hit 2,500 per week by the end of 2018 Q1, and 5000 per week by the end of Q2.

No information on when they will begin production of the standard range model.
Something is not right here. The January estimates are in and it's 1875 cars.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson

Last edited by Magiver; 02-03-2018 at 04:24 PM.
  #661  
Old 02-03-2018, 05:46 PM
jz78817 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 11,776
Tesla is a public company and can get into serious shit for lying about stuff like that. I’d believe their filings over someone else’s estimates.
  #662  
Old 02-03-2018, 07:33 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
Tesla is a public company and can get into serious shit for lying about stuff like that. I’d believe their filings over someone else’s estimates.
I literally don't know what you're trying to say. I'm saying the numbers don't look right.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #663  
Old 02-03-2018, 07:58 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,663
If InsideEVs numbers contradict Tesla, then it's InsideEVs numbers that are wrong. Tesla would get slapped down hardcore for intentionally lying on something like that. InsideEVs just comes up with a number based on VIN number counting and (apparently) talking to factory workers. They acknowledge that it's just an estimate, particularly for Tesla since they don't generally report monthly figures (just quarterly).

We'll probably find out more on 2/7, since that's their earnings announcement date, although I don't think they're obligated to report anything about post-Q4.
  #664  
Old 02-03-2018, 08:21 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,362
Since They have yet to hit a target they've provided I'm not sure what your point is about being smacked down for bad information.

Are there numbers posted by Tesla? I posted what I could find. I was expecting a higher number given their production in December.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #665  
Old 02-03-2018, 08:57 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,663
Missing a prediction is one thing. Lying about what you've actually produced is another.

As I said, Tesla doesn't post monthly figures. So it's all guesses until they say something concrete.
  #666  
Old 02-03-2018, 09:09 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,362
[QUOTE=Dr. Strangelove;20766645]Missing a prediction is one thing. Lying about what you've actually produced is another.[/quotes] Since I wasn't discussing that I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
As I said, Tesla doesn't post monthly figures. So it's all guesses until they say something concrete.
We've had a series of production numbers from various sources in the past. I'm not sure why you're dismissing them. Tesla gave an estimate of 2,500 per week in the first quarter and gave a hard umber of 1000 week ending the 2017 run. If nothing improved there should be at least 4,000 cars in January.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson

Last edited by Magiver; 02-03-2018 at 09:10 PM.
  #667  
Old 02-03-2018, 09:44 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,663
Again, that number is just a third-party estimate. There's no particular reason to believe it's accurate. They're probably pretty good for Model S and X production since there's some history to go by; less so for the Model 3.

Aside from that:
- the factory was apparently shut down for a week in January
- deliveries can be delayed by a few weeks compared to production (rail transport is slow)
- Tesla only said that they made 793 Model 3s in a week, and the 1000/wk was extrapolation from the last few days. That doesn't mean they can immediately sustain 1000+/wk, just that they're capable of hitting that in a burst.

I believe that Tesla indeed manufactured 793 Model 3s in a week--again, they'd get slapped down hard for lying about something that that. Everything else is just extrapolation and subject to error.
  #668  
Old 02-04-2018, 01:39 AM
jz78817 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 11,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I literally don't know what you're trying to say. I'm saying the numbers don't look right.
Then I don’t know what to tell you? It’s not like the one sentence I said was nuanced or subject to much interpretation.
  #669  
Old 02-04-2018, 01:50 AM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
Again, that number is just a third-party estimate. There's no particular reason to believe it's accurate. They're probably pretty good for Model S and X production since there's some history to go by; less so for the Model 3.

Aside from that:
- the factory was apparently shut down for a week in January
- deliveries can be delayed by a few weeks compared to production (rail transport is slow)
- Tesla only said that they made 793 Model 3s in a week, and the 1000/wk was extrapolation from the last few days. That doesn't mean they can immediately sustain 1000+/wk, just that they're capable of hitting that in a burst.

I believe that Tesla indeed manufactured 793 Model 3s in a week--again, they'd get slapped down hard for lying about something that that. Everything else is just extrapolation and subject to error.
you're just back on the Elon express apology tour. outside sources are accurate for other models but not the model 3. The factory shut down, trains are slow, 793 in the last part of a week was a burst of production.....

Tesla said they were going to build 2,500 per week in quarter one. Not a burst of 1000.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #670  
Old 02-04-2018, 10:55 AM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
Then I don’t know what to tell you? It’s not like the one sentence I said was nuanced or subject to much interpretation.
You could tell me where Tesla has put out numbers to get themselves into trouble. Your statement made no sense. You might as well say Tesla could get into trouble for deliberately building dangerously defective cars. While it's a true statement there's no evidence they did. Thus I doin't understand what you're trying to say.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #671  
Old 02-04-2018, 06:16 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Tesla said they were going to build 2,500 per week in quarter one. Not a burst of 1000.
Let's see what they actually said (bolding mine):
Quote:
In the last seven working days of the quarter, we made 793 Model 3's, and in the last few days, we hit a production rate on each of our manufacturing lines that extrapolates to over 1,000 Model 3's per week.
...
As we continue to focus on quality and efficiency rather than simply pushing for the highest possible volume in the shortest period of time, we expect to have a slightly more gradual ramp through Q1, likely ending the quarter at a weekly rate of about 2,500 Model 3 vehicles.
Even ignoring the various caveats ("likely", "about"), they most certainly did not say they'd manufacture 2,500/wk in Jan. In fact they said the exact opposite by claiming it would be a gradual ramp towards those numbers.
  #672  
Old 02-04-2018, 06:56 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
outside sources are accurate for other models but not the model 3.
You’re referring to Inside EVs as the “outside source?” Because Inside EVs (which I read all the time) states this:

Quote:
Top Manufacturers Of Plug-In Vehicles:

Tesla* – 3,375
General Motors – 1,890
Toyota – 1,496
BMW Group – 1,018
Ford – 947
All-Electric Vehicle Market Share vs PHEV In January*

PHEV – 6,206
BEV – 5,910
(*) estimated due to unknown official Tesla sales in the U.S. and BMW i3 REX vs. BEV sales.
  #673  
Old 02-04-2018, 07:29 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You’re referring to Inside EVs as the “outside source?” Because Inside EVs (which I read all the time) states this:
Which has nothing to do with the model 3 discussion or what I said.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #674  
Old 02-04-2018, 07:31 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
Let's see what they actually said (bolding mine):


Even ignoring the various caveats ("likely", "about"), they most certainly did not say they'd manufacture 2,500/wk in Jan. In fact they said the exact opposite by claiming it would be a gradual ramp towards those numbers.
He originally said 5,000 per week by end of 2017, then by March of 2018, then 2,500 by March of 2018.

Did I miss an announcement? He's already through January and can't meet the reduced weekly number in the entire month. He's going to have to improve each week going forward by 11% or make 9000 every week to meet his obligations.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #675  
Old 02-04-2018, 07:55 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,663
I don't think you understand what a rate is. Tesla did not say they would produce 30k vehicles in Q1. They said they would hit a rate of 2,500/wk by the end. They could meet this projection (not an obligation) by closing the factory for the first 89 days of Q1 and then building 360 cars on the last day.

They did mention a gradual ramp. If you extrapolate exponentially from 793/wk to 2500/wk, you get approximately 19k cars in Q1. We'll find out in two months if they can hit that.
  #676  
Old 02-04-2018, 08:52 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,362
I don't think you understand how far behind they are and how little progress they're making. they need to be making 9000 cars a week NOW.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #677  
Old 02-04-2018, 09:07 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,663
What are you talking about? Tesla never promised rates close to 10k/wk until the end of 2018. And they are no longer projecting out that far anyway.

Obviously they will sell as many cars as they can make at this point. But saying they "need" to make 9k/wk is just delusional nonsense, out of step with even the rosiest projections Tesla ever made, let alone what's realistic.
  #678  
Old 02-04-2018, 09:13 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Which has nothing to do with the model 3 discussion or what I said.
You cited a Seeking Alpha article that cited 1,875 Model 3s as estimated by Inside EVs. What “outside source” are you referring to that calls Tesla’s numbers into question?
  #679  
Old 02-04-2018, 09:24 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You cited a Seeking Alpha article that cited 1,875 Model 3s as estimated by Inside EVs. What “outside source” are you referring to that calls Tesla’s numbers into question?
I posted Musk's production estimates, his revised estimates, and his revised revised estimates.

the numbers Inside EV posted show little progress toward the repeatedly lowered numbers from Tesla.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #680  
Old 02-04-2018, 10:18 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I posted Musk's production estimates, his revised estimates, and his revised revised estimates.

the numbers Inside EV posted show little progress toward the repeatedly lowered numbers from Tesla.
So Inside Ev is the “outside source” you were talking about?
  #681  
Old 02-05-2018, 09:31 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,902
Here is a brief video review of a Model 3 conducted by a company that tears apart cars. The guy being interviewed is totally baffled at various points on a few things, such as how occupants can be expected to get out of the car in a major crash and the fit and finish issues that have been commented on for some time. As for panel gaps, the reviewer said at different points that he hasn't seen issues like this since the 1970s, or that it reminds him of Kia from the 1990s.

My impression is that this guy isn't some rabid Tesla hater, but more like, "Wait.. this is supposed to be a luxury car??"
  #682  
Old 02-05-2018, 12:58 PM
echoreply's Avatar
echoreply is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 825
Direct link to the video. Some of that is disturbing, and Munro certainly knows what he's doing, but I think saying the panel gaps look like something from the 70s or 90s Kia is a bit hyperbolic. They look like 2000s (pre-bankruptcy) GM panel gaps. I can remember a cheap GM rental car where the trunk lid was on so crooked that I could get my fingers in to the second knuckle on one side. Anyway, Tesla certainly should do better. Maybe it's the curse of Fremont.

Other reviewers seem to universally like the outside door handle. Perhaps they are being ableist? I can see how opening the driver's door is best with a functioning left hand, because a palm-up right hand seems awkward.

I do have a sincere question and comment about the dangers of electric cars to first responders. This is not meant to be rhetorical, or in anyway deny that cars should be made as safe as possible to occupants and rescuers. Is part of the fear because electric dangers are new? Clearly there are lots of dangers from gasoline, but we've had a lot of time to both get used to and learn how to handle those dangers.

Here are a bunch of emergency response guides for various cars. It seems to me that part of a first responders' jobs is to be familiar with these, and have the appropriate tools on hand. Browsing through the NIssan Leaf guide, if the high-voltage electrical system is damaged, and extraction is required, after cutting power they must wait 10 minutes for the system to fully de-energize before beginning extraction. So, acting quickly may be important, but it's not advised. The Leaf guide says the high voltage system can be disabled by removing fuses and battery cables under the hood (opened from within the car), or by removing the service plug, which is also inside the car.

The Model 3 only requires three minutes to for the HV system to deplete after disconnect.

Anyway, I don't know enough about those kinds of things to judge if both the Leaf and Model 3 are death traps, or if it's just a matter of some cars have this procedure, other cars have that procedure, don't use an angle grinder near leaking gasoline, etc.
  #683  
Old 02-05-2018, 02:56 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,663
Panel gaps do seem to be hit or miss, but that's not really a new thing for Tesla. Mostly they need to work on their consistency--from user reports, it seems that most cars are totally fine, but there's the occasional one that's terrible.

The rest of his complaints seem like nonsense. The electrical mechanism for popping the frunk isn't for emergency use, it's for when the 12V battery is dead and you need to get in. Firemen are just going to rip off the hood like so much tinfoil if they need to get in.

The Model 3 is actually better than the Model S in this regard, since there are two "first responder loops" and only one needs to be cut. Also, these loops are low voltage, so his apparent concerns about electrocution are unfounded. You can read the guide here.

Getting into a situation where the lack of mechanical releases on the rear doors is a problem seems like a rare occurrence. You always have someone in the front, so they'd have to be totally incapacitated, and the electrical system would have to go down in a way that prevented the doors from working, and there would have to be no one else nearby, etc. It's not impossible but it doesn't seem likely enough to be a concern.
  #684  
Old 02-05-2018, 03:35 PM
echoreply's Avatar
echoreply is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
Getting into a situation where the lack of mechanical releases on the rear doors is a problem seems like a rare occurrence. You always have someone in the front, so they'd have to be totally incapacitated, and the electrical system would have to go down in a way that prevented the doors from working, and there would have to be no one else nearby, etc. It's not impossible but it doesn't seem likely enough to be a concern.
I went to see how to open the rear doors on my car in the event of an accident, and it doesn't even have rear doors! If the front seat occupants get squished so the seats won't fold down, the back seat occupants will have to climb through the rear hatch. Except there's no hatch release on the inside, except the electrical one on the driver's door. I guess anybody in the rear seat is going to have to be familiar with the emergency manual crank operation to open the sunroof.
  #685  
Old 02-05-2018, 05:38 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,663
Good point. If the 3 is somehow a death trap for the rear seat passengers, then so is every coupe with a back seat.

That said, it's probably something Tesla should pay attention to. A man died in a Corvette with electric locks a couple years ago. There was a manual release, but he couldn't find it or wasn't aware of it. At least in the 3, the manual release is in a much more intuitive location.

Probably wouldn't hurt to carry a window breaker in the car, just in general. For any car, there are some situations where the doors aren't going to work.
  #686  
Old 02-07-2018, 07:14 PM
echoreply's Avatar
echoreply is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 825
Well this is disappointing; my estimated Model 3 date slipped from "Early 2018" to "Late 2018".
  #687  
Old 02-07-2018, 07:48 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,663
Yup; mine got bumped from Dec-Feb to Mar-May. Not a huge shock, though.

During the conference call, Elon reiterated their estimate of 2500/wk by the end of Q1 (i.e., end of March), from ~1k/wk at the beginning of the year. Seems like a reasonably good sign that they're confident in that still.

They're still limited by their module production. It's currently being done semi-manually, with automated stations but manual movement between them. The replacement line is currently in Germany (at Telsa Grohmann) and about to be shipped to CA. It supposedly works fine in Germany, but will take several weeks to disassemble-ship-reassemble.

The next low-hanging fruit is their parts movement within Fremont; that will bring them from 2500/wk to 5k/wk.
  #688  
Old 02-07-2018, 08:05 PM
jz78817 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 11,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
Yup; mine got bumped from Dec-Feb to Mar-May. Not a huge shock, though.

During the conference call, Elon reiterated their estimate of 2500/wk by the end of Q1 (i.e., end of March), from ~1k/wk at the beginning of the year. Seems like a reasonably good sign that they're confident in that still.

They're still limited by their module production. It's currently being done semi-manually, with automated stations but manual movement between them. The replacement line is currently in Germany (at Telsa Grohmann) and about to be shipped to CA. It supposedly works fine in Germany, but will take several weeks to disassemble-ship-reassemble.

The next low-hanging fruit is their parts movement within Fremont; that will bring them from 2500/wk to 5k/wk.
yeah, fuck, they've missed every estimate so far, but this one they'll make. Because you say so.
  #689  
Old 02-07-2018, 08:37 PM
echoreply's Avatar
echoreply is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post

They're still limited by their module production. It's currently being done semi-manually, with automated stations but manual movement between them. The replacement line is currently in Germany (at Telsa Grohmann) and about to be shipped to CA. It supposedly works fine in Germany, but will take several weeks to disassemble-ship-reassemble.
I'd be April - June if I wanted the long range model. My guess is that as long as they can run at 100% capacity (whatever that happens to be) and only make the long range model, they're going to keep doing that. $9000 for the bigger battery has to be lots of profit.

The only upside to me, is that I am willing to spend a few thousand more for the all wheel drive version, and it might be ready, or at least priced, by the time they're making the standard model.

As for missing estimates, those kinds of things get more accurate the shorter the range of the prediction. I put more stock in them saying, "we'll be doing X in a month" than, "we'll be doing X in 1.5 years."

Last edited by echoreply; 02-07-2018 at 08:38 PM.
  #690  
Old 02-07-2018, 08:53 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
yeah, fuck, they've missed every estimate so far, but this one they'll make. Because you say so.
Whatever, man. I don't claim to be an authority.

However, here's a possibly semi-relevant anecdote about my company. Internal deadlines are likewise always inching forward. You predict 3 months; when 3 months rolls around you predict another 4 weeks. 4 weeks later, it's 10 days; then 1; then 1 again; then you're done.

Eventually someone decided that they could model this exponential deadline decay and build it into an algorithm. So they put together a spreadsheet that takes the existing estimates, the rate at which they decay, adjusts for historical trends, filters, and spits out a new projection. No one quite believes the projection but it does come closer than the original estimates.

Although the estimate does swing around early on, as the model incorporates more data, eventually it starts converging. You can look at it in reverse, though--as the estimates start moving around less, you get more confident in their reliability.

Well, this may not have anything to do with Tesla, but it is something I do in general when I don't have additional data. Consistency usually counts for something.
  #691  
Old 02-07-2018, 09:29 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,362
His recent admonitions to other car makers made me laugh out loud: “Really, they are quite good at manufacturing, but they just don't realise just how much potential there is for improvement,”

It's not the delay's that are puzzling, it's the inability to accurately predict the time frame to fix it.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #692  
Old 02-08-2018, 01:38 AM
echoreply's Avatar
echoreply is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 825
What do people think, has Tesla put the $35,000 version of the Model 3 on indefinite hold? Why bother building the cheap version when production capacity can be filled selling a more expensive and profitable version?

I know some of you think Musk's farts stink, instead of smelling like the sweet rocket exhaust us true believers know them to be. Maybe he's been lying from the beginning, maybe it's just the inevitable hand of the meerkat.

I'm about 50% expecting an announcement around August, on the back of the all wheel drive availability, that the standard version is delayed again, then an announcement around December that it has been canceled, but the new long range price is $47,000 instead of $49,000.
  #693  
Old 02-08-2018, 03:27 AM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,663
I'd be surprised if it were cancelled completely. A good chunk of the 450k orders must certainly be for the $35k model--they have to ship it eventually. I expect at least a few people to get them relatively early, but for those numbers to only really ramp up once the orders for the expensive model are cleared. It may also depend on how they are looking, profit-wise--they want to reach profitability this year and even if they were otherwise willing to ship the $35k model, they may hold off for some time to maximize profit in one particular quarter.

Tesla did ship a few units of the 40 kWh Model S, even though it was unpopular, because they wanted to at least say they shipped an S for $50k.

What they do may also depend on the competition. If there's an updated Bolt or something that starts looking more competitive against a base Model 3, I could see them creating an intermediate model, and then slow-rolling the current base model.
  #694  
Old 02-08-2018, 08:02 AM
YamatoTwinkie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by echoreply View Post
What do people think, has Tesla put the $35,000 version of the Model 3 on indefinite hold? Why bother building the cheap version when production capacity can be filled selling a more expensive and profitable version?
I think there's little chance of seeing the SR version until the federal tax credit is exhausted, or production demand is met. As long as the credit is dangled out there, it encourages people to spend more on the higher margin LR version, or else lose it altogether. Given their manufacturing issues, I bet Tesla would be losing money on every $35k SR sold today. Beyond a token amount for PR purposes, why on earth would they sell more?
  #695  
Old 02-08-2018, 09:11 AM
jz78817 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 11,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
His recent admonitions to other car makers made me laugh out loud: “Really, they are quite good at manufacturing, but they just don't realise just how much potential there is for improvement,”
I hope the Model 3 launch isn't a demonstration of his "improvements."
  #696  
Old 02-08-2018, 09:41 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,362
Well February isn't going to be much better, According to Wired the machines designed to fix battery production aren't going to arrive until March. Also, for the cars already on the road, service techs are saying part the high voltage power supply needs replacing, No explanation given. No recall at this time.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson

Last edited by Magiver; 02-08-2018 at 09:43 PM.
  #697  
Old 02-09-2018, 06:27 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,663
Tesla issued a clarification to their conference call:
Quote:
Tesla, Inc. is clarifying the following statement made by Elon Musk, Tesla’s Chief Executive Officer, during Tesla’s fourth quarter and full year 2017 financial results conference call held on February 7, 2018:

“[We] expect the new automated lines to arrive next month in March. And then it's already working in Germany so that’s going to be disassembled, brought out to the Gigafactory and reassembled and then go into operation at the Gigafactory. It's not a question whether it works or not. It's just a question of disassembly, transport and reassembly. So we expect to alleviate that constraint. With alleviating that constraint, that's what gets us to the roughly 2,000 to 2,500 unit per week production rate.”

The “2,000 to 2,500” units per week cited in this comment refers solely to the capacity of the additional automated battery module manufacturing equipment that is currently located in Germany, and not to Tesla’s total Model 3 production run rate or to the capacity of the automated battery module equipment that is already present at Gigafactory 1. Tesla’s ability to meet its target of 2,500 per week by end of Q1 2018 is not dependent on the additional equipment that is currently located in Germany, as that equipment is expected to start ramping production during Q2 2018. With respect to battery module production, Tesla’s ability to meet its target of 2,500 per week by end of Q1 2018 is dependent only on the equipment that is already present at Gigafactory 1, as well as the incremental capacity that is currently being added through the semi-automated lines that were also discussed during the conference call.

As stated in Tesla’s Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2017 Update Letter:
“We continue to target weekly Model 3 production rates of 2,500 by the end of Q1 and 5,000 by the end of Q2. It is important to note that while these are the levels we are focused on hitting and we have plans in place to achieve them, our prior experience on the Model 3 ramp has demonstrated the difficulty of accurately forecasting specific production rates at specific points in time. What we can say with confidence is that we are taking many actions to systematically address bottlenecks and add capacity in places like the battery module line where we have experienced constraints, and these actions should result in our production rate significantly increasing during the rest of Q1 and through Q2.”

This information is intended to be furnished under 7.01 of Form 8-K and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ Exchange Act ”), or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.
So, it appears that the German equipment is for their 5k/wk Q2 target, not the 2500/wk Q1 target. They plan on reaching 2500 with the current semi-automated lines.
  #698  
Old 02-10-2018, 03:50 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
Tesla issued a clarification to their conference call:


So, it appears that the German equipment is for their 5k/wk Q2 target, not the 2500/wk Q1 target. They plan on reaching 2500 with the current semi-automated lines.
Something doesn't sound right. If the German equipment only fixes battery production for 5000 batteries/wk then why aren't they making 2500 units at the car factory? Or put another way, why wouldn't the addition of 5000 batteries/wk not immediately increase production to that level. They've had many many months to work on this.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson

Last edited by Magiver; 02-10-2018 at 03:54 PM.
  #699  
Old 02-10-2018, 04:20 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,663
There are effectively three lines. There's the German one that can produce 2k-2.5k cars but isn't ready yet. There is the original automated line which produces nothing. And there's the current semi-automated line which is currently producing 1k but they anticipate scaling to 2.5k. They didn't elaborate on what their scaling limits are, but I would think it's the usual stuff--training new staff, generally improving efficiency, etc.

I suspect the semi-automated line is what they had from the beginning, intending it to be a short time thing to get the first batch of cars out the door. When they realized the initial automation wasn't going to work at all, they scaled that up further. But it was never really intended to get to those rates, so it's gone more slowly (takes longer to train humans than robots). The German automation must have been started early but obviously is only just now nearly ready.
  #700  
Old 02-10-2018, 06:14 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
There are effectively three lines. There's the German one that can produce 2k-2.5k cars but isn't ready yet. There is the original automated line which produces nothing. And there's the current semi-automated line which is currently producing 1k but they anticipate scaling to 2.5k. They didn't elaborate on what their scaling limits are, but I would think it's the usual stuff--training new staff, generally improving efficiency, etc.
I'm confused. from your cite the German assembly line is destined for the gigafactory which only builds batteries.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017