Tesla Model 3 revealed
Discussion
sambucket said:
Is it valid to compare to Ferrari? Tesla's stated strategy is prioritise volume over margin, to get as many cars on the road as possible.
Making 4000 cars a week simply will never happen under current stewardship.
It wasn’t a comparison with Ferrari. Ferrari was simply the key example of lower volume being more profitable than higher volume for luxury goods. Making 4000 cars a week simply will never happen under current stewardship.
They obviously need to prioritise volume at this stage but the reality is that there is not endless demand and as they learn where true demand levels are they then need to supply the most profitable products and those aren’t the cheapest units but the most expensive. At the same time, they will never be a volume manufacturer akin to the real volume manufacturers as they have already proven that they simple can’t manufacturer efficiently enough to operate down at that level. They are a premium product and will need to adhere to the standard economic rules for premium goods. At the same time the cheaper they do go the more they devalue their premium and lose in the exact area where they have proven to be profitable.
The real comparison is with Land Rover. Who make good enough volumes and do so relatively inefficiently but have a brand that carries enough value to more than compensate and remain aspirational.
Tuna said:
True, but that doesn't fit the "changing the world" narrative, and nor does it fit the astronomical valuation and investment.
I don’t think anyone sober believes the ‘changing The world’ narrative any more than we believe BP’s guff about being eco. The valuation has recently been significantly adjusted and the investment all spent. They are just a car company that can make their higher end cars profitably but lose money on their bottom end products. And they have a highly aspirational brand to support them.
Worth remembering JLR lost £358m last year on sales of £24.2bn / 578,915 vehicles
Hardly a model to seek to emulate
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/20/j...
Hardly a model to seek to emulate
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/20/j...
On the subject of the Model 3, I went and sat in one earlier today at the Tesla store in Stockport. It's quite snug inside, the roof feels quite close in the front and the back. The central screen is nearer than I expected. I'd expected the screen (and lack of instrument binacle) to be a problem, but having seen it, I can see how it would be okay. Not great, but okay.
The boot is poor. It's smaller than expected and the opening is just crappy. It feels like an afterthought.
I can see the appeal, but it definitely didn't make me regret reserving the Polestar 2.
The boot is poor. It's smaller than expected and the opening is just crappy. It feels like an afterthought.
I can see the appeal, but it definitely didn't make me regret reserving the Polestar 2.
JPJPJP said:
Worth remembering JLR lost £358m last year on sales of £24.2bn / 578,915 vehicles
Hardly a model to seek to emulate
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/20/j...
Very bad timing on going diesel, Jaguar is a bit of a boat anchor and the Chinese running out of spending growth hasn’t helped anyone but it still stands that Tesla as a car brand has more in common with JLR than any other firm. Even down to not being able to enter the real mass market because they just can’t build cars cheaply enough but can sell high end vehicles with good margins via a strong brand and despite the flaws. Hardly a model to seek to emulate
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/20/j...
Edited by DonkeyApple on Saturday 8th June 22:52
DonkeyApple said:
Very bad timing on going diesel, Jaguar is a bit of a boat anchor and the Chinese running out of spending growth hasn’t helped anyone but it still stands that Tesla as a car brand has more in common with JLR than any other firm. Even down to not being able to enter the real mass market because they just can’t build cars cheaply enough but can sell high end vehicles with good margins via a strong brand and despite the flaws.
Which has the stronger brand and how did they achieve it?Which announced a model and had the biggest number of back orders?
saaby93 said:
Which has the stronger brand and how did they achieve it?
Which announced a model and had the biggest number of back orders?
Not sure you can judge any car manufacturer on previous model launches. If they can keep the lights on, it's the next model that's always make or break, not the current one(s). - that applies equally to Jaguar and Tesla.Which announced a model and had the biggest number of back orders?
JPJPJP said:
Worth remembering JLR lost £358m last year on sales of £24.2bn / 578,915 vehicles
Hardly a model to seek to emulate
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/20/j...
Have been to the posh part of town at school/nursery pick up time?? Hardly a model to seek to emulate
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/20/j...
Here in the UK anyways JLR has more driveway presence in the well heeled class than BMW/Merc/Audi combined, look behind every powered gate you pass on the shcool run and your find atleast one if not a whole fleet of JLR products. I sometimes feel like I'm gate crashing a JLR club met at nursery pick up time!!
Tesla could have easily done the same, adding soft touch plastics and some more trim clips to the S/X inteiror would have been far easier than trying to push out a $35k 200 mile range EV for a profit.
Still Tesla aren't changing stance any time soon, but their survival is pretty roopey at present because of their ambition. Next 6 months we'll know which way things wll go.
Edited by gangzoom on Sunday 9th June 05:08
DonkeyApple said:
It wasn’t a comparison with Ferrari. Ferrari was simply the key example of lower volume being more profitable than higher volume for luxury goods.
They obviously need to prioritise volume at this stage but the reality is that there is not endless demand and as they learn where true demand levels are they then need to supply the most profitable products and those aren’t the cheapest units but the most expensive. At the same time, they will never be a volume manufacturer akin to the real volume manufacturers as they have already proven that they simple can’t manufacturer efficiently enough to operate down at that level. They are a premium product and will need to adhere to the standard economic rules for premium goods. At the same time the cheaper they do go the more they devalue their premium and lose in the exact area where they have proven to be profitable.
The real comparison is with Land Rover. Who make good enough volumes and do so relatively inefficiently but have a brand that carries enough value to more than compensate and remain aspirational.
You're making a mistake here.They obviously need to prioritise volume at this stage but the reality is that there is not endless demand and as they learn where true demand levels are they then need to supply the most profitable products and those aren’t the cheapest units but the most expensive. At the same time, they will never be a volume manufacturer akin to the real volume manufacturers as they have already proven that they simple can’t manufacturer efficiently enough to operate down at that level. They are a premium product and will need to adhere to the standard economic rules for premium goods. At the same time the cheaper they do go the more they devalue their premium and lose in the exact area where they have proven to be profitable.
The real comparison is with Land Rover. Who make good enough volumes and do so relatively inefficiently but have a brand that carries enough value to more than compensate and remain aspirational.
They are pushing towards autonomous vehicles, these cars collect data as they are on the road so they need as many as possible on the road to get the data they need. Once they have this data they are steps ahead of the competition and can charge a premium.
The quality of the vehicles software systems will improve exponentially as when a few people buy them the quality improves which means more people buy them and the quality improves etc etc.
It's not a traditional car business model.
Edited by jamoor on Sunday 9th June 10:42
jamoor said:
You're making a mistake here.
They are pushing towards autonomous vehicles, these cars collect data as they are on the road so they need as many as possible on the road to get the data they need. Once they have this data they are steps ahead of the competition and can charge a premium.
It's not a traditional car business model.
Very few believe the current cars are capable of anything more than a really good driving aid.They are pushing towards autonomous vehicles, these cars collect data as they are on the road so they need as many as possible on the road to get the data they need. Once they have this data they are steps ahead of the competition and can charge a premium.
It's not a traditional car business model.
And even if they could develop the capability, their reluctance to engage the regulators properly will stop it becoming available when it is by some time. You only have to look at the sanctioning on the nags where they have had to introduce increased nags, the limitations on the steering wheel inputs, etc and the dodgy maths they spit out about AP being safer and twisting the US safety boards numbers to make it sound plausible. And Boeing has also put paid to any sense of self declared success criteria.
You also have to be in the game to win it, and to be in the game they need to head back to some sense of profitability.
jamoor said:
You're making a mistake here.
They are pushing towards autonomous vehicles, these cars collect data as they are on the road so they need as many as possible on the road to get the data they need. Once they have this data they are steps ahead of the competition and can charge a premium.
The quality of the vehicles software systems will improve exponentially as when a few people buy them the quality improves which means more people buy them and the quality improves etc etc.
It's not a traditional car business model.
Genuine autonomy itself is quite some years away and so is the legal framework in each jurisdiction to permit it. In the interim they need to sell as many cars as possible at the highest price possible. They aren’t in a position to sell vehicles on mass at a loss and they need time to become efficient manufacturers. They are pushing towards autonomous vehicles, these cars collect data as they are on the road so they need as many as possible on the road to get the data they need. Once they have this data they are steps ahead of the competition and can charge a premium.
The quality of the vehicles software systems will improve exponentially as when a few people buy them the quality improves which means more people buy them and the quality improves etc etc.
It's not a traditional car business model.
Edited by jamoor on Sunday 9th June 10:42
They are a car company and they do need to sell cars to the consumers who can afford them to build up their business and to be in a position to cater for the eventual autonomy and also the competition that will come from that. They may even end up licensing the autonomous tech to another company that can flood the bottom end of the market while they remain focussed on the premium end.
IforB said:
This is the real birth of the electric car as a viable product. If it does what they say it will (and given the Model S and X then I don't believe there will be a problem with that) then it's the first electric car that isn't an oddity and can truly be seen as a rival to "normal" cars.
It's not often that the phrase "game changer" can be used without a hint of irony. This is one of those times.
Accidentally dropped on this and it made me think how quickly time goes and how slowly things progress. It's not often that the phrase "game changer" can be used without a hint of irony. This is one of those times.
3 years on we seem little nearer to the ultimate goal than then.
The ‘game’ hasn’t really changed yet.
jamoor said:
You're making a mistake here.
They are pushing towards autonomous vehicles, these cars collect data as they are on the road so they need as many as possible on the road to get the data they need. Once they have this data they are steps ahead of the competition and can charge a premium.
For every mile of 'data' Tesla collect, Google simulate something like ten thousand miles of driving. Tesla is using the cheapest possible way of collecting data because they can't keep up with people like Google and Amazon who run warehouses of computers that make the gigafactory look a little small.They are pushing towards autonomous vehicles, these cars collect data as they are on the road so they need as many as possible on the road to get the data they need. Once they have this data they are steps ahead of the competition and can charge a premium.
Don't believe the hype.
RobDickinson said:
Because simulated miles are worth the same as actual miles.
On the whole they're better, because you can accurately measure the actual behaviour of the vehicle and compare it against the intent.If I take a Model 3 and it drives erratically along the road, nobody will know except me. The only time a Tesla knows something is going really wrong is if the driver has to break hard suddenly. Up until that point, it will be blissfully unaware of having misread a junction, or cutting up a driver.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff