Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Model 3 Unveiling [video]

model3.tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 395 posts

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#211

Post by dragontamer »

usaphp wrote: post #204
dragontamer wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

35k is definitely a luxury vehicle. Brand new cars like Honda Fit and Ford Focus are $15k. Nissan Maxima / Honda Accord is ~$22k starting. $35k is where BMW and Lexus start. He's still competing against the luxury segment, but "entry" luxury.

I disagree, bmw 3 series and basic Lexus are not "luxury" cars, they are called "Premium" cars. Luxury cars are Porshes, Maseratti, Bentley, bmw 6 series, mercedes CLS etc... Honda Fit and Ford Focus are small budget cars, Nissan maxima and accord are regular sedans. If you call bmw 3 series a luxury car - then what would you call a porshe than? Edit: Mercedec CLA is considered a luxury vehicle in a different class (…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_CLA-Class

The Mercedes Benz CLA starts at $32k. Its considered a luxury vehicle by everyone I know, including Wikipedia.

Argue with someone else, like whoever wrote the Wikipedia article. A "luxury vehicle" is anything basically any sedan above $30k. There are a ton of vehicles below $20k, and plenty between $20k and $30k.

Vans and Trucks are a bit different, because they provide extra utility and often cost $30k+. Luxury SUVs, Vans, and Trucks are closer to $40k to $50k.

Most people I know don't even have new cars for crying out loud, and "new" is basically a luxury.

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#212

Post by CamperBob2 »

greglindahl wrote: post #123
manav wrote: post #117

I'm actually going to reduce my reservation to one car now. Pretty disappointed at the design, it looks like a Prius. For the price point, I would obviously still buy one... but the hatchback style is not as appealing for a mid level luxury car that may compete with a MB C-class or BMW 3-series. They could have made it look like an Audi A4 sedan, with an available hatchback, but I think that would cannibalize Model S…

You can't make a car with low drag without it being a hatchback. And low drag is key to reasonable battery size.

It's a shame it's not a hatchback. It looks like it would make a very natural one.

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#213

Post by quietplatypus »

slg wrote: post #194

Some of the press pics and video from inside the car is really interesting. There is no instrument panel and the only screen is the center tablet. That would seem to be somewhat inconvenient to view things like speed. I wonder if that is hinting at a future with expanded autopilot were the driver can pay less attention to the instruments. [1] - https://twitter.com/autonews_west/status/715761107508584448 [2] - https:/…

Obviously you're expectd to be a hardcore motorsport enthusiast who has a honed instinct for the current kph :p

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#215

Post by dskhatri »

rsync wrote: post #152
suprgeek wrote: post #89

Very clean looks also: 215 Miles Range with 0-60 in 6secs, Seats 5 will have autodrive tech all for $35,000 Deliveries begin end of 2017 (Hopefully) This is truly a mass market full electric car. We may be seeing something on the lines of the iPhone - a category busting product.

"with 0-60 in 6secs" This part confuses me. The very fast 0-60 times that you see in electric cars are a function not of their massive engines or super tuned turbos, but of their instantaneous torque (as they are electric). Given that this is an electric car, and that its size and weight are commensurable to the (presumably) smaller electric motor, I would expect it to have similar 0-60 times. I just assumed that whe…

I read an article in the WSJ saying the Model 3 will be steel based instead of Al based like its bigger siblings. Heavier vehicle..

* Article title is "A Lot Riding on Tesla's Model 3 Unveiling"

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#216

Post by bdunn »

11402101 wrote: post #196
mikeash wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Tesla is a bit cheaper. I don't think the Bolt has any Autopilot-like options. Far more importantly, the Bolt has no real fast charging infrastructure, either existing or planned. If you like to drive to places more than 200 miles away, there's still only one company with an EV that can reasonably do that.

Supercharging network should be irrelevant in my mind. If you need to drive more than 200 miles away, you need ICE. Assuming you could get a 100% full charge in 30 minutes at a supercharger, and 210 miles of range at 60mph, you are driving 3.5 hours and standing around for 30 minutes. Meanwhile, ICE can get you 400 miles, or 6.5 hours of driving at 60mph, on a 15 minute gas fill up. Electrics are great for a lot of r…

I own a Model S and have clocked 23k miles on it over the last year, most of which on long roadtrips.

I love it. The car mostly drives itself between superchargers, and the SCs are usually next to coffee shops or restaurants. I don't mind getting up and stretching / having a drink every few hours.

But if minimizing recharging/refueling is your main priority, yeah, you can't beat ICE.

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#217

Post by BinaryIdiot »

JoshuaJB wrote: post #160
alvern wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over 115k reservations in 24hours! This is going to put serious pressure on other auto makers to step up their game.

In comparison, Nissan only sold 170k LEAFs from 2010-2015.[1] Three years of Nissan LEAF sales in 24h? Fantastic! [1] http://evobsession.com/nissan-leaf-sales-climb-to-over-17000...

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Even I could go put $1k down for a Model 3 and then renege when they start shipping. But the Nissan Leaf sales are buying a whole car.

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#218

Post by dragontamer »

sgeisenh wrote: post #195
dragontamer wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, acceleration speed is most important, and zero-to-sixty in 6 seconds is competitive against $30k cars. (The fastest cars in this price range... like Ford Focus RS... is zero-to-sixty in 4.7 seconds. $35,900 for the RS.) Everyone appreciates a speedy acceleration, when merging into highways or getting out of the way. Its far more important to be quick on acceleration than to have a top-speed.

6 seconds is fast for a luxury sedan, but there are plenty of cars for less than $30k that will do zero-to-sixty in under 6 seconds. The Subaru WRX does 0-60 in under 5 seconds and costs ~$26k. That's the only 4 door car I can think of that's quite that quick, but there are plenty of performance oriented cars in that price range that are very quick.

Yeah, this is more about what I was getting towards.

Tesla Model 3 isn't breaking any records. I can think of plenty of cars in the price range that is that fast actually (and as you noted, the WRX definitely undercuts the Tesla significantly in price).

But in my experience, zero-to-sixty in 6 seconds is a good speed. Its not "slow", and should be fast enough to feel somewhat luxurious.

The Subaru WRX, and Ford Focus RS are performance-oriented cars after all. They happen to also be good daily drivers. Performance-oriented drivers will stick with Subaru WRX / Focus RS because the real time performance people care about is the Laguna Seca lap-time (or other lap times on famous tracks)... a combination of cornering speed, handling, acceleration, AND braking to test all aspects of the car.

Zero-to-sixty in 6-seconds isn't amazing, and the M3 likely won't do Leguna Seca very well (Model S overheats for example and is forced to slow down. Its probably something to do with electric motors)

https://forums.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-laguna-s...

And there's the Subaru WRX, beating out the Model S on Leguna Seca by a few seconds, let alone the Model 3. So yeah, people who care about overall performance aren't going to be getting any of the Teslas any time soon.

----------

So the real selling point is the electric car value. The question is if the Model 3 can actually deliver. Its still a concept-car, a lot of things are going to change between now and "late 2017", probably 2018 when the cars actually come out for most people.

The GM Bolt is launching this year. BMW is launching their electrics soon. Tesla has a leg up inside of the electric market IMO, but I'm curious to see if the M3 actually gets widespread adoption.

And no, I don't think a refundable $1000 deposit really counts as a real sale.

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#219

Post by refurb »

abtinf wrote: post #187
Animats wrote: post #113

OK, $35K, 115,000 pre-orders, delivery early 2018. (Yeah, he said "next year", and then the projection said "late next year", and then he waffled, so 2018 is realistic.) Tesla's current production rate is about 70,000 units a year. Yes, the NUMMI plant once produced 500K vehicles a year on that site, but that just means Tesla has lots of empty building shell into which they can expand. The real problem is profitabili…

>Tesla isn't profitable On a per-unit sold basis, Tesla Model S is wildly profitable, with a gross margin north of 30% [1]. However, they are obviously still in startup mode, so they reinvest all of those earnings along with investor capital into improving the business. >Cutting the price means they have to produce at a far lower cost while expanding factory capacity. Corporate finance is a little more nuanced than t…

On a per-unit sold basis, Tesla Model S is wildly profitable, with a gross margin north of 30%

OK, I searched for "30%" in your link and nothing came up. So I scanned and saw nothing that claimed a gross margin of 30%. Where's it hiding?

I assume by gross margin you mean, "revenue - COGS". This of course ignores all the fixed costs, so it doesn't mean much. Even if they weren't investing in future growth, their fix costs could easily drag that 30% (still don't know where that came from) down into negative territory.

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#220

Post by cjhopman »

Ingon wrote: post #76
lai wrote: post #65

Wow it looks really nice. The front is completely sealed.

Yeah, I understand that's a bold "see, I'm electric" statement, but still feels a bit awkward.

I actually think the model 3 looks fine. I've seen several model x driving around and their nose is really hideous. The model s has just like a black section that looks normal and fine. The model 3 has done completely away with the black look and it looks fine. The model x just sort of is somewhere in the middle and it looks really, really awkward.
Post reply on HN