Model 3 Unveiling [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#241

Post by DarkTree » Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 7:11 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #219

abtinf wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 c…

While I agree fixed costs shouldn't be ignored, isn't it true that they are called fixed costs for a reason? As in, as Tesla scales up production and is selling way more cars, their fixed cost per unit sold will go down with economies of scale. I think gross margin is much more meaningful here, but definitely correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#242

Post by erikpukinskis » Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 7:18 AM UTC

j1vms wrote: post #174

rsync wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Which brings up the question of whether it's not already time existing cars (starting at the performance end, and then trickling down to consumer market), should not already be replacing: (Int. Combustion Engine)---[variable rotational speed/torque]--->drivetrain with: ICE---[constant rot. speed & constant torque]-->dynamo--->battery-->fully electric motor(s) drive train. That would give most of the performance benef…

I think the Koenigsegg Regera is a really interesting model:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjWzoJdmPeM

It uses the battery to get going, and then gradually revvs up the ICE engine, which only has a single speed, as you go faster. You get the growl and power of an engine in its sweet spot with the instant torque of an electric and a dramatically simpler drivetrain, less weight, etc.

Supposedly it's amazing to drive, if you have a million dollars.

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#243

Post by rconti » Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 7:20 AM UTC

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…

For quite some time, they've said "late 2017" which means 2 or 3 VIPs.. or, at best, a few low-VIN# Roadster/Model S owners, which means deliveries won't even BEGIN ramping until this time 2018

... which means, given Tesla's previous model delays, what, another year on top of that?

We put money down today, but as non-VIPs, the earliest possible theoretical delivery is 2 years from today, and more realistically it's like 3 years.

But the "late 2017" number has been consistent. That doesn't mean you should believe they'll hit it, just that it's been very consistent for some time now.

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#244

Post by rconti » Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 7:23 AM UTC

manav wrote: post #105

timdorr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He announced 115,000 reservations before the stream began. That's $115m spent on a product no one had seen. Crazy.

The car looks comparable to a Honda CRZ or a Toyota Prius (or a Subaru BRZ). They should have gone with the small-sedan form factor, but I think they believe it will cannibalize Model S sales.

A Honda CR-Z is a compact 2-seater in the United States.

A Toyota Prius is an economy sedan with a surprisingly large back seat.

A Subaru BRZ is a small 4-seat sport coupe.

Your comparison can't possibly be valid because it's all over the map. From what I've seen, it IS a small sedan in the vein of a 3-series of A4 (larger than a Civic, smaller than an Accord).

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#245

Post by neximo4 » Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 7:24 AM UTC

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% [1]. However, they are obviously still in startup mode, so they reinvest all of those earnings along with investor capital into improving the business.

They would still report a profit under this scenario.

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#246

Post by rconti » Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 7:26 AM UTC

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 (…

I'm sorry, but luxury is relative to class. If you think a 6 series is luxury, but a 3 series is not, .... what is your definition, exactly? A 3 series is luxury because its compared to smaller generic cars, where a 6 series is ALSO luxury because it's compared to larger generic cars.

I'd never call a Porsche a luxury car because I consider them sports cars, even though many of their model lines are not particularly sporty anymore. Bentley/Rolls/etc are in a whole entirely different splashy show-off league where even many billionaires wouldn't buy one, simply because they're too ostentatious.

What's hilarious here is that you call the CLA (which is a bargain basement car) luxury, while a 3 series is not. Seriously, compare them. The 3er is a larger car and it's nicer. IF you're saying a CLA is luxury "in that class", then so is a 3 series.

But my Golf is nicer than a CLA. Of course, it's not considered a luxury car either, which is part of the appeal :)

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#247

Post by rconti » Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 7:27 AM UTC

dlubarov wrote: post #41

manav wrote: post #24

EDIT: Found a live stream on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FLSxJjdnLU Also, I made a reservation at the Fremont factory today. Took around 15 mins including line, but I went in around 10:30-11am. I'd estimate there were around 600 people before me in the morning. Fairly certain they will hit 100k before the stream starts.

That's a really fast line! I went to the Burlingame shop at 8:30am (they open at 10am) and it was almost noon when I finished.

Stanford, 9am. Out by 11:10.

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#248

Post by rconti » Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 7:30 AM UTC

TickleSteve wrote: post #222

Mikeb85 wrote: post #63

Pretty smart looking car. Doesn't ape the Model S' look too much, clearly looks a little more compact, and the roofline makes it look both roomy and a little space-agey. From the front it almost has a Porsche Panamera look going on... Nice looking car. I wish Tesla good luck, though I don't think they'll need it.

The panamera is quite possibly the most ugly and awkward looking luxury car out there... (even Porsches CEO admits it! http://jalopnik.com/even-porsches-ceo-admits-the-panamera-is... ) This, on the other hand is genuinely good looking.

The panamera is a very awkward car, I agree. But I get where the parent is coming from. I expected the 3 to look like a scaled down S, and a Tesla employee friend said to expect something between an S and an X (yes, he had seen it.. and no, comparison to the X is not a compliment).

I was pleasantly surprised to see the video footage of it, though I don't think it translates well to the stills/screen grabs we've seen.

The headlights-above-the-beltline look reminds me of the Roadster and the Panamera and maybe a touch like the Dodge Razor concept. it's very much not an S, while somehow being attractive in many of the ways the S is (and ugly in none of the ways that the X is). Overall I'm quite pleased with the looks.

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#249

Post by rconti » Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 7:37 AM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #240

erikpukinskis wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other thing to remember is the Model 3 will still have that "100% torque from a full stop" feel that gives the Model S it's kick. I suspect it will feel much faster than an ICE with the same 0-60 speed.

I doubt it'd be much better than any manual car reving up to 4000 RPM and then dropping the clutch. You can squeal the wheels of even low-power engines with that technique. Frankly, zero-to-sixty in 6 seconds WITHOUT shifting and with 100% standing torque is kind of... awful actually. I suspect the opposite, when a ICE engine hits 4000 to 6000 RPM and the torque kicks in, you'll be accelerating far stronger than the…

I'd go the opposite direction. As the owner of a Golf R (which competes with the STI and Focus RS), the 1-second-slower-to-60 Model 3 (this is the very base model, mind you.. no talk of dual engines or performance models yet) will certainly have less peak torque, but I think it will feel faster due to the linear nature of it. Having driven and ridden in a number of different-spec RWD Model S, the impression of acceleration is exaggerated by the off-the-line torque and lack of jerky shifts (remember, power has to let up in order for a shift to subsequently jerky).

Car and Driver just released a review of the STI vs Golf R vs Focus RS. Both the R and the RS had 1-second-slower 5-60 runs vs 0-60. Why? Because they don't have clutch-dropping launches. The STI was vastly worse -- 2 seconds slower 5-60 vs 0-60. That's right -- 5-60 was ~6.8 seconds vs ~4.8 seconds 0-60.

Remove the ICE drivetrain dump launch and suddenly ICEs don't feel so quick. A Model 3 that can do 6 seconds 0-60 might sound slow, but is faster than it sounds, and likely feels so. It laughs at 5-60 because, in the electric world, that's 5 fewer mph it has to accelerate through. In the ICE world, we're talking about a lot of revs we need to pound through before the exhaust gasses spin up the turbo enough to create adequate boost to force air into the engine to create powerful enough explosions to try to create enough power in the itty bitty engine. That's, quite simply, a huge amount of time lost.

Even in my R, I can mash my foot to the floor and wait a second or two before acceleration is truly impressive.

Which is crap compared to the naturally-aspirated 3.2L I6 in my BMW. Which is crap compared to the same engine with individual throttle bodies where there's less distance between the outside air and the valve controlling the intake. Which is crap compared to a much larger engine, like a big V8. All of which are crap compared to a properly-tuned electric motor. (yes, in the interest of efficiency, you may find that many electric motors are programmed to have really laggy throttle response; even so, BMW brags that the i3 is quicker 0-30 than their own M3, even though I found it to be horribly laggy in throttle and deceleration response)

Re: Model 3 Unveiling [video]

#250

Post by codeulike » Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 7:42 AM UTC

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…

They are currently building the biggest factory in the world to make the batteries. It's no secret. That pretty much answers your question.