Slashdot Mirror

Read.

Gross margin = Gross profits / sales = historically around 25%, down a bit recently due to Model 3 production issues Your graph is operating margin, which is EBIT/sales. EBIT = gross profits - operating expenses (SGA, etc) - non-operating income + interest. In 2017, gross profit for TSLA was $2,2B, SGA was $2,5B, and R&D was $1,4B, yielding a net loss of $1,6B (plus everything else = -$2B). But a gross margin around 25% is quite solid for the auto industry. Tesla ran a negative not because of negative automotive margins, but because 1) SGA is scaled up to the size Tesla is actively growing to, not to the company's current sales, and 2) likewise for the R&D budget. Which are both exactly what you want to see in a rapidly growing company. None of Tesla's investors want to see them sit back on their laurels right now and live off of S and X; the point of investing in Tesla is to have a stake in a company that's transforming the automotive market. And that requires rapid scaleup. Gross margins prove the economic case for your products; operating margins remain negative until you've grown large.

Telsa doesn't offer or advertise their cars with self-driving capability.

They just strongly imply it.

Tesla says their powerwall's usable capacity is 13.5 kWh. (I just wish they, and their solar panels, were cheaper.)

I like the idea of being independent of the grid as much as possible - with my solar panels or wind turbines or whatever collecting energy, and with the energy being stored in a large battery at my house. After a storm or earthquake, I don't want to be without power because the lines are down.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2...

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/se...

https://nikolamotor.com/one

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/mo...

https://www.arcimoto.com/vehic...

http://www.zeromotorcycles.com...

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2...

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/se...

https://nikolamotor.com/one

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/mo...

https://www.arcimoto.com/vehic...

http://www.zeromotorcycles.com...

This is simply incorrect.

1) The base MSRP is $35k. I'm sorry if the fact that you don't get to jump in line ahead of half a million other people if you want a base model bugs you.

2) It's not even possible to buy a $60k Model 3. If you add on every last option that's even possible to add on you end up with $59,5k. The options that are mandatory for people who want to be first-in-line are the LR pack and PUP, meaning you can jump in front of everyone else for a vehicle price of $49k.

3) Here's teardown videos. Point out the "shit build quality" therein.

I'm not talking about regular tinted windows, I'm talking about the panoramic "glass atrium" effect (side). Which also does this in the rain.

I wouldn't count on £7500 discounts on a car with a 9 month waiting list (2018 Leaf). That's an abnormally deep discount, for any car.

In the UK that kind of range week mean charging every couple of hours for about half an hour.

Could you parse this sentence for me? Thanks :)

in the UK there aren't many journeys where you would charge more than twice anyway.

What car are you talking about? London to Inverness, for example, is 568 miles. What's your comfort level for a buffer in a Leaf upon arriving? 20mi? What percent do you charge up to? 80%, to minimize the current rampdown? So 100mi per leg, except 130 for the first leg? That's 4 charging stops. If you're getting an average of... oh, say 43kW out of the CHAdeMO?... then that's 48 minutes per stop... 192 minutes charging. Plus a per-stop overhead of 3 minutes (including acceleration / deceleration time) that's 204 minutes.

Model 3 LR, same 20mi buffer... now the optimal cutoff SoC is more personal opinion. Let's go with 60%. You get about 116kW up to about 45% SoC, then a roughly linear rampdown thereafter. That's 15 minutes up to 45%, and then with, say, an average of 100kW to 60%, that's another 7 minutes. So 22 minutes per stop. 319 real-world miles on a full charge, so subtracting the to , 299 miles on the first leg, 171 on each subsequent leg. So 2 stops - 44 minutes charge time, 6 minutes overhead = 50 minutes (under an hour). Vs. 204 (2 1/2 hours).

For Model 3 SR, same 20mi buffer, and let's go with a 65% SoC to charge to for convenience. We can't properly evaluate the rampdown SoC yet. It's probably lower than LR, but it's an open question as to how much lower. Let's say 35%. Now we're 7 minutes to 35%, and then with an average of say 90kW to 65%, that's 10 1/2 minutes, so 17 1/2 minutes total. Expected real-world range for the SR, given the battery ratio and a small bonus (~1 1/2%) for the reduced weight, 220mi, so 200mi on the first leg, then 123mi on each subsequent leg, so 3 stops (coming in right at the 20mi safety buffer, mind you), so 52,5 minutes charging plus 9 minutes overhead = 61,5 minutes. 1 hour vs. 2 1/2 hours.

I mean, you can tweak the numbers in various ways, maybe cut the Leaf's last charge shut to come in closer to the limit, things like that. But there's a massive difference in charge rates.

The thing is, I just don't get why someone would pick the Leaf. Is $5k MSRP really worth the difference? Getting far higher depreciation? An econobox plasticky interior and more mundane appearance? Significantly slower acceleration and handing not nearly as well rated by testers? Far more limited options selection? 2/3rds the range? Drastically slower charging, at less reliable charging stations, which generally charge significantly more (at least in most places)? Missing all that gorgeous tinted glass? A battery pack that degrades significantly faster (Tesla average = ~3-4% the first year, 1/2% each subsequent year)? Far more limited standard features? I mean, I just simply don't get it. Is $5k worth all that to you? I'm trying to understand why anyone would choose the Leaf, and I just can't.

I'm not seeing a problem here.

The only problem I have with it is I would love to have that car. I mean, hell, launch an old broken-down chevy but not something nice like that...

Granted, Elon'll get one of the new roadsters when they come out...

The Tesla Autopilot is a drive-assist system too, currently.
Have a look at their website
https://www.tesla.com/en_NZ/au...
It extols the virtues of their full self-driving capable hardware.

Then they say

Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval.

So basically they aren't confident in their own software and it's approved for use no-where. They have no idea when it will be ready.

Thanks, American Govt for lending our tax money to Tesla and getting them all back 9 years earlier than expected with full interest.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/tes...
Maybe the knuckle-draggers, once they go electric, will also repay their loans.

If they are trying to fully repay the government they have a long way to go.
http://www.latimes.com/busines...

And then there is this too
http://www.slate.com/articles/...

Thanks, American Govt for lending our tax money to Tesla and getting them all back 9 years earlier than expected with full interest.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/tes...
Maybe the knuckle-draggers, once they go electric, will also repay their loans.

Most of the "facts" you have quoted for this product are demonstrably false.

The tiles are stronger than conventional roofing materials and even if they aren't, they have a warranty to guarantee you aren't affected by this.

According to steveha's link the tiles are lighter and cheaper than conventional roofing materials

So, basically what you are saying here is that you spread false information for someone who stands to loose out.

Tesla claims it will do better than a less-expensive conventional non-solar roof.

This page has video showing tests where they hit a tile with a 2 inch hail pellet traveling 100 MPH. (That's 50 mm and traveling 160 kph.)

https://www.tesla.com/solarroof

I notice that the Tesla tile is mounted differently than the other two, and I wonder if that's cheating a bit. But it really does shrug off the hail strike.

$45, but you have to wait until they're back in stock.

https://shop.tesla.com/us/en/p...

Every article I have read on this battery implies, if it doesn't state directly, that its purpose is to time-shift through periods of low wind power. Not a single one stated that its purpose is to ride through transient outages. Not a single one stated how long the battery can meet the power requirements of the state - something around 30 minutes - which would detract from their implied (and false) thesis.

That is because almost every author assumes such and does not understand how batteries are used for grid reliability. They can and will be used part time for time shifting, particularly when there is lower demand and less stress on the grid, but that is not the primary purpose they serve. They must stay charged enough to supply fast response ancillary support, so they can only discharge partially for time shifting depending on given conditions.

https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/te...

Grid Reliability

Ancillary Services; Charge or discharge instantly to provide frequency regulation, voltage control, and spinning reserve services to the grid.

To all those that can afford a Tesla but not food, nor a charger:
https://www.tesla.com/used

You have your priorities mixed up.

I just looked. With the broadest search terms they had nothing for sale.

https://www.tesla.com/used?mod...|desc

Wifey wants me to get a Tesla, but haven't finished with the 350Z yet and I'd prefer to be rich enough to get the new roadster.

To all those that can afford a Tesla but not food, nor a charger:
https://www.tesla.com/used

You have your priorities mixed up.

I just looked. With the broadest search terms they had nothing for sale.

https://www.tesla.com/used?mod...|desc

Wifey wants me to get a Tesla, but haven't finished with the 350Z yet and I'd prefer to be rich enough to get the new roadster.

I've read through the commentary so far. Sheesh, people, did Tesla kill your father or something?

Tesla has offered unlimited use of the Superchargers to most of their customers. They initially offered it to everyone, then they announced a change ahead of time (and not retroactive). Then they decided to make their deal more generous, and just to make sure the more-generous deal applied to everyone they announced a one-time retroactive change to give unlimited Supercharger use to all Model S and Model X customers as of that date.

Unlimited use of the Supercharger goes with the car, so every car that ever had it still has it. Buy a used Tesla that has unlimited Supercharger use, you get that benefit. This hasn't changed.

Now they announced their "Supercharger Fair Use" policy that commercial users will no longer be permitted unlimited free use of the Superchargers... and that's only on new sales of Tesla cars, so anyone who has already been running a business and using the Superchargers is still being allowed to continue doing it.

What if you want to buy a Tesla in 2018 and use it for a business? You still can, just install a Tesla wall connector and you can charge the car from empty to full in less time than it takes you to get a good night's sleep. (If you have a 240 Volt circuit with enough Watts you can charge a Tesla at one-quarter the speed of a Supercharger... at your home or business!)

What if you want to operate a whole fleet of Teslas as a taxi service or something? Tesla will sell you a private Supercharger station you can set up. Rumor has it a two-station Supercharger costs about $60K, and rumor has it that Tesla might give it free with a bulk purchase of 10 cars:

https://electrek.co/2016/10/03/tesla-to-deliver-its-largest-privately-owned-supercharger-station-to-a-taxi-fleet-in-montreal/

To those of you wailing that Tesla can control who uses their Supercharger stations: yeah, they can, but so far they haven't abused this in any way; and they can't stop you (and don't want to stop you) from setting up your own charging solution.

It's true that gas stations don't control who can get gas there. But they don't give the gas for free to anyone... they charge money which is why they don't care who gets it. Also, gas stations are pretty well built-out everywhere, while Tesla is frantically building new Supercharger stations; IMHO Tesla is looking after their ordinary customers by trying to keep a few users from disproportionately using the Superchargers.

And note that all Telsas can use all the other charging stations for all the other cars, with an adapter. If you are so worried about the Supercharger, get a CHAdeMO adapter; this will charge a Tesla about half as fast as a Supercharger station, which is still pretty darn fast.

If you read all the above and you still think Tesla is doing something wrong here, I'm really curious as to just what it might be. Maybe you think Tesla should promise to just give free unlimited power forever to everyone without limit? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

I've read through the commentary so far. Sheesh, people, did Tesla kill your father or something?

Tesla has offered unlimited use of the Superchargers to most of their customers. They initially offered it to everyone, then they announced a change ahead of time (and not retroactive). Then they decided to make their deal more generous, and just to make sure the more-generous deal applied to everyone they announced a one-time retroactive change to give unlimited Supercharger use to all Model S and Model X customers as of that date.

Unlimited use of the Supercharger goes with the car, so every car that ever had it still has it. Buy a used Tesla that has unlimited Supercharger use, you get that benefit. This hasn't changed.

Now they announced their "Supercharger Fair Use" policy that commercial users will no longer be permitted unlimited free use of the Superchargers... and that's only on new sales of Tesla cars, so anyone who has already been running a business and using the Superchargers is still being allowed to continue doing it.

What if you want to buy a Tesla in 2018 and use it for a business? You still can, just install a Tesla wall connector and you can charge the car from empty to full in less time than it takes you to get a good night's sleep. (If you have a 240 Volt circuit with enough Watts you can charge a Tesla at one-quarter the speed of a Supercharger... at your home or business!)

What if you want to operate a whole fleet of Teslas as a taxi service or something? Tesla will sell you a private Supercharger station you can set up. Rumor has it a two-station Supercharger costs about $60K, and rumor has it that Tesla might give it free with a bulk purchase of 10 cars:

https://electrek.co/2016/10/03/tesla-to-deliver-its-largest-privately-owned-supercharger-station-to-a-taxi-fleet-in-montreal/

To those of you wailing that Tesla can control who uses their Supercharger stations: yeah, they can, but so far they haven't abused this in any way; and they can't stop you (and don't want to stop you) from setting up your own charging solution.

It's true that gas stations don't control who can get gas there. But they don't give the gas for free to anyone... they charge money which is why they don't care who gets it. Also, gas stations are pretty well built-out everywhere, while Tesla is frantically building new Supercharger stations; IMHO Tesla is looking after their ordinary customers by trying to keep a few users from disproportionately using the Superchargers.

And note that all Telsas can use all the other charging stations for all the other cars, with an adapter. If you are so worried about the Supercharger, get a CHAdeMO adapter; this will charge a Tesla about half as fast as a Supercharger station, which is still pretty darn fast.

If you read all the above and you still think Tesla is doing something wrong here, I'm really curious as to just what it might be. Maybe you think Tesla should promise to just give free unlimited power forever to everyone without limit? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

I've read through the commentary so far. Sheesh, people, did Tesla kill your father or something?

Tesla has offered unlimited use of the Superchargers to most of their customers. They initially offered it to everyone, then they announced a change ahead of time (and not retroactive). Then they decided to make their deal more generous, and just to make sure the more-generous deal applied to everyone they announced a one-time retroactive change to give unlimited Supercharger use to all Model S and Model X customers as of that date.

Unlimited use of the Supercharger goes with the car, so every car that ever had it still has it. Buy a used Tesla that has unlimited Supercharger use, you get that benefit. This hasn't changed.

Now they announced their "Supercharger Fair Use" policy that commercial users will no longer be permitted unlimited free use of the Superchargers... and that's only on new sales of Tesla cars, so anyone who has already been running a business and using the Superchargers is still being allowed to continue doing it.

What if you want to buy a Tesla in 2018 and use it for a business? You still can, just install a Tesla wall connector and you can charge the car from empty to full in less time than it takes you to get a good night's sleep. (If you have a 240 Volt circuit with enough Watts you can charge a Tesla at one-quarter the speed of a Supercharger... at your home or business!)

What if you want to operate a whole fleet of Teslas as a taxi service or something? Tesla will sell you a private Supercharger station you can set up. Rumor has it a two-station Supercharger costs about $60K, and rumor has it that Tesla might give it free with a bulk purchase of 10 cars:

https://electrek.co/2016/10/03/tesla-to-deliver-its-largest-privately-owned-supercharger-station-to-a-taxi-fleet-in-montreal/

To those of you wailing that Tesla can control who uses their Supercharger stations: yeah, they can, but so far they haven't abused this in any way; and they can't stop you (and don't want to stop you) from setting up your own charging solution.

It's true that gas stations don't control who can get gas there. But they don't give the gas for free to anyone... they charge money which is why they don't care who gets it. Also, gas stations are pretty well built-out everywhere, while Tesla is frantically building new Supercharger stations; IMHO Tesla is looking after their ordinary customers by trying to keep a few users from disproportionately using the Superchargers.

And note that all Telsas can use all the other charging stations for all the other cars, with an adapter. If you are so worried about the Supercharger, get a CHAdeMO adapter; this will charge a Tesla about half as fast as a Supercharger station, which is still pretty darn fast.

If you read all the above and you still think Tesla is doing something wrong here, I'm really curious as to just what it might be. Maybe you think Tesla should promise to just give free unlimited power forever to everyone without limit? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

Which is quite weird given the fact that they are actively advertising that, "soon", you will be able to let your Tesla generate income for you driving other people around on autopilot while you are at work or on vacation.

OK, I do understand that they don't want you to drive around taxis for free, but surely if you pay for it, there shouldn't be any problem? The way I read it, you can't even use superchargers at all, not even if you pay for the electricity. I thought they considered taxi companies to be great advertising for Tesla, but now they want to get rid of them? No more Tesla taxis? Because even if they buy their own private supercharging station (which, last time I checked, is impossible), that would mean that all the taxis have to come and charge at that same location and can't go on long trips.

Also, "any other commercial venture" would include salespeople, for example. Jeez, they are cutting off a whole lot of potential customers here.

Fail

For the Panel's Third Assessment Report, paragraph 14.2.2.2 page 774 it says in my translation: "In research and modeling of the climate, we should be aware that we are dealing with a chaotic, nonlinear coupled system, and that long-term predictions of future climate states is not possible. "

More Fail

News flash to Americans: there exists a world outside America.

As I'm sure you know, there are electric vehicle subsidies across Europe and Asia as well. So I'm not sure of your point. (As a side note, if the U.S. subsidies are truly so insignificant, why did Tesla's stock drop like a brick when the U.S. Congress announced its intent to end the subsidies?)

As to your broader thesis, were it really true that EVs are less expensive both off the lot and over their useful life, they would be selling like hotcakes on their own merits and there would be no reason for all those governments to offer all those incentives. So let's try to figure out why your analysis doesn't reflect real-world consumer behavior.

The most glaring issue seems to be your premise that the proper peer comparison is BMW rather than one of many other more cost-effective ICE vehicles. Just taking as true your claim that Tesla comes out on top (while squeezing my eyes shut and trying to pretend I didn't notice that the Tesla base model you're comparing doesn't even have power seats), that may work for the market segment that would have bought a BMW, but is a purely theoretical advantage for someone who isn't shopping for that level of finish in the first place. And I'm going to take a wild guess that you can't use any other EV to make this kind of comparison since all the rest are sustainably priced rather than effectively a loss leader like the Model 3.

A close second is your pairing of the shorter-range Tesla with a BMW with a V4 engine and the longer-range Tesla with a BMW with a V6 -- that's apples and oranges by definition. If my issue is range, the V4 BMW will be just fine. To the extent you're using a few tenths off the 0-60 time to draw that comparison, that's a metric that most people don't care about since they use their cars for things other than street drag racing. You seem to be engaging in the same single-issue myopia that you say people shouldn't with respect to long-range trips.

A third is comparing a vehicle I can actually buy today with one that I can get in a year to a year and a half -- maybe (note that Tesla's own website says that "12-18 months" ends in "mid 2018" and thus apparently hasn't been updated for a while).

A related fourth is assuming that Elon can still keep attracting investor capital and/or shoveling profit from high-end models into the massive money hole that is the Model 3 and won't have to substantially raise the price over the long haul.

But hey -- other than all that, I completely agree that everything is rainbows and unicorns.

one we promise will go away Real Soon Now.

News flash to Americans: there exists a world outside America.

Meanwhile, let's compare the Tesla Model 3, without any subsidies, to the similarly sized BMW 3-series. First off, which models to compare?

Model 3 SR: 0-60=5,5s; BMW 330i: 0-60=5,4s
Model 3 LR: 0-60=4,8s (Motor Trend)-5,1s(official); BMW 340i: 0-60 various measured at 4,8 and 5,1s.

So now we have our comparison points; let's do the comparisons. Note for the below that the 3-series all have a 15,8gal tank, and the Model 3 LR has an EPA-calculated range of 347/334/318mi in city/combined/highway driving, respectively. SR's battery is the same as LR's except 31 cells per brick rather than 46, so its range figures should be 31/46 times as much, plus a bonus for the reduced weight (estimated at 4%/3,2%/2,5% in city/combined/highway, respectively).

Base price (before options):
SR/330i: $35k vs. $40,3k
LR/340i: $44k vs $49k

Curb weight:
SR/330i: 3549 lbs vs. 3501lbs (manual) - 3541lbs (auto)
LR/340i: 3814 lbs vs 3675lbs (manual) - 3704lbs (auto)

Energy consumption, City/Combined/Highway (Wh/mi or mpg):
SR/330i: 248/260/274 vs 21/25/32(manual), 23/27/34(auto)
LR/340i: 258/267/281 vs 19/23/29(manual), 21/25/32(auto)

Annual energy cost, based on US average gasoline $2,561/gal, US average residential electricity $0,1319/kWh, and an average US driving distance of 13476/yr. The difference between the gas and electricity prices is roughly doubled in the EU averages.
SR/330i: $441/$461/$487 vs $1648/$1384/$1081 (manual), $1505/$1282/$1018 (auto)
LR/340i: $459/$476/$499 vs $1821/$1505/$1193 (manual), $1648/$1384/$1081 (auto)

Model 3 annual energy cost savings ("combined" is representative of most drivers); again, differences are roughly doubled in the EU:
SR/330i: $1207/$923/$594 (manual), $1064/$820/$531 (auto)
LR/340i: $1363/$908/$582 (manual), $1189/$908/$582 (auto)

Vehicle range (mi):
SR/330i: 243/232/220 vs 332/395/506 (manual), 363/427/537 (auto)
LR/340i: 347/334/318 vs 300/363/458 (manual), 332/395/506 (auto)

Time stopped for filling on a 100% highway-driving trip (anything less than 100% highway = more EV friendly comparison). Assumed EV driving down to 10% capacity, charging to 60% (unless a small amount more will mean one less stop), with average 7,5mi/min for LR and 6mi/min for SR. 4 min overhead assumed per stop (based on my timing of vehicle stop lengths), minimum 30mi remaining at arrival, gas vehicles filled to full at each stop, 1 minute tank fill time. Assumed half tank starting point for gasoline. Format: "trip length (drive time@70mph): SR LR / 330i-manual

one we promise will go away Real Soon Now.

News flash to Americans: there exists a world outside America.

Meanwhile, let's compare the Tesla Model 3, without any subsidies, to the similarly sized BMW 3-series. First off, which models to compare?

Model 3 SR: 0-60=5,5s; BMW 330i: 0-60=5,4s
Model 3 LR: 0-60=4,8s (Motor Trend)-5,1s(official); BMW 340i: 0-60 various measured at 4,8 and 5,1s.

So now we have our comparison points; let's do the comparisons. Note for the below that the 3-series all have a 15,8gal tank, and the Model 3 LR has an EPA-calculated range of 347/334/318mi in city/combined/highway driving, respectively. SR's battery is the same as LR's except 31 cells per brick rather than 46, so its range figures should be 31/46 times as much, plus a bonus for the reduced weight (estimated at 4%/3,2%/2,5% in city/combined/highway, respectively).

Base price (before options):
SR/330i: $35k vs. $40,3k
LR/340i: $44k vs $49k

Curb weight:
SR/330i: 3549 lbs vs. 3501lbs (manual) - 3541lbs (auto)
LR/340i: 3814 lbs vs 3675lbs (manual) - 3704lbs (auto)

Energy consumption, City/Combined/Highway (Wh/mi or mpg):
SR/330i: 248/260/274 vs 21/25/32(manual), 23/27/34(auto)
LR/340i: 258/267/281 vs 19/23/29(manual), 21/25/32(auto)

Annual energy cost, based on US average gasoline $2,561/gal, US average residential electricity $0,1319/kWh, and an average US driving distance of 13476/yr. The difference between the gas and electricity prices is roughly doubled in the EU averages.
SR/330i: $441/$461/$487 vs $1648/$1384/$1081 (manual), $1505/$1282/$1018 (auto)
LR/340i: $459/$476/$499 vs $1821/$1505/$1193 (manual), $1648/$1384/$1081 (auto)

Model 3 annual energy cost savings ("combined" is representative of most drivers); again, differences are roughly doubled in the EU:
SR/330i: $1207/$923/$594 (manual), $1064/$820/$531 (auto)
LR/340i: $1363/$908/$582 (manual), $1189/$908/$582 (auto)

Vehicle range (mi):
SR/330i: 243/232/220 vs 332/395/506 (manual), 363/427/537 (auto)
LR/340i: 347/334/318 vs 300/363/458 (manual), 332/395/506 (auto)

Time stopped for filling on a 100% highway-driving trip (anything less than 100% highway = more EV friendly comparison). Assumed EV driving down to 10% capacity, charging to 60% (unless a small amount more will mean one less stop), with average 7,5mi/min for LR and 6mi/min for SR. 4 min overhead assumed per stop (based on my timing of vehicle stop lengths), minimum 30mi remaining at arrival, gas vehicles filled to full at each stop, 1 minute tank fill time. Assumed half tank starting point for gasoline. Format: "trip length (drive time@70mph): SR LR / 330i-manual

one we promise will go away Real Soon Now.

News flash to Americans: there exists a world outside America.

Meanwhile, let's compare the Tesla Model 3, without any subsidies, to the similarly sized BMW 3-series. First off, which models to compare?

Model 3 SR: 0-60=5,5s; BMW 330i: 0-60=5,4s
Model 3 LR: 0-60=4,8s (Motor Trend)-5,1s(official); BMW 340i: 0-60 various measured at 4,8 and 5,1s.

So now we have our comparison points; let's do the comparisons. Note for the below that the 3-series all have a 15,8gal tank, and the Model 3 LR has an EPA-calculated range of 347/334/318mi in city/combined/highway driving, respectively. SR's battery is the same as LR's except 31 cells per brick rather than 46, so its range figures should be 31/46 times as much, plus a bonus for the reduced weight (estimated at 4%/3,2%/2,5% in city/combined/highway, respectively).

Base price (before options):
SR/330i: $35k vs. $40,3k
LR/340i: $44k vs $49k

Curb weight:
SR/330i: 3549 lbs vs. 3501lbs (manual) - 3541lbs (auto)
LR/340i: 3814 lbs vs 3675lbs (manual) - 3704lbs (auto)

Energy consumption, City/Combined/Highway (Wh/mi or mpg):
SR/330i: 248/260/274 vs 21/25/32(manual), 23/27/34(auto)
LR/340i: 258/267/281 vs 19/23/29(manual), 21/25/32(auto)

Annual energy cost, based on US average gasoline $2,561/gal, US average residential electricity $0,1319/kWh, and an average US driving distance of 13476/yr. The difference between the gas and electricity prices is roughly doubled in the EU averages.
SR/330i: $441/$461/$487 vs $1648/$1384/$1081 (manual), $1505/$1282/$1018 (auto)
LR/340i: $459/$476/$499 vs $1821/$1505/$1193 (manual), $1648/$1384/$1081 (auto)

Model 3 annual energy cost savings ("combined" is representative of most drivers); again, differences are roughly doubled in the EU:
SR/330i: $1207/$923/$594 (manual), $1064/$820/$531 (auto)
LR/340i: $1363/$908/$582 (manual), $1189/$908/$582 (auto)

Vehicle range (mi):
SR/330i: 243/232/220 vs 332/395/506 (manual), 363/427/537 (auto)
LR/340i: 347/334/318 vs 300/363/458 (manual), 332/395/506 (auto)

Time stopped for filling on a 100% highway-driving trip (anything less than 100% highway = more EV friendly comparison). Assumed EV driving down to 10% capacity, charging to 60% (unless a small amount more will mean one less stop), with average 7,5mi/min for LR and 6mi/min for SR. 4 min overhead assumed per stop (based on my timing of vehicle stop lengths), minimum 30mi remaining at arrival, gas vehicles filled to full at each stop, 1 minute tank fill time. Assumed half tank starting point for gasoline. Format: "trip length (drive time@70mph): SR LR / 330i-manual

one we promise will go away Real Soon Now.

News flash to Americans: there exists a world outside America.

Meanwhile, let's compare the Tesla Model 3, without any subsidies, to the similarly sized BMW 3-series. First off, which models to compare?

Model 3 SR: 0-60=5,5s; BMW 330i: 0-60=5,4s
Model 3 LR: 0-60=4,8s (Motor Trend)-5,1s(official); BMW 340i: 0-60 various measured at 4,8 and 5,1s.

So now we have our comparison points; let's do the comparisons. Note for the below that the 3-series all have a 15,8gal tank, and the Model 3 LR has an EPA-calculated range of 347/334/318mi in city/combined/highway driving, respectively. SR's battery is the same as LR's except 31 cells per brick rather than 46, so its range figures should be 31/46 times as much, plus a bonus for the reduced weight (estimated at 4%/3,2%/2,5% in city/combined/highway, respectively).

Base price (before options):
SR/330i: $35k vs. $40,3k
LR/340i: $44k vs $49k

Curb weight:
SR/330i: 3549 lbs vs. 3501lbs (manual) - 3541lbs (auto)
LR/340i: 3814 lbs vs 3675lbs (manual) - 3704lbs (auto)

Energy consumption, City/Combined/Highway (Wh/mi or mpg):
SR/330i: 248/260/274 vs 21/25/32(manual), 23/27/34(auto)
LR/340i: 258/267/281 vs 19/23/29(manual), 21/25/32(auto)

Annual energy cost, based on US average gasoline $2,561/gal, US average residential electricity $0,1319/kWh, and an average US driving distance of 13476/yr. The difference between the gas and electricity prices is roughly doubled in the EU averages.
SR/330i: $441/$461/$487 vs $1648/$1384/$1081 (manual), $1505/$1282/$1018 (auto)
LR/340i: $459/$476/$499 vs $1821/$1505/$1193 (manual), $1648/$1384/$1081 (auto)

Model 3 annual energy cost savings ("combined" is representative of most drivers); again, differences are roughly doubled in the EU:
SR/330i: $1207/$923/$594 (manual), $1064/$820/$531 (auto)
LR/340i: $1363/$908/$582 (manual), $1189/$908/$582 (auto)

Vehicle range (mi):
SR/330i: 243/232/220 vs 332/395/506 (manual), 363/427/537 (auto)
LR/340i: 347/334/318 vs 300/363/458 (manual), 332/395/506 (auto)

Time stopped for filling on a 100% highway-driving trip (anything less than 100% highway = more EV friendly comparison). Assumed EV driving down to 10% capacity, charging to 60% (unless a small amount more will mean one less stop), with average 7,5mi/min for LR and 6mi/min for SR. 4 min overhead assumed per stop (based on my timing of vehicle stop lengths), minimum 30mi remaining at arrival, gas vehicles filled to full at each stop, 1 minute tank fill time. Assumed half tank starting point for gasoline. Format: "trip length (drive time@70mph): SR LR / 330i-manual

Where? In the top 5 big cities?

No. Everywhere.

I don't care what the range is, until there are charging stations everywhere

They are (and rapidly expanding). And that's just superchargers - including slower ones (but still including high power DC), look here.

and a full charge happens in 10 minutes

In your everyday life (aka, the vast majority of your time), instead of 5 minutes to detour to a gas station, a full charge takes 10 seconds: 5 to plug in, 5 to unplug. In the comfort of your garage.

On long trips, it charges during meal and bathroom / stretch breaks, about 75 miles range per 10 minutes charging at below 50% SoC. Take, for example, a 700 mile trip. At 70mph that's 10 hours (not counting breaks), so two meal breaks - say, a 20 minute lunch and a 30 minute dinner. 45 minutes charging. That adds about 375 miles, meaning 685 miles. Just one or two 10 minute stretch breaks (on your 10 hour trip) and that's your entire charging.

The only thing it doesn't work for is "sprint" trips, where you're basically trying to avoid all stops, eating in the car, minimizing all bathroom and rest breaks. And if you're the sort of person who does that... don't. Seriously, stop it; that's dangerous, not just to you, but to other drivers.

I would have range anxiety

A belief only held by people who've never owned an EV. Because 1) supercharging rates aren't slow; 2) you can extend range significantly just by slowing down, at any point in time (unlike ICE vehicles, EVs increase in range down to around 20-25mph), and 3) in the absolute worst case (which almost never happens), you can ask to charge virtually anywhere. Farmhouse in the middle of nowhere? Ranger station deep in a national park? You name it. And the answer in practice is almost always yes.

The newer range is really great, about as much as most cars.

But the thing you'd want to larger range for is really road trips, which per day would usually be composed of at least two 300 mile segments. So you have to figure out at least two charging points per day of trip, as well as overnight.

Now they have done a great job of bringing superchargers online where a lot of trips I could probably plot a path that included enough superchargers. Evening is still an issue though, lots of places it is hard to find somewhere to plug in. But with that kind of range, maybe it would be enough just to find one in the city I was staying in and charge up before I went to the hotel.

I think it's close enough it would work for most road trips, except for some remote areas.

Why do so many people hate Tesla?

Teslas are expensive as hell to repair.

$10,000 for a scratch:
https://forums.tesla.com/forum...

$34,000 for a minor bump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

AmiMoJo observed:

Musk may have screwed Tesla by saying that employees should be thick skinned and accept an apology. The law requires that the abuse stops, not that people apologise (however sincerely) for it. Apologising is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for saying anything you like in the workplace, at most it will lessen the severity of the reprimand/punishment.

His statement really sounds like an admission that Tesla does have a problem and that there are no formal, effective procedures to deal with it.

I'm surprised you didn't notice that, because you actually wrote "[w]hat you have to do is take whatever steps are necessary to end racial harrassment of the plaintiff in your workplace" so clearly you are aware of what is required.

Here's Tesla's official response to yesterday's announcement of the lawsuit:

Hotbed of Misinformation
The Tesla Team November 14, 2017

Tesla is absolutely against any form of discrimination, harassment, or unfair treatment of any kind. When we hear complaints, we take them very seriously, investigate thoroughly and, if proven to be true, take immediate action.

Everyone at Tesla, without exception, is required to go through an anti-discrimination course. Our human resources team also conducts regular in-person spot training sessions when an allegation or complaint has been made, even if the evidence is not conclusive enough to warrant disciplinary action. We have also created a dedicated team focused exclusively on investigating workplace concerns, recommending corrective actions and assisting managers with implementing those actions.

Regarding yesterday’s lawsuit, several months ago we had already investigated disappointing behavior involving a group of individuals who worked on or near Marcus Vaughn’s team. At the time, our investigation identified a number of conflicting accusations and counter-accusations between several African-American and Hispanic individuals, alleging use of racial language, including the "n-word" and "w-word," towards each other and a threat of violence. After a thorough investigation, immediate action was taken, which included terminating the employment of three of the individuals.

We believe this was the fair and just response to the facts that we learned. There will be further action as necessary, including parting ways with anyone whose behavior prevents Tesla from being a great place to work and making sure we do everything possible to stop bad behavior from happening in the first place. Our company has more than 33,000 employees, with over 10,000 in the Fremont factory alone, so it is not humanly possible to stop all bad conduct, but we will do our best to make it is as close to zero as possible.

There are a number of other false statements in the class action lawsuit alleging a so-called “hotbed of discrimination”:

- There is only one actual plaintiff (Marcus Vaughn), not 100. The reference to 100 is a complete fabrication with no basis in fact at all.

- The plaintiff was employed by a temp agency, not by Tesla as claimed in the lawsuit.

- Marcus was not fired, he was on a six month temp contract that simply ended as contracted.

- His email to Elon was about his commute and Tesla’s shuttles, which was addressed as he requested. There was no mention of racial discrimination whatsoever.

- The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle. At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in to extortion and allow this abuse of the legal system.

- We would also like to clear up the description of Elon’s prior email to employees. It is dedicated to ensuring that Tesla employees always try to do the r

Sounds like it might be much simpler:

Regarding yesterday’s lawsuit, several months ago we had already investigated disappointing behavior involving a group of individuals who worked on or near Marcus Vaughn’s team. At the time, our investigation identified a number of conflicting accusations and counter-accusations between several African-American and Hispanic individuals, alleging use of racial language, including the "n-word" and "w-word," towards each other and a threat of violence. After a thorough investigation, immediate action was taken, which included terminating the employment of three of the individuals.

Aka, according to Tesla, there absolutely was racial language used - but the plaintiff was part of it, and his contract was ended as a consequence. Also, Tesla makes some pretty damning-if-true counterallegations - among them:

- There is only one actual plaintiff (Marcus Vaughn), not 100. The reference to 100 is a complete fabrication with no basis in fact at all.

- The plaintiff was employed by a temp agency, not by Tesla as claimed in the lawsuit.

- Marcus was not fired, he was on a six month temp contract that simply ended as contracted.

- His email to Elon was about his commute and Tesla’s shuttles, which was addressed as he requested. There was no mention of racial discrimination whatsoever.

They also allege that the attorney hired has a long track record of taking on meritless lawsuits and using the threat of damage to a company's reputation in the media to get them to settle out of court.

I would say, "We'll see where this goes", except, well, we all know that while allegations get big headlines, unless there's a surprise ending and a court rules against Tesla, we'll never actually see an article covering the court dismissing the case. Just like each and every other time that something like this has happened.

It is hard to take the summary seriously on any numbers when it says things like the Telsa Supercharger network being 7,000 strong and comparing it to a company building CHARGING LOCATIONS. Tesla only has 7,000 if you could EVERY LAST PLUG at its roughly 1,000 Supercharger stations - https://www.tesla.com/supercha.... The only way the comparison in the summary makes any sense is if this new company is going to install 400 charging locations with ONE charger at each.

how about outrageously priced adaptors so Teslas can use other EV chargers

The most common EV charger is SAE J1772 standard. A Tesla comes with an adapter to charge at a J1772 charger. It costs $95 to replace.

https://shop.tesla.com/us/en/product/vehicle-accessories/model-s_x_3-sae-j1772-charging-adapter.html?sku=1067348-00-A

Teslas also come with an adapter kit that allows charging from 120 Volt or 240 Volt outlets. $550 to replace it.

https://shop.tesla.com/us/en/product/vehicle-accessories/model-s_x-mobile-connector-bundle.html?sku=1025821-00-G

Tesla also has a CHAdeMO adapter. $450 to buy one.

https://shop.tesla.com/us/en/product/vehicle-accessories/model-s_x-chademo-adapter.html?sku=1036392-10-D

A Tesla can charge pretty much anywhere with adapters.

how about outrageously priced adaptors so Teslas can use other EV chargers

The most common EV charger is SAE J1772 standard. A Tesla comes with an adapter to charge at a J1772 charger. It costs $95 to replace.

https://shop.tesla.com/us/en/product/vehicle-accessories/model-s_x_3-sae-j1772-charging-adapter.html?sku=1067348-00-A

Teslas also come with an adapter kit that allows charging from 120 Volt or 240 Volt outlets. $550 to replace it.

https://shop.tesla.com/us/en/product/vehicle-accessories/model-s_x-mobile-connector-bundle.html?sku=1025821-00-G

Tesla also has a CHAdeMO adapter. $450 to buy one.

https://shop.tesla.com/us/en/product/vehicle-accessories/model-s_x-chademo-adapter.html?sku=1036392-10-D

A Tesla can charge pretty much anywhere with adapters.

how about outrageously priced adaptors so Teslas can use other EV chargers

The most common EV charger is SAE J1772 standard. A Tesla comes with an adapter to charge at a J1772 charger. It costs $95 to replace.

https://shop.tesla.com/us/en/product/vehicle-accessories/model-s_x_3-sae-j1772-charging-adapter.html?sku=1067348-00-A

Teslas also come with an adapter kit that allows charging from 120 Volt or 240 Volt outlets. $550 to replace it.

https://shop.tesla.com/us/en/product/vehicle-accessories/model-s_x-mobile-connector-bundle.html?sku=1025821-00-G

Tesla also has a CHAdeMO adapter. $450 to buy one.

https://shop.tesla.com/us/en/product/vehicle-accessories/model-s_x-chademo-adapter.html?sku=1036392-10-D

A Tesla can charge pretty much anywhere with adapters.

https://www.tesla.com/findus?n...

Anon because I'm in the biz.

100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1) There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man's activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth's history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7ÂC increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favorable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal known as "Climate-gate" - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that,
"fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class - predominantly - are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world".

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an "absurdity"

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is "embarrassed and puzzled" by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth's temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can't even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth's temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vap

A person has to wonder if a Slashdot faction commenting on this story has an "agenda."

My only agenda is to hope that Tesla succeeds, because I like the advances they have made in the state of the art. (For example, Tesla "SuperCharger" is a better charging technology than anything else available.) I don't want to see them hurting their employees, but I don't really think they need to hurt their employees to succeed.

Everyone agrees that Tesla's production process had problems and needed to improve. Tesla claims they have improved.

Here's an article about that:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarquet/2017/06/04/elon-musk-safety-autopilot/#5d8a4b9a7a88

According to Tesla's official blog post, they went from having a worse-than-average safety record in their factory, to having a better-than-average record. I haven't heard anything about it getting worse again, and I'm pretty sure that would be widely reported news if it happened.

Also, one of their improvements was adding a third shift, so that work would happen 24 hours a day. This greatly reduced overtime, and was welcomed by the line workers. From the blog post: "Last year, we added a third shift to reduce the overtime burden on each team member and to improve safety. We did this because our employees asked for it, and because it was the right thing to do."

Parts were stacked high in contradiction of Lean Manufacturing dogma, and in contrast with the Maryville, Ohio Honda plant he had observed, the Tesla shop floor activity was frenetic. The Honda plant, by contrast, had its assembly line running so smoothly that the workers did not appear to be breaking a sweat.

Honda has been making cars since 1963 (and motorcycles before then). They have had just a bit more time to fine-tune their operations.

Tesla has spent big money on overhauling their production process. They are planning to crank out a very large number of Model 3 cars per year, and they can't do that with a labor-intensive process. Tesla says that the Model 3 has been designed to be easy to manufacture, using lessons learned while manufacturing their other cars.

Recently Tesla shared a video of the robots making Model 3 cars: http://bgr.com/2017/10/09/tesla-model-3-elon-musk-video-production-line/

There are over a half-million Model 3 cars on pre-order. If Tesla can sort out their production line and get those cars delivered in a timely fashion, they will be heroes. If not, they will be in huge trouble and possibly will go bankrupt.

The Tesla Model S is an incredible automobile, they tell me

It really is.

and maybe the problem with it is that it is incredible that Tesla is able to sell an automobile of that sophistication for the price they charge without it all being smoke-and-mirrors of burning out its workers and fleecing its investors to contribute the labor and money to in effect give away what are effectively hand-built quarter million-dollar cars?

From what I have read, a Model S costs Tesla about $30K to make, so no, they are not giving away effectively hand-built cars, they are making a solid profit on each car sold.

The stories of 70-hour work weeks of relentless pressure are just sour grapes from slackers who deserved to be cut loose?

Tesla says that since they added the third shift (sometime in 2016) that the average number of hours worked per week is 42. Do you have newer data that contradicts this?

here are just some "bottlenecks" to be worked out? While their "body" line tooling is still being put together in some undisclosed location in Southeast Michigan?

I had no idea what you were talking about here. Google found this for me:

Expect a multitude of EV clones in China appearing that look strangely similar to Teslas.

Tesla Motors was created for the purpose of proving EVs were viable and proliferating them, so this would be a win for Elon. If you haven't you noticed, all their patents are free to use.

Meanwhile, Tesla has 2484 open jobs on its website. A rather curious strategy if they're trying to "disguise a layoff". Let's lay off "up to 700 people" and then hire 2484 new people to.... cut back on the workforce?

That's what THEY say. There is no public evidence.

Huh? So poor performance firings should require a detailed public airing of the company's grievances against the employees? And what the heck kind of crappy "layoff" would involve under 2% of the company's employee base?

MUCH further behind than that.

False. Here's Tesla's official announced production plan. They're one month off. July was supposed to be around a hundred, August was supposed to be a few hundred, and September 1500. A few hundred were delivered in September. That's one month off.

It's also worth noting that when Model 3 was announced, their initial goal was to start production in late 2017, with no specific numbers for deliveries. They moved the start up by half a year.

And I see you have a history of making excuses for Musk's ...let's say... puffery

Funny, given that people like you keep calling his claims impossible BS, and he keeps delivering the supposed "impossible BS". Do you ever tire of being wrong, or are you always refreshed by the latest opportunity to be even more spectacularly wrong?

A Tesla Model S has a 90 kilowatt hour battery life for it's 275 mile range. A kilowatt hour is a thousand watts, and let's assume you're going 60mph. For argument, and maths, sake we'll assume you're going above efficiency and say you'll get 240 miles out of that. That's 4 hours, so 22.5 kilowatts an hour. That's a powerdraw of 22 thousand watts in 1 hour. The new self driving chip announced by Nvidia only draws 500 watts, that's 500 watts in an hour. Or better yet, here's the empirical evidence of Tesla owners discussing their average watts/min usage: https://forums.tesla.com/forum...

Even there with more efficiency, the new Nvidia chip uses in an hour less energy than the car itself uses in 2 minutes. This article is absolute bullshit, they had 1 damned thing their job required and they didn't do it. Self driving electric cars are perfectly mathematically sounds.

You do realize the the rear motor in a "D" model is the exact same rear motor as comes in the non-"D" version....ya, didn't think you did.

Please provide a reference link so I can read about this. I have read that on a "D" model Tesla, the two motors are each individually smaller than the rear-only model.

Here's how Wikipedia describes the 85D:

the rear drive unit is replaced by a smaller one to save cost and weight, while the second motor of similar size is added to the front wheels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S#Dual-motor_all-wheel-drive_versions

However, this discussion suggests that the "P100D" model cars ("P" for "performance") use the full-size rear motor. If that is correct, then I was mistaken about Tesla being able to stop making the larger rear-drive motors, because of course Tesla still makes the "P" cars.

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/why-does-dual-motor-get-better-mileage

I just checked, and the remaining options are the 75D, the 100D, and the P100D. The "D" means "dual-motor"... these are the all-wheel-drive versions.

This change means Tesla can more or less stop making rear-drive-only motors (just make a few as needed for repairing already-sold rear drive cars).

I looked at the Model S ordering page, and noticed that a lot of stuff that used to be optional is now standard on the Model S. The "smart air suspension" is now standard. The upgraded stereo is no longer a standalone option, but part of a "premium upgrades package" that includes the improved cabin air filter, the better stereo, and the cold-weather package (which also used to be a stand-alone option).

Now your only options are: "premium upgrades package", "enhanced autopilot", "full self-driving", and the rear-facing child seats for the rear cargo area. And probably most people will get the "premium upgrades package", looks worth it to me... and "enhanced autopilot" and "full self-driving" are both pure software upgrades. So really there are only two options now, and one of those is the child seats.

It's just like Apple: they have streamlined their offerings, they will have less to keep track of.

And as noted in the article, this also segments the Model S a bit above the Model 3.

P.S. IMHO Tesla's "most affordable Model S" would be a CPO (a Certified Pre-Owned car, i.e. a used car bought directly through Tesla). Tesla still sells those; you can still get one with the 60 battery if you like. I just checked and the least expensive CPO car it offered me was $40,800 (a 60 battery rear-drive car).

Beat me to the punch ;)

Gravimetric energy density is one of the least important aspects these days. Back in the lead-acid days, improving it it was a huge deal because lead-acids made cars impractically heavy for a reasonable range. Those days are gone. As noted in this post:

The base curb weight of the Tesla Model 3, according to the official press kit, is 3549 lbs, which is 1610kg. 1730kg is the LR version, the heavier version. The BMW 3-Series ranges from 1475-1770kg. The A4 ranges from [wikipedia.org] 1410-1695 kg. I can't find an official total range for the C300, but find values ranging from 1630 kg to 1688kg to 1695kg to 1715kg. While the 1630kg is described as the "base weight" (analogous to the M3's 1610kg), I have no clue what the heaviest C300 config is, there could easily be configurations heavier than the 1715kg one.

To sum up:
Tesla Model 3: 1610-1730kg
BMW 3-Series: 1475-1770kg
Audi A4: 1410-1695kg
Mercedes C300: 1630-1715+kg

To repeat: The Tesla Model 3's curb weight comes in at pretty much the same range as other midrange compact sedans (BMW 3-Series, Audi A4, Mercedes C300, etc).

Cool! Where can I buy one today?

Get in line behind me. Those at the head of the line are already getting theirs. Which is nice because it means more and more sightings, videos, pics, etc every day.

I've been in a Model S multiple times and the interior was appalling.

Pre- or post refresh, and what interior option? Funny that they've captured a third of the US luxury sedan market, almost 50% more than the next closest competitor, with a "Kia-like" interior, huh?

And FYI, I'll take professional reviewers opinions (who have been in Model 3s) about M3 quality over yours, thanks.

If they were true advanced electric vehicles they had a linear engine in each wheel.

Are you talking about a motor in each hub? (Seen that as far back as the '60s in Popular Science)

That idea has been considered and rejected for multiple reasons as a bad idea. Particularly if you are designing a vehicle for high speed.

This why not inwheel hub engines thread on Telsa's site hits the major issues.