Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tesla Discontinues Its Most Affordable Model S (engadget.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the in-n-out dept.

Tesla will be discontinuing its cheapest Model S option, the Model S 75, this Sunday. What that means is that the all-wheel-drive version -- the 75D -- will take its place as the low-end Model S sedan, currently listed at a starting price of $74,500. Engadget reports: The move to discontinue the Model S 75 was first announced by Tesla in July after it dropped the price by $5,000 a few months earlier. The removal of the model from Tesla's offerings follows its discontinuation of the Model S 60 and 60D vehicles in April, which at the time were the least expensive Model S options available. As well as streamlining its EV line and making all Model S options all-wheel-drive, knocking off the low-end Model S vehicles is also likely being done to carve out a bigger separation between the Model 3 and Model S lines. Custom orders for the Model S 75 will be taken until Sunday, September 24th and the pre-configured versions will be available for purchase until inventory runs out.

95 comments

  1. If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a year.. by mckwant · · Score: 4, Funny

    Make them the expensive ones. No shade, just saying.

    --
    ceci n'est pas un sig.
  2. I thought they were all physically the same? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    I recall reading that all the Teslas actually had the same capacity, and the only difference was software that only let the battery charge up to a percentage of full.

    I don't recall if you could buy an "upgrade" to the higher capacity or not.

    Did they actually use smaller batteries in the 75?

    1. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by supremebob · · Score: 1

      I think that the 60 and the 75 shared the same battery. The battery in the 80/90/100 models is physically bigger.

    2. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      No, it was only the 60 that was a software limited version of the 75. All the other models do have the actual physical sized batteries the model number implies.

      Yes, you can pay $2000 to upgrade. Originally it was more than that.

    3. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not so.

      Early on, there was a 40 kWh option available. This was cancelled; those who ordered it received the 60 kWh pack, software limited to 40 kWh. In 2015, the 60 kWh model was discontinued. In 2016, the 60 kWh model was reintroduced as a software limited 75 kWh model. Apart from those specific models (the 40 kWh and 2016 and later 60 kWh models), no model S has had a software limitation on battery capacity.

      You can upgrade the smaller capacity batteries to higher capacities at the workshop but it's not a cheap option. That said, if they had the 40 kWh option still available, I'd be tempted to grab that and upgrade the battery later on, as a way to save a bit of cash on the initial purchase. Moot point.

    4. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by markdavis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > I thought they were all physically the same?

      Nope. The lowest end had only 1 motor and 2-wheel drive. All the higher end were 2 motors and 4-wheel drive. The battery packs did overlap in some models, though.

      The point is, they have so much sales demand that "supply and demand" is taking over. They can sell every single higher-end car they make and still can't keep up, so there is no reason to offer the lesser models. Plus, by selling ONLY 2-motor cars, it streamlines production and will reduce that price some.

      Finally, if you were in the market for the lowest-end S, you might now be pointed to the new model 3, which is the target for "entry level" electric car, now. I know I have no interest in the model 3, because it can't compete with the performance of cars like the Infiniti G37S/Q50 or its market equivalents. Of course, the higher end model S is twice FOUR TIMES the price of those ICE cars, so it isn't like I am really in that market, either. :( Some day...

    5. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      And only for a short time until they dropped it I think.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Q50? Really? I would rather have a Tesla 3 any day of the week. Not to mention an Audi A4, a BMW 3, a Mercedes C, or basically every single car in the same class. Who buys an Infiniti in a world where they sell Audis?

      In terms of performance, I would expect the Tesla 3 to be better. Certainly it will accelerate faster under real driving conditions. The Q50 interior is probably nicer though.

    7. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was a transitional model. They stopped producing the 60s, but until they felt that they didn't need a 60 on the market, they kept selling 60s via software-limited 75 packs. It was an incredible deal for buyers, for lots of reasons. One, you could always upgrade later, which decreased your car's depreciation. Two, since you're effectively running at a lower DoD, you're decreasing pack degradation (relative to both those who owned actual 60s, and those who had the full 75). And three, it also could charge faster than a 60, since it was actually a larger pack.

      One of the challenges for any manufacturer is to try to get buyers to spend "as much as they can"; you don't want to leave money on the table with your high-end buyers, but at the same time don't want to price your low-end buyers out of the market. Often this is done by a variety of premium packages, which they try to make as tempting as possible. With EVs, pack sizes can also be added to this list - with the caveat that you don't want to have to maintain an excessive number of manufacturing lines open for differing pack sizes (and engineering validation, and inventory, etc, etc). So software limitation is a good way to balance these conflicting priorities.

      --
      All we want to do is eat your brains.
    8. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by markdavis · · Score: 2

      >"In terms of performance, I would expect the Tesla 3 to be better. Certainly it will accelerate faster under real driving conditions. The Q50 interior is probably nicer though."

      You can expect what you will, but I already researched it and the Tesla 3 will be significantly slower (which is acceleration) than the G37 or Q50 or its class. And, of course, the handling will be worse by far due to weight. PLUS the interior and room and range and features are all considerably worse, too. The only advantage the 3 would have is that it is electric (and therefore quiet and uses no gas).

      The Tesla S, on the other hand, will eat it alive (acceleration)... and pretty much all cars except exotics. And the features are as good or better than most. The Tesla 3 is much, much, much less car than the S.

    9. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      For those who are curious:

      G37 S 0-60 ($37k): 4,9s
      Q50 0-60 ($45k): 5,1s (Q50 Red Sport 400 ($58k): 4,5s)
      Model 3 SR ($35k): 5,6s
      Model 3 LR ($44k): 5,1s
      Model 3 SR/LR with performance package: Announced, but performance and pricing TBD.

      Given the typical torque-power curves of ICEs and EVs, the two ICEs would probably match the Model 3 variants somewhere around 0-40 to 0-60, with the ICEs winning beyond that and the Model 3s winning below that. As for the performance Model 3s, who knows? Obviously they won't have it threaten a P100D, but I'd wager that for the LR it'd go for somewhere in the 3,5-4,2s ballpark, and add around $10k to the price; it's cheaper to up an EV's accel than a gasoline vehicle's.

      --
      All we want to do is eat your brains.
    10. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      So, like I said before, the Tesla 3 (from what we know) is slower than the G37 and Q50 while having a much inferior set of features. Even if the 3 does offer a performance package that can push it significantly above, it is likely going to cost a LOT more (based on what they did with the S performance models) but probably have the same minimal instrumentation and features. It is going to be a hard sell to those in the G37 class.

    11. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by robbak · · Score: 1

      Don't write off the Teslas on the handling stakes. The battery pack in the floor means that mass is low down. Really helps with body roll. Many hop in the S expecting it to handle poorly because of the mass, and are pleasantly surprised.

      --
      Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    12. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by Rei · · Score: 1

      So, like I said before, the Tesla 3 (from what we know) is slower than the G37 and Q50 while having a much inferior set of features.

      Not at all correct. We'll ignore the fact that "slower than" acceleration only applies to above a certain speed (the Model 3 will always win on "in-town" acceleration, regardless of the version), and instead focus on features. I'm not going to waste the time going into both the G37 and Q50, so let's just pick one - say, the G37. Nav? Optional, not live-updated (except by an extra), and tiny by comparison (a quarter the area). Streaming music? Optional, and XM only. Hands-free calling? Optional extra. Rear reclining seats? Optional extra. 18" wheels? Optional extra (18" are standard on Model 3, 19" are extra). Autopilot? Not available (optional extra on Model 3). Remote operation via app? Not available. Voice control? Optional. Automatic braking? Not available (standard on Model 3). Keyless entry? Not available. Ability to grant remote access? Not available. Auto-dimming rear-view mirror? Not available. Over-the-air software updates? Not available. All-wheel drive? Not available (optional on Model 3). Air suspension? Not available (optional on Model 3). Self-parking? Not available (comes with Autopilot on Model 3). Summon? Same. Airbags? 5 (vs. 8). Weight 3709lbs (vs 3549 Model 3 SR, 3814 Model 3 LR). First row headroom? 39,1" (vs 39,6-40,3"). Second row headroom? 37,2" (vs. 37,7"). First row shoulder room? 55,6" (vs 56,3"). Trunk space, 13,5 ft^3 (vs. 15). And I'm sure there's a ton more that I'm forgetting, particularly in regards to the software stack.

      That said, there are a few things that the G37 has over the Model 3. It's packed full of dead cows, for example. And power seats are standard, rather than being part of the premium package. The second row has a bit more shoulder room, and the first and second more hip room, and the first row more leg room (Model 3 has more second row leg room). You can get XM (optional extra) rather than streaming (Model 3 standard), if that's your thing. There's probably some other things I'm forgetting in its favour. But in general, I can't see how it wins this comparison. There's also design decisions that people will differ over (aka, whether you like your interior appearance spartan or cluttered)

      Also: note that when discussing prices, we're ignoring incentives, as well as fuel savings. These ICEs in question aren't exactly gas sippers, nor are they famously low maintenance.

      Even if the 3 does offer a performance package that can push it significantly above, it is likely going to cost a LOT more (based on what they did with the S performance models)

      The P100D costs 37% more than the 100D and cuts the 0-60 from 4,3 to 2,3 seconds (86% improvement). I'm assuming only a 21-46% improvement in performance for the Model 3 performance package; a 22% premium does not seem at all unreasonable for that. Now, if they offer a similar 86% increase in performance, then yes, a 37% increase in price for that feature is probably expected - but then we're talking a 0-60 in 2,7 seconds, not 3,5-4,2 seconds like I was assuming. And I honestly doubt they'd let the Model 3 line get that close to the P100D in performance.

      If you're thinking that we should work in absolute numbers rather than relative numbers, you're going to need to defend that. Everything about the Model 3 is designed to be low cost, and it's marketed at a less affluent customer base. And increasing EV performance is not nearly as expensive as with gasoline vehicles.

      --
      All we want to do is eat your brains.
    13. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by Rei · · Score: 2

      Meanwhile, Model 3 has the same sort of low CG, but is also roughly as light as its ICE competitors. I can't wait to feel the handling on it for myself; reviewers have been raving over it.

      --
      All we want to do is eat your brains.
    14. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you worried about a 0-100 km/h acceleration on the 5 s range? Are you a getaway driver?

      Learn and accept that life isn't about the fast cars, the big screen TVs and the Gigabit internet access. When you do so you'll see life isn't that hard...

    15. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      All very good thought process and information. I will just add that when I was talking about features, I was meaning all available features included, on all the models, and the price of those included. You also have some errors, but that's OK. For example, The loaded G37 does have keyless entry. And at least with the laser guided cruise control it does have limited automatic braking. And it does have all-wheel drive (G37X/G37XS). The Q50 packs on even more features (and costs more (not than the 3), performs slightly worse).

      The Tesla 3 is no slouch... and MOST buyers of any car don't ever push their car's performance to the maximum, ever. My main point in all this was that for a car that costs significantly more, it would be nice to have significantly more performance and/or features. While that is very true for the S, that is either not true or unclear for the 3.

    16. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have a lot of inventory lying around that say's you're wrong.

    17. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      I like teslas, but their handling is below average for a sports car. The lower center of mass helps stability (keeps the car from rolling over), but it is still a heavy car, and won't handle as well as a current generation sports car. It's not terrible, and it is likely good enough for the vast majority of drivers -- it handles like a 1990s car. It's good enough to have a bit of fun in it, but expect to get slaughtered if you ever decide to take it to a track or autocross event.

    18. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by Rei · · Score: 1

      It's worth pointing out that the Model 3 SR is only 3549 lbs, which is quite competitive in its range. The aforementioned G37 is 3709 lbs and the Q50 is 3611 lbs. That is to say, not only does the Model 3 have a super-low CG, but the SR version is lighter than its aforementioned competitors.

      --
      All we want to do is eat your brains.
    19. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by KingMotley · · Score: 2

      Fair point. I was basing my answer on the Model S, but if you opt for the Model 3 SR with the smaller battery, I suspect the handling will actually be quite good. I haven't seen any formal tests of it yet though. The LR with it's larger battery will accelerate better, but likely handle worse. Depending on if you want better acceleration or better handling, there is an option for you.

    20. Re:I thought they were all physically the same? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Even the LR isn't that heavy (3814) - there are ICE competitors in its class that are even heavier. That's only 3% heavier than the base G37. Akin to driving a G37 with a child along for the ride vs. without one. I doubt you could even perceive the weight difference if you were trying.

      --
      All we want to do is eat your brains.
    21. Re: I thought they were all physically the same? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nav? Optional, not live-updated (except by an extra), and tiny by comparison (a quarter the area). Streaming music? Optional, and XM only. Hands-free calling? Optional extra. Rear reclining seats? Optional extra. 18" wheels? Optional extra (18" are standard on Model 3, 19" are extra). Autopilot? Not available (optional extra on Model 3). Remote operation via app? Not available. Voice control? Optional. Automatic braking? Not available (standard on Model 3). Keyless entry? Not available. Ability to grant remote access? Not available. Auto-dimming rear-view mirror? Not available. Over-the-air software updates? Not available. Air suspension? Not available (optional on Model 3). Self-parking? Not available (comes with Autopilot on Model 3). Summon? Same. "

      EVERYTHING in the above list is unnecessary in a car. You see whiz-bang options , I see crap that's gonna break and be expensive as hell to fix down the road, but then I am old-fashioned, I like to drive my own vehicle myself, shift my own gears, and maintain/repair it myself as much as possible. I like a car I can buy and keep until it's fully depreciated and drive it into the ground for the least expense possible while actually enjoying driving it.
      Currently I have a 4 year old vehicle bought used with the lowest trim package available, and it still has a lot of unnecessary crap.
      The way the industry is going right now, with cars full of electronic crap that goes obsolete long before the mechanical bits, well soon arrive at a point where you won't own your car at all, just "lease mobility", kinda like most folks don't really own a cell phone anymore, they effectively "lease communication".
      This trend to fill cars with unnecessary crap is especially insane when considering electrics. The Tesla battery pack and motors will last much longer than a comparable ICE car, so the manufacturer is basically designing a car that will be junked because of all the extra bits in it going bad, while the drivetrain could still keep on going.
      I would buy in a heartbeat a stripped-down EV with no electronics beyond those needed to run the drivetrain. It will be cheaper, will last much longer, and have significantly reduced points of potential obsolescence and failure.

      Now get off my lawn!

  3. Re:If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a yea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    More like 100,000 cars, but I still think your generalization stands.

    https://www.recode.net/2017/4/3/15160462/tesla-ford-deliveries-record-sales

  4. Re:If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a yea by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Tesla built a little over 80,000 cars last year, and 60% of them were sold in the US. For comparison, that's about double the number of Jaguars sold in the US last year.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. They probably weren't selling many. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    They probably weren't selling many of the lowest spec Model S. You don't buy the lowest spec unless you are reaching to afford the car at all. And most of those people that were reaching to afford a Model S have probably put themselves on the waiting list for a Model 3 instead.

    1. Re:They probably weren't selling many. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheap model was only 5k less then the next up, so at 70K you would already have a great paying job where $5k isn't much.

      I would never buy a car that costs more then a house.

    2. Re:They probably weren't selling many. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      okay bud. $5k is $5k, which is a lot of money by any measure. if you like all the other features of the Tesla S but don't need the high-end features it makes sense to buy the low-end model. most people don't need AWD.

      even well to do people don't piss away money for no reason.

      https://frinkiac.com/caption/S09E14/1157205

    3. Re:They probably weren't selling many. by Rei · · Score: 1

      It's not just about AWD; it also makes the car a bit more efficient improves the high-end acceleration a bit. The two motors are geared differently, giving them different optimal power bands. When little torque is needed, the less efficient motor (relative to current conditions) is disabled ("torque sleep"), but wakes instantly when torque demand increases (or ESC wakes it)

      They're not huge differences, but they do matter.

      If you really want a Model S but are strapped for cash, you're probably more in the market for a CPO vehicle.

      --
      All we want to do is eat your brains.
    4. Re:They probably weren't selling many. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      You don't buy the lowest spec unless you are reaching to afford the car at all.

      I just wanted to chime in that, generally, this is not true. I often buy lower-spec things when I can easily afford the high-end versions because if the lower-spec one does what I need, then why burn money for no reason?

      Tesla, however, is aiming squarely at the "rich people who like to show off" market, so your characterization in this case is probably correct.

  6. For upgrading your discontinued Model S... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a Tesla mouse pad. No AI included.

    1. Re:For upgrading your discontinued Model S... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Not the same Tesla at all. You might as well buy a 3D mousepad instead. It's good for your wrists, wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  7. Re:If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a yea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The comparison to Jaguar is priceless.

  8. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you even bother to do any research before posting?

    "For the full year 2016, Jaguar Land Rover U.S. sales were up 24 percent to 105,104 units sold, compared to 85,048 units sold in 2015." That's one model in one country (total 487,065 vehicles in 160 countries), compared to Tesla's entire global portfolio. (76,230).

  9. Re:If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a yea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And ford built 80 million cars last year.

  10. It's a car worth more than some houses by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and no just the ones in Detroit. I can buy a nice 2 bedroom in Surprise, Az for that. If you're spending that kind of money on a car you're probably not buying the lowest spec.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's a car worth more than some houses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you can probably buy a shack in Montana for less than the price of a Volkswagen.

    2. Re:It's a car worth more than some houses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear you can get a good deal on a place in Texas right now too...

      You get what you pay for.

  11. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    "For the full year 2016, Jaguar Land Rover U.S. sales were up 24 percent to 105,104 units sold, compared to 85,048 units sold in 2015." That's one model in one country (total 487,065 vehicles in 160 countries), compared to Tesla's entire global portfolio. (76,230).

    No, it's not "one model in one country". You're counting all the Jaguars and Range Rovers and Land Rovers. I'm counting just the Jags (which sold around 30,000 in the US last year). Tesla sold over 50,000 in the US last year.

    I figured they're a good comparison because they have similar price points to Tesla.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  12. Discontinuing rear-wheel drive by steveha · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:Discontinuing rear-wheel drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "full self-driving" ?

      They're selling now something they won't be able to do for at least another 10 years? I thought the Apple distortion field was strong...

    2. Re:Discontinuing rear-wheel drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're turning it on in less than 2 years.

      Fucking Slashdot Luddites think self-driving cars are 10 years away, they're not.

    3. Re:Discontinuing rear-wheel drive by Rei · · Score: 1

      I'm hardly a luddite, and am a big Tesla fan, but I think they're opening themselves up to a lot of liability with the FSD. I'm not very optimistic about it.

      --
      All we want to do is eat your brains.
    4. Re:Discontinuing rear-wheel drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think there will be genuine (i.e. level 5) autonomous vehicles on the road, in public hands, in 2 years then I've got a fantastic deal on an Olympic Stadium for you...

    5. Re:Discontinuing rear-wheel drive by haruchai · · Score: 2

      They're turning it on in less than 2 years.

      Fucking Slashdot Luddites think self-driving cars are 10 years away, they're not.

      It's not a simple problem & a self-driving car will have to be at least as good as the best human driver under all driving conditions.
      That's not going to be solved in 2 years time, perhaps not even in a decade.
      And then there's getting legal approval everywhere.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    6. Re:Discontinuing rear-wheel drive by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

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

      The trick with that comparison is that cars operate in the real world, and Apple products operate in enclosed spaces.

      In Miami you need an upgraded stereo but in Minneapolis you need a cold-weather package. Those markets are naturally segmented, which will reduce sales in both places to some degree because of the increased cost of the required options.

      It's possible that Tesla's costs to offer both the stereo package and a cold-weather package are higher than the profits from such lost sales would be.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Discontinuing rear-wheel drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    8. Re:Discontinuing rear-wheel drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that they're opening themselves up to that much liability. Sure, it's liability, but if the technology works well, there won't be that many dangerous incidents. Of course, there will be incidents. That is almost unavoidable. We think of how cold and callous the recall calculation scene is in Fight Club (and that logic is really brutal, morally). However, the rationale for rolling out self driving technology is like the flip side. In the mid- to long-term, the money made from the technology outweighs the cost of payouts for lawsuits for incidents, but only if the technology can get incidents down to a very small number. (It would also be morally irresponsible to roll out technology unless the likelihood of a dangerous incident is very low. This could also be seen as bad for business (brand damage).) So, the same callous, numerical thinking gets us to a point where it makes sense to take the leap and roll out cutting edge technology like self-driving cars that have immense promise to make cars safer. My thinking is a little utilitarian, I'll admit.

    9. Re:Discontinuing rear-wheel drive by nealric · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between autonomous cars that are acceptable with a driver sitting there ready to take over in good conditions and autonomous cars we can allow to roam the city with nobody inside in the middle of a snowstorm. The former is already here (to a degree) for many driving situations. The latter may be decades off.

    10. Re:Discontinuing rear-wheel drive by Rei · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's liability, but if the technology works well, there won't be that many dangerous incidents.

      Not at all what I'm talking about when I say "liability". I'm talking failure to deliver, period. Or, requiring that a huge number of vehicles receive hardware upgrades before it can be delivered.

      Selling a product that you might not actually be able to deliver, or might cost you a fortune to deliver, is a serious liability.

      --
      All we want to do is eat your brains.
    11. Re:Discontinuing rear-wheel drive by tibit · · Score: 2

      Remember that they're collecting field test data from all of those 2nd-gen autopilot cars, over the air. They are the only ones who can do that. They have a forward-looking very underutilized compute platform in the car, and they use it to test all of the processing flows they're working on. Field testing of sensor data processing is a big cost for everyone but Tesla. Nobody other than them can do self-driving research on a fleet of tens of thousands of cars, in all sorts of real-world conditions. Market analysts with no grounding in tech seem not to pay much attention to that. Tesla flleet's telemetry is worth way more than $1B/year if anyone else were to decide to spend on getting such data. Each year the continue to exist, they get another $B+ bucks worth of data. It won't take long until just the test data they get over the air will be worth a good chunk of their market cap. They are doing some other cool things in terms of data gathering when their cars come in for service, that nobody else is doing, and that gives them a lot of industry unique data as well. Tesla is superficially a car company, just like Walmart is superficially a retail company. Over the years other retailers had to play catch up in terms of their IT and data capture. Same will happen to car companies, but right now Tesla compared to other companies is like Walmart was compared to other grocery retailers in the early days of its data processing push. Very much ahead of the game.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    12. Re:Discontinuing rear-wheel drive by steveha · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    13. Re:Discontinuing rear-wheel drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a self-driving car will have to be at least as good as the best human driver under all driving conditions./quote

      Those will certainly not the requirements for self-driving.

      Self driving cars will be shown (programmatically) to follow the laws. They will be shown (statistically) to be safer than the average driver under common circumstances. That will be good enough for the insurance companies. Lawmakers are already trying to pass laws to speed the development of self-driving cars.

    14. Re:Discontinuing rear-wheel drive by haruchai · · Score: 1

      a self-driving car will have to be at least as good as the best human driver under all driving conditions./quote

      Those will certainly not the requirements for self-driving.

      Self driving cars will be shown (programmatically) to follow the laws. They will be shown (statistically) to be safer than the average driver under common circumstances. That will be good enough for the insurance companies. Lawmakers are already trying to pass laws to speed the development of self-driving cars.

      You can be in full compliance to the law and still be in violation of the rules of the road. If you're driving at exactly the speed limit and every other car is going at least 20 mph faster, you're the one who's in the wrong

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  13. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Don't Jags suck for the price? Why are you comparing to Jags?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  14. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Jags do suck for the price then that would make them absolutely comparable to Teslas which are expensive junk.

  15. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Don't Jags suck for the price? Why are you comparing to Jags?

    You answered your own question. Tesla is the Apple of cars.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  16. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apple computers don't suck you fucking troll.

    Posted from my Mac mi{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  17. Still no good option by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    I'll wait for the Tesla three-wheeled electric bicycle with weather protection cabin. In short, the Tesla version of the PodRide.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Still no good option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How about a Nobe instead?

    2. Re:Still no good option by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Holy crap this is retro-future to the max!

      I hope they also make it in retro red!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Still no good option by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I'll wait for all the other manufacturers to jump into the market and drive real competition but not long enough for the resale of my current infernal combustion machine to collapse in price. Tricky choice that one, pay more for all electric and getter better resale on a fossil fueler or pay less for all electric and get crap price for fossil fueler or maybe just maybe, wait long enough for conversion system from fossil fueler to all electric become available if ever.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Still no good option by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By the time there is a decent choice of EVs in most price brackets, the resale value of your current car is going to be crap anyway, unless it's a classic. Conversion is going to be expensive and is probably only worth it on really expensive cars. There's a company doing conversions on Porsche 911s, but it is very pricey and the range isn't great (though performance is).

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:Still no good option by Rei · · Score: 2

      Yeah, conversion EVs are usually pretty lousy. Even from-the-factory EVs built on existing ICE architectures are usually pretty poor. EVs are best designed from the ground-up as EVs, with the battery pack forming the base of the floor, and the shape dictated only by aerodynamics / safety / space requirements, not by the constraints of a nonexistent ICE powertrain.

      --
      All we want to do is eat your brains.
    6. Re:Still no good option by mattmarlowe · · Score: 1

      Depends what you are looking for -- My oldest son will be driving soon. I wanted to get him something modern that he learn on and hopefully keep using for 15 years. Tesla's pricing puts them out of the picture.

      Ended up getting a Ford C-Max Energi Hybrid. Has both electric and gas engine. Electric engine has 20-35 mile range. Gas engine adds another 500-600 miles, but isn't really used unless one is taking a road trip or going over 55MPH on the highway. Most days only takes 2hrs of electric charging. Might need to refill gas tank only once/year for him. Feels pretty responsive and has lots of passenger/cargo room.

      Cost was only $24K after EV tax rebates.

    7. Re:Still no good option by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Conversions would seem an inevitability of the number of cars hundreds of millions and how cheap they become ie the conversion kit cost will be totally reflected in the resale value, so a lot of newer used cars become convertible cheap because the purchase price will be so low. That price difference, quite a lot, more than ample to pay conversion cost but that value must be in the vehicle ie the entire used car market, fossil fuel vehicles, basically becomes the conversion market. Many people will not be able to afford a new vehicle and government restrictions on fossil fuellers will simply force conversions, likely government subsidised conversions, this to mitigate losses upon the general population and distribute it more evenly across the economy (think job creation program).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  18. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by oic0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not quite. Tesla has high prices because they need to charge that to stay in business. They staying afloat. The luxury yuppie image is purely because those are the people that can afford the vehicles. If they weren't targeting them they would be a historical foot note. Apples prices are high purely because people will pay it. They are practically printing money.

  19. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In other news, the local high end grocery store stopped carrying the budget ice cream, because they make more money per unit of freezer space if they only sell premium ice cream. The manager is quoted as saying "Get that [expletive] camera out of my face." Film at 11.

    Same thing here. If Tesla's instantly selling out of every premium car they make, there's zero incentive for them to sell budget version cars.

  20. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't this announced 6 months ago... slow news day.

  21. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I get your point, but we're talking about a much more mature company in Apple. They weren't always printing money. I'm pretty sure Tesla will be around for a while (no matter what I might think of their cars). Let's see what the comparison is like in 10-15 years.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  22. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Telsa doesn't stay afloat selling cars. They lose money on every single one they sell. It's going to be several years before Tesla is profitable - and at the rate they're burning cash (around $1.2 billion a year) it's dicey if they will last those several years...

  23. Re:If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a yea by stooo · · Score: 1

    No, Tesla is priceless.
    ( Jaguar also, but for another reason)

    --
    aaaaaaa
  24. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by stooo · · Score: 1

    >> Don't Jags suck for the price? Why are you comparing to Jags?
    Yes. Tesla have the price also, and some suck, but they are more on the cool side.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  25. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by stooo · · Score: 1

    Apple computers ?
    Yeah, old, outdated obsolete junk today, but the old ones are still kind of robust.
    Apple phones, tablets, watches? They suck.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  26. Re:If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a yea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, Tesla is worthless.

  27. Re:If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a yea by Rei · · Score: 1

    Funny, TSLA says otherwise.

    --
    All we want to do is eat your brains.
  28. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by Rei · · Score: 1

    Yeah, except for the fact that they have a 25% profit margin on their lines.

    You're confusing the profit per vehicle with the amount being invested into scaleup. Believe it or not - and this may come as the shock of all shockers to you - building the world's largest battery plant and a 500k-per-year vehicle production line actually costs a good bit of money.

    --
    All we want to do is eat your brains.
  29. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by haruchai · · Score: 1

    Yeah, except for the fact that they have a 25% profit margin on their lines.

    You're confusing the profit per vehicle with the amount being invested into scaleup. Believe it or not - and this may come as the shock of all shockers to you - building the world's largest battery plant and a 500k-per-year vehicle production line actually costs a good bit of money.

    Since Tesla doesn't include R&D expenses in their cost of sales unlike Ford, GM, BMW & Mazda, an apples-to-apples comparison is difficult.
    They appear to have a very high amount of R&D expenses as a proportion of revenue & their longterm debt is growing quickly.
    They need to start dealing with this soon & using capital raises to fund expansion is going to be impractical as competition ramps up and especially if there's a downturn.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  30. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Putting a ton into R&D is only reasonable at this point in time, and has clearly paid dividends. It's part of the reason why its competition hasn't yet managed to pose a serious threat to them; they've been seriously lagging behind. The only company that's even tried to threaten them on range is GM (barely), but it comes in the form of an econobox vehicle at BMW prices. Nobody comes even close to threatening them on charge times (miles range per minute charging). Competitors like Nissan are still using battery packs that don't even have climate control.

    I agree that eventually they're going to need to cut R&D and investment into new facilities. But that time is not now. Now is the time for seizing the marketplace and securing Tesla's position as one of the world's largest auto manufacturers. And it's very important for them to go big, because that's what lets them bring production prices down to the point where they can threaten ICEs.

    --
    All we want to do is eat your brains.
  31. Model S has to justify price - esp. interior by nicolaiplum · · Score: 1

    The base Model S used to be very under-equipped for its price. The interior is still bad - looks and feels cheap, it's uncomfortable, it lacks the comfort and convenience features of competitors. It's like the interior of a mid price muscle car, not a high priced luxury saloon.

    Making features that are available on the competition standard on the Model S as well is a first step.

    Charging extra for software is just petty and buyers will agree; other manufacturers like Mercedes charge for hardware-software combinations, not just software. Selling cars with the full capabilities of the hardware included in the price is the next step.

    Finally until the Model S has an interior of the quality seen in Volvo, Mercedes or BMW then it will still look overpriced.

    Today I look inside the Model S and I think "you paid how much for this?". Tesla needs to change that to "you got a nice car for your money here."

    --
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
    1. Re:Model S has to justify price - esp. interior by Rei · · Score: 1

      When you talk about the interior of the Model S, are you talking with or without PUP, and pre or post refresh?

      --
      All we want to do is eat your brains.
    2. Re:Model S has to justify price - esp. interior by sjbe · · Score: 1

      The base Model S used to be very under-equipped for its price. The interior is still bad - looks and feels cheap, it's uncomfortable, it lacks the comfort and convenience features of competitors

      Having driven both a Model S and more than a few of its competitors I think you are talking out your hind end. It wasn't uncomfortable unless you are a weapons grade snob accustomed to rolling in Bentleys and the like. I think the interior looks great and it certainly doesn't look cheap. Are there more plush interiors? Sure. But good luck finding one with an electric powertrain comparable to the Tesla. Oh, you thought that people bought the Tesla because of the interior?

      Charging extra for software is just petty and buyers will agree; other manufacturers like Mercedes charge for hardware-software combinations, not just software. Selling cars with the full capabilities of the hardware included in the price is the next step.

      Oh yes, Mercedes is all about value for money... (insert eyeroll here) Do you actually believe that Mercedes sells a lot of cars where they have actually maxed out the performance of their hardware? That almost never happens. They sell tiered versions of vehicles that are intentionally made to perform at less than their full capabilities. No different than Tesla aside from how they go about it. You can increase performance in almost any ICE car simply by buying a new control chip. That's software in case you missed the (screamingly obvious) point.

      Finally until the Model S has an interior of the quality seen in Volvo, Mercedes or BMW then it will still look overpriced.

      Evidently the interior is the only thing you care about in a car. Kind of missing most of the interesting stuff when it comes to the Tesla when you do that. The Tesla interior is plenty nice enough but if you are looking for a rolling leather couch to settle into then I'm sure someone will sell you the dead cows you so value.

    3. Re:Model S has to justify price - esp. interior by tibit · · Score: 1

      The "chip" thing is a term getting long in the tooth. Nobody is changing any chips anymore. People refer to firmware reflashes as "chips" because the car world is slow to adapt.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    4. Re:Model S has to justify price - esp. interior by tomtomtom · · Score: 1

      Oh, you thought that people bought the Tesla because of the interior?

      By the same token, how many people buy a Porsche for the interior? And yet, the difference between a (modern) Porsche interior and a Tesla one is night and day. This isn't a problem for them yet but I believe it will become one quite soon - when Mercedes/BMW/Porsche/Audi/etc bring EVs to market in the next couple of years, people will cross-shop Teslas with those cars, and the interiors will lose them a lot of sales. They'll be left competing largely in the Ford/Toyota/Nissan/etc market but with a price disadvantage.

    5. Re:Model S has to justify price - esp. interior by tomtomtom · · Score: 1

      The thing is, the manufacturers aren't (in general) leaving hardware performance on the table simply so that they can upsell - because they live in a highly competitive market which wouldn't allow such tactics to persist for long. The reason this is possible is that they are making a complex trade-off between emissions, fuel efficiency and power (and to some distant extent engine longevity). Emissions and fuel efficency rules constrain their hands to a large degree and also influence what the market wants (via e.g. car tax policies) which is why it's possible to get more power by changing the software - it comes at the cost of lower fuel efficiency and worse emissions (and potentially worse longevity). As a case in point - the VW emissions "fix" for diesels lowers the power and torque output.

  32. Re:If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a yea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A manufacturer making 100,000 cars a year and growing isnt worthless you fucktard

  33. Sales facts by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Did you even bother to do any research before posting?

    Evidently you did not.

    "For the full year 2016, Jaguar Land Rover U.S. sales were up 24 percent to 105,104 units sold, compared to 85,048 units sold in 2015." That's one model in one country (total 487,065 vehicles in 160 countries), compared to Tesla's entire global portfolio. (76,230).

    Jaguar and Land Rover are two brands under the same company and you cannot combine their sales if you are talking about Jaguar. In 2016 Jaguar sales in the US were 31,243. The balance of your 105,104 is sales of Land Rovers which last time I checked were not Jaguars.

    That's one model in one country (total 487,065 vehicles in 160 countries), compared to Tesla's entire global portfolio. (76,230).

    Tesla sold 46,550 vehicles in the US in 2016 (Model S and Model X combined). So yes they outsold Jaguar in the US without any qualifications to that statement. They outsold Jaguar by quite a lot.

  34. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by haruchai · · Score: 1

    "Competitors like Nissan are still using battery packs that don't even have climate control"
    Yeah, I don't get this but Nissan did change the chemistry to make it more heat-tolerant.
    But it's highly unlikely that's as good as active thermal management in places like the American South.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  35. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The billions in losses and lack of any profit in 15 years really has the big guys shaking in their boots.

  36. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saw after an analyst included the R&D expenses into their profit margins they were on par with everyone else.

    I have seen a Model S and liked it. The X not so much, and the 3 I'm torn on. But I think their designs can appeal in the broader market. Their financial report and business practices and postiion however I find dubious.

  37. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by Rei · · Score: 1

    Yes, it went from "nothing" to "4th most valuable automaker in the world" because analysts saw no profit potential. Got it.

    --
    All we want to do is eat your brains.
  38. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Competitors like Nissan are still using battery packs that don't even have climate control.

    Climate control is a piece needed in a very limited range of climate scenarios. That has an effect only if you're trying to complete with Tesla globally. It's certainly not a required R&D component for a long range fast charging EV in much of the world.

    The only company that's even tried to threaten them on range is GM (barely), but it comes in the form of an econobox vehicle at BMW prices. Nobody comes even close to threatening them on charge times (miles range per minute charging).

    You haven't looked very hard if you think no one is even close. There are cars that are range competitive with Tesla's offerings (hell the Zoe will match the Model 3 on that for a cool $5000 less), and every other car manufacturer is about to come to the market with equal and better. Tesla's superchargers aren't the most powerful, Porsche took that crown and their EVs are due out next year.

    The thing is you're saying Tesla is miles ahead because of some amazing technology, but the reality is Tesla is ahead only because they took the market seriously. With other companies actually seeing that Elon Musk wasn't just bluffing they are coming in strong, hard, and fast. Last year Tesla was one of the few showing off EVs in Frankfurt's motorshow. This year there was barely a car company there that didn't have an multiple upcoming EVs on display. The charging speed of Teslas is due exclusively to them building their own infrastructure, while compatibility with existing infrastructure is ultimately the only thing holding back the competition. However with open infrastructure rapidly closing the gap (and with major plans in motion to overtake) Tesla can't enjoy that lead for very long either.

    Not that any of this is a bad thing. Telsa's original remit was to kick the industry hard in the arse, not to become a major automotive company. And I think they've done that.

  39. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by Rei · · Score: 1

    You haven't looked very hard if you think no one is even close. There are cars that are range competitive with Tesla's offerings (hell the Zoe will match the Model 3 on that for a cool $5000 less), and every other car manufacturer is about to come to the market with equal and better

    Wrong.

    Model 3 SR has an EPA range of 220 miles, which corresponds to an NEDC range of around 415km.
    Model 3 LR has an EPA range of 310 miles, which corresponds to an NEDC range of around 585km.
    Renault Zoe has a NEDC range of... wait for it... 250km. Not miles - km.

    I'll repeat: "The only company that's even tried to threaten them on range is GM (barely)". The Bolt is the only vehicle to come even close. But even in its case, it only competes with the SR on range.

    However with open infrastructure rapidly closing the gap

    This simply is not occurring. There's a tiny number of high power CCS charging stations out there, and they get that power not with current, but with super-high voltages, which are great for fictional vehicles with super-high voltage battery packs (but meaningless for all real-world EVs).

    one of the few showing off EVs in Frankfurt's motorshow. This year there was barely a car company there that didn't have an multiple upcoming EVs on display

    I can only assume that you're new to the automotive world. I've been following "EVs displayed at motor shows" is one of the most meaningless metrics out there. Motor shows are basically PR actions for automakers. Exhibitors pack them full of hypothetical concept cars with great-sounding stats. 90% of them will either never see the light of day or will only be produced in small numbers - while most of the rest will be significantly altered before they hit the streets, generally in a way that consumers don't like.

    IMHO motor shows are terrible things; I've been to my fair share. It's amazing how many of the people exhibiting EVs don't even know much about them beyond what was handed to them to memorize. But hey, put some half-fleshed-out shiny thing on a pedestal and talk it up with some "booth babes" strutting around it....

    --
    All we want to do is eat your brains.
  40. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Wrong.

    Model 3 SR, MOdel 3 LR, And a Renault Zoe.

    What the fuck is Renault Zoe? There are 8 different models of Zoe and the Zoe and the R90 has a 250 MILE range.

    Stop being dishonest. Also there's a website which compares lists of EVs and breaks the NEDC range down into kwh/100miles http://pushevs.com/2017/05/23/... and you will note that nearly every car on that list is between 20-25kwh / 100miles. What an amazing technological advantage the 24kWh/100miles Tesla has.

    This simply is not occurring.

    The first public 350kWh charger is not a Tesla charger and is already in operation. Additionally Ultra-E (the consortium made up of European car manufacturers + ford) will have 400 chargers with higher capacity than the Telsa superchargers in place throughout Europe by 2020 with the first set already under construction now that the EC has signed off on the partnership.

    I've been following "EVs displayed at motor shows" is one of the most meaningless metrics out there.

    Yeah indeed. Showing off what your R&D is being spent on is meaningless. Let's completely ignore that I'm not talking concept cars here (You've been to motorshows so you should know there is a clear difference between the cars that won't see the light of day and the cars they are actively planning to sell/already selling). Let's ignore the fact that every car company is actively pushing these products and some are actively taking pre-orders for the cars on display.

    It's amazing how many of the people exhibiting EVs don't even know much about them beyond what was handed to them to memorize.

    Oh I remember now. Engineering and R&D departments are staffed completely with girls with D cups or greater. Yeah such a shock that some eye-candy doesn't know technical stuff. None the less motor shows show industry trends very well. Maybe you should actually think back to the ones you went to and re-analyse what it was you were being shown. ... Or go to a better motor show.

    Point is, if you think other companies aren't actively working on EVs now you're delusional, and if you think Tesla has any kind of magic battery tech that will keep them ahead of all others then likewise.

  41. Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye by Rei · · Score: 1

    What the fuck is Renault Zoe?

    ***Facepalm***

    Renault is the company that makes the Zoe.
    It's even listed as "Renault Zoe" on the very link you gave.

    ] and you will note that nearly every car on that list is between 20-25kwh / 100miles. What an amazing technological advantage the 24kWh/100miles Tesla has.

    That's an interesting change in topic, from range to energy consumption per 100 miles. Since we're comparing ton NEDC, not EPA 5-cycle, then the Model 3 SR becomes around 260 miles, because the NEDC is a slow mockery of a drivecycle that generally yields 15-20% higher ranges than the 5-cycle. Meaning that the SR uses about 19kWh/100 miles.

    And note that it's being compared to vehicles that are generally much smaller than it.

    The first public 350kWh charger is not a Tesla charger and is already in operation.

    1) There's a tiny number of high power CCS charging stations out there, and
    2) They get that power not with current, but with super-high voltages, which are great for fictional vehicles with super-high voltage battery packs (but meaningless for all real-world EVs).

    You don't seem to understand this second part, so let me explain. The small number of high power CCS chargers out there don't achieve that through high currents; they achieve it through the much easier means of high voltages. But an EV can't take a voltage higher than its pack voltage. There are no 1000V commercial EVs out there, so these "350kW" chargers are nothing more than a PR exercise; as soon as you connect your EV to them, it immediately has to ramp down its voltage - and thus power - to what your pack actually supports. So when you're low on power (aka, when you can take charge currents the most - you have to ramp down at higher SoC), it cuts down to around 300V or so, meaning that these rare "350kW" chargers function only as 105kW chargers. Versus Tesla's massive network of V2 chargers, which are 145kW shared / 120kW per vehicle.

    (A higher voltage pack just under 100% SoC may be ~450V or so. Which in theory would mean that the charger could provide 157,5kW... except at that point the vehicle can only take a couple kilowatts, so again, it's meaningless)

    Tesla could easily pull the same stunt (having higher max voltages), since it's easy to do, but it's also pointless to do except as a PR exercise - so they don't.

    Oh wow, a "plan" to have "400" by "2020". Color me oh-so-impressed! I'm fainting from how impressed I am with those numbers ;) Meanwhile, Tesla has 6550 supercharger stalls... today. Each delivering more power than a "350kW" CCS charger does to any extant EV. buildout continues. And the network's growth has been transitioning from linear to exponential. Furthermore, if you want to talk about future chargers...

    Yeah indeed. Showing off what your R&D is being spent on is meaningless.

    It's the difference between a mockup of a GUI with only basic functionality implemented for a demo, and an actual deliverable product.

    Even when you actually intend to sell the thing, what's shown at a motor show often morphs significantly and - as mentioned - usually not in a way customers like. For example, here's what the Volt was when it was presented at NAIAS; here's what they actually delivered.

    Auto Shows are a terrible way to be informed about what companies actually will be delivering.

    you should know there is a clear difference between the cars that won't see the light of day and the

    --
    All we want to do is eat your brains.