Tesla Unveils Dual Motor and Performance Specs For Model 3

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tesla Unveils Dual Motor and Performance Specs For Model 3

Posted by BeauHD on Sunday May 20, 2018 @11:23AM from the the-moment-we've-all-been-waiting-for dept.

Rei writes: Yesterday evening, Elon Musk announced the pricing and specs for two of the Model 3's most in-demand options -- dual motor and performance versions. The base dual motor configuration adds an AC induction front motor to the current partial-PM reluctance rear motor for $5,000; in addition to AWD and allowing the car to drive with either motor out, this cuts the 0 to 60 mph acceleration time from 5.1 seconds to 4.5 seconds. The performance package is available as a bundle, including the long-range pack, premium interior, 20" wheels, carbon fiber spoiler, and a new black-and-white interior. The vehicle will cost $78,000; 0 to 60 mph times are further cut to 3.5 seconds and the top speed increases from 140 mph to 155 mph.

While these options have consistently polled as the most in-demand options not yet available, several still remain and are variously due late this year/early next year: cream interior, non-PUP, tow hitch, SR battery, and air suspension. EU-spec and China-spec are also due early next year. Production is currently over 3,500 per week, rumored to be 4,300 per week, and will be undergoing a shutdown from May 26-31 to raise production to the Q2 target of 5000-6000.

272 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Run, Tesla. Run! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 11:29 · Score: 1

Fast! As fast as you can! AWAAAAAAAAY!
1. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by Rei · 2018-05-20 11:32 · Score: 0
  
  From what, exactly?
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
2. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  reality. toyota makes 27,000 cars per day
3. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by Rei · 2018-05-20 13:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And? Toyota didn't build their first large factory over the past year and a half. Toyota's production levels are the results of decades of investment.
  (It's also worth mentioning, as a lesser point, that Toyota's average vehicle sale price isn't $45k)
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
4. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-05-20 13:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  And? Toyota didn't build their first large factory over the past year and a half.
  Neither did Tesla. They bought a fully-functional factory from Toyota and GM. And you would think after 10 years of "production" that Tesla would have a better idea about how to do it...
  
  (It's also worth mentioning, as a lesser point, that Toyota's average vehicle sale price isn't $45k)
  Yep! The average Toyota is closer to half that amount. And yet, Toyota consistently makes a profit whereas Tesla consistently loses money. I guess if you want to gamble the value of a warranty/support on a $50K+ vehicle on a company that doesn't know how to make a profit, you have quite a bit of money to fritter away!
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
5. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by Rei · 2018-05-20 13:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It was not a "fully functional factory", it's been entirely retooled for Tesla's vehicles. And greatly expanded as well. And furthermore, Tesla has been scaling up by orders of magnitude, at one of the fastest rates of any automaker in history. Talking about "10 years ago" when they were handmaking Roadsters on bodies sent over from Lotus is pretty meaningless relative to what they're doing today.
  
  Yep! The average Toyota is closer to half that amount [cars.com].
  
  I love how you proudly state that, as though it somehow contributes to your point, rather than pointing out that their revenue per vehicle is half of Tesla's.
  
  And yet, Toyota consistently makes a profit
  
  Wow, a company that is not pouring everything it gets and then some into expansion is paying dividends? You don't say!
  
  I guess if you want to gamble the value of a warranty/support on a $50K+ vehicle on a company that doesn't know how to make a profit
  Hey, the 10-year-old "Tesla Deathwatch" called, they want you to write a column for them.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
6. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 13:52 · Score: 0
  
  bull;shit, not even close to functional, it was fkign empty
7. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-05-20 13:52 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  NUMMI was making cars 6 months before Tesla took it over. It was a fully-functioning factory when Tesla took over. They chose to change how it was being used; turns out, they should have just adapted the existing production lines...
  Toyota has half the revenue per car, but crushes Tesla by selling so many vehicles that people buy. They sell more cars in one month than Tesla has ever shipped. Oh, and they actually make profit on that revenue as well. Tesla? Do they make a profit? Revenue is great if you're a "wish and a prayer" startup, but when does Tesla grow up, put on their big-boy pants, and start focusing on profit?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
8. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by Rei · 2018-05-20 14:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  What part of "it's been entire retooled for Tesla's vehicles and greatly expanded" was difficult for you?
  
  They chose to change how it was being used
  You're totally right. Tesla should have made Pontiac Vibes.
  
  Toyota has half the revenue per car, but crushes Tesla by selling so many vehicles that people buy.
  
  And now we loop back to the beginning where I point out that this production rate is the result of decades of capex, not something that Toyota did a week from last Tuesday.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
9. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  Good guess.
10. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by Rei · 2018-05-20 14:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  And by the way, just so you know, Toyota sold off a large chunk of the equipment at NUMMI:
  
  The plant was scheduled to close and NUMMI needed to distribute its industrial equipment, transfer or sell them using the Fair Market and Fair Market Value in Place value appraisals to make these decisions.
  And transferred most of the rest:
  
  LOS ANGELES (Bloomberg) -- Toyota Motor Corp. was able to cut the U.S. price of its new Camry sedan about 2 percent from the previous version in part by re-using old assembly robots from its former joint-venture plant in California.
  "A lot of the tooling is new, however the equipment isn't," Steve St. Angelo, executive vice president for North American manufacturing and engineering, said in an interview. "We used a lot of used equipment" from the now-closed New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. plant, or Nummi, he said.
  Tesla bought the small amount that was left over at the plant, about $15m worth (which is almost nothing in the automotive industry).
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
11. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by haruchai · 2018-05-20 14:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "They chose to change how it was being used; turns out, they should have just adapted the existing production lines"
  The Model has a lot of aluminum which required a lot of new equipment.
  When Ford converted its two main plants that make the F-150 to aluminum, they did a complete teardown & re-fit of both sites.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
12. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by Rei · 2018-05-20 14:38 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yes. More to the point, if you had actually read the Wikipedia article you linked, you would have learned that. They sold off or transferred all but $15M of equipment from the facility.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
13. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by gl4ss · 2018-05-20 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  from the price at least? how come people in usa are finding these a good deal? you can pick a very good regular car and maintenance + gas for years for the same money.
  outside of USA it's kinda -okayish deal in some fronts as it dodges co2 taxes in most countries that have them, but in usa it's practically nothing.
  (80k car in usa costs 130-150k easily in Finland for example. of course there's other reasons why few people buy tesla in Finland, like the fact that very few people can actually afford 80k cars even. also this is why musk ran away from trump since he had been hoping to get same kind of taxes on cars in USA since that would make tesla profitable at last, if they we're cheaper than other sub 5s cars)
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
14. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by Peter+P+Peters · 2018-05-20 16:14 · Score: 2
  
  So I guess Toyota ripped everything down and trashed the joint before they sold it to Tesla?
  Well this is the standard practice when transferring commercial property so yeah...(not the trashing part, but stripping down)
15. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by MachineShedFred · 2018-05-20 19:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So your contention is that if you aren't instantly Toyota, you may as well close your doors and give up?
  BMW and Mercedes apparently never got that memo, and they're doing just fine.
  Don't be a god damn idiot.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
16. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by MachineShedFred · 2018-05-20 19:55 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  It's hilarious that you keep arguing with these idiots using facts.
  They clearly don't care about facts, or they wouldn't make the ridiculous arguments to begin with. What do you mean that you need to completely change an assembly line and all of it's tools when you start making a completely different vehicle that doesn't reuse any of the parts, and all the assembly machinery was sold?
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
17. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by MachineShedFred · 2018-05-20 19:58 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  You guessed correctly - Toyota took out any equipment that they could reuse somewhere else - why the hell wouldn't they? They already owned it.
  They then liquidated the property and whatever was left.
  Don't be an idiot.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
18. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by Applehu+Akbar · 2018-05-20 22:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  the manufacturing of the batteries for a Tesla produce a shit ton of CO2, so driving a battery-based electric car will do nothing for climate change.
  The argument that X is not a carbon-free process because various elements in the mining and manufacturing chain of X use carbon is almost as stupid as the cow-fart argument.
  As we go through the long process of wringing the carbon out of industrial processes, the total carbon it takes to do X decreases. Eventually there will be electric large mining trucks, taking that element out of every manufactured process that starts with mining.
19. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by drinkypoo · 2018-05-20 23:36 · Score: 2
  
  the manufacturing of the batteries for a Tesla produce a shit ton of CO2, so driving a battery-based electric car will do nothing for climate change.
  The argument that X is not a carbon-free process because various elements in the mining and manufacturing chain of X use carbon is almost as stupid as the cow-fart argument.
  I agree with you, but only because I think we should be doing something to reduce cow farts. They actually are a significant GHG. And you do have to reduce the carbon release in every step of the process. With that said, only about 1/3 of the lifetime energy consumption of the average ICE-based automobile occurs during production, at the high end, so it's hardly the most significant factor.
  
  As we go through the long process of wringing the carbon out of industrial processes, the total carbon it takes to do X decreases. Eventually there will be electric large mining trucks, taking that element out of every manufactured process that starts with mining.
  Yes, obviously we should do both things.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
20. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by Applehu+Akbar · 2018-05-20 23:51 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  What makes the cow-fart argument stupid is that all the carbon that comes out of cows recently (during the lifetime of this animal. and mostly in the last year) came out of the air, through feed, to go into the cows. None of it comes from the fossil sources that are adding new carbon to the environment. Therefore if all the cows vanished today, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere would not change.
21. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 23:59 · Score: 0
  
  Toyota came after those two, what a silly example.
22. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by thegarbz · 2018-05-21 00:30 · Score: 2
  
  Why guess when you can read your own link?
23. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by drinkypoo · 2018-05-21 01:34 · Score: 2
  
  You don't even understand the argument, you're not qualified to call it stupid. Cow farts are a problem not because of co2 but because of methane.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
24. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  All gas. Soon obsolete. Run, Toyota, Run.
25. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by Hognoxious · 2018-05-21 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Tedious obsessives like you.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
26. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by YttriumOxide · 2018-05-21 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  Not entirely true.
  Cows eat feed that is often produced using fertiliser. Fertiliser is mass produced using the Haber-Bosch process, which involves fossil fuel usage. Many pesticides and herbicides that are used in the process also involve significant fossil fuel usage.
  So while I agree the cow-fart argument is much weaker than most people think, it's also true that cow farming is nowhere near carbon-neutral and a reduction in cows (and pretty much most other mass farmed animals) would result in a net improvement on carbon emissions.
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
27. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by Applehu+Akbar · 2018-05-21 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  So your response to the stupid cow-fart argument is the original stupid argument, which in this case is that the energy used to fix nitrogen artificially, if the cow farmer is not just growing clover, currently comes from fossil fuel. Okay, and do do the trucks used to transport feed and cows, and so does a good part of the power used on the farm, and the energy required to make the steel fencing and pens used on the farm. The wondrous thing about the First Stupid Argument is that you can iterate it to as many levels as you like. For that matter, most of the hydrogen traditionally used in Haber-Bosch comes from natural gas.
  To which I have a re-iteration of my own: as we decarbonize the economy, all of those uses of carbon can diminish at the same time, including that fossil source of hydrogen.
28. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by Applehu+Akbar · 2018-05-21 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Methane may be a more efficient greenhouse gas, but it rapidly degrades into CO2.
29. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by MachineShedFred · 2018-05-21 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Your first fact: manufacturing a ICE car produces a shit ton of CO2, and then requires drilling for, extracting, refining, shipping, pumping and burning oil to operate it, producing a shit ton of CO2 for every single mile driven. And, keeping the car in operating order produces a shit ton of CO2 for the engine oil, transmission fluid, brake fluid, etc. which EVs largely don't have.
  Once the EV has been created, the carbon footprint is minimal, especially if charged with solar power. Your precious IC car will be coughing out ever-more pollutants until the day it gets scrapped. Oh, but because there's still any carbon output, we shouldn't even try until we have a perfect solution, right?
  That's how progress stops - letting "perfect" be the enemy of "measurably better," and you're kind of stupid for suggesting that.
  And how is spending energy to grow / irrigate a plant, spending energy to harvest a plant, spending energy to refine the harvested plant product into ethanol where by definition you will have less than 100% of the plant, spending energy to transport said ethanol through a distribution network, spending energy to pump it into cars where it is finally burned for energy going to be "carbon negative" ? Sure, what isn't turned into ethanol will probably be used for biomass generation, but there's loss at every step of the way. Plus, good luck getting past the agribusiness lobby who just loves cashing those Ethanol subsidy checks to grow corn and make basically no difference whatsoever.
  Oh, but all we have to do is navigate the political minefield that torpedoes Presidential campaigns before they even start if you are a US Senator and have ever voted against Ethanol subsidies, irrigate the deserts with infrastructure that doesn't exist, and make sure that infrastructure won't be destroyed by salt water over the next 10 years. No problem.
  By the way, does this magic plant defy physics and exhibits the ability to output orders of magnitude more energy than it takes in to grow? Is this plant the catalyst needed to finally have room-temperature fusion power?
  I don't think "fact" means what you think it means.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
30. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  All I can think of now is a nice big ribeye. Thanks internet losers arguing over nothing.
31. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by Amiga+Trombone · 2018-05-21 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  I donâ(TM)t think the CO2 is going to make that much of a difference, because I donâ(TM)t think Earth is his ultimate target for this technology.
  Given the lack of petroleum on Mars, not to mention the lack of oxygen, internal combustion engines arenâ(TM)t really a practical transportation solution there. Given that we know our boy Elon has his heart set on Mars, my suspicion is that heâ(TM)s just taking advantage of government subsidies to develop useful technologies under the pretext of creating consumer products for Earth.
  Also, Tesla doesnâ(TM)t just produce cars, theyâ(TM)re also in the business of developing massive storage batteries, such as the ones they used for Australiaâ(TM)s power grid. Also handy on Mars.
  Given the thinness of the Martian atmosphere, generating CO2 could be construed as a feature, not a bug.
  I view Tesla as much the same as Spacex. Itâ(TM)s an R&D organization supporting itself by offering commercial products, but the products arenâ(TM)t the main point.
32. Re:Run, Tesla. Run! by Shirley+Marquez · 2018-05-21 05:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Electric cars do not yet make financial sense in the US, though if you include the tax benefits they are getting close. Especially the lower priced models like the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Bolt, and someday the base version of the Model 3. The purchase price is higher, but recharging is cheaper than gasoline and maintenance costs are lower. Oil prices continue to rise and the cost of making lithium-ion batteries continues to fall. Eventually the lines will cross and full-electric cars will be cost-effective even without tax subsidies.
  Meanwhile, some Americans continue to buy them. Not to save money, but to help improve the environment or for the superior driving experience.
33. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  Also it turns out the pressure in Hyperloop is pretty comparable to Mars' atmospheric pressure.
34. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by drinkypoo · 2018-05-21 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Methane may be a more efficient greenhouse gas, but it rapidly degrades into CO2.
  Eight years is not rapidly.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
35. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by rahvin112 · 2018-05-21 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Cow emissions like your own come from carbon already in the system, they aren't adding carbon from a carbon reservoir like oil and coal. Much like burning firewood for heat it's considered carbon neutral because it's just changing the place of carbon already in the system.
36. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by Type44Q · 2018-05-21 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  they should have just adapted the existing production lines...
  Yeah, too bad they didn't want to make Toyotas.
37. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by Areyoukiddingme · 2018-05-21 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  None of it comes from the fossil sources that are adding new carbon to the environment. Therefore if all the cows vanished today, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere would not change.
  That's less than two-thirds true. Most beef cattle are grass fed for 2/3rds of their life, then grain fed for the last third. The grain is grown with petroleum-based fertilizers. On the other hand, milk cows are fed almost exclusively on a complex mixture of silage and grains, which is largely petroleum-fertilized grain (using the whole plant, not just the seed). They include no more than 18% of all cattle in the US, but that still cuts in to the 2/3rds. The USDA tracks these things. (Big government at work, collecting and digesting valuable data and publishing it for only tax money, oh noes.)
38. Re: Run, Tesla. Run! by MachineShedFred · 2018-05-21 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  Or you completely missed the point. Let me give you a clue, as you appear to be without one: you don't have to be the biggest to still be successful.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Huh. by Rei · 2018-05-20 11:31 · Score: 2

Huh. Just off the presses.
Tesla cuts Model 3 delivery delays for new orders in half as production ramp improves

--
Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
1. Re:Huh. by haruchai · 2018-05-20 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Huh. Just off the presses.
  Tesla cuts Model 3 delivery delays for new orders in half as production ramp improves
  As noted at the end of the article and confirmed on FB groups, some have been notified their already configured orders are pushed to July.
  Supposedly that's to make sure the 200000th US delivery will not happen until Q3, prolonging the feferal tax credit
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
2. Re:Huh. by Rei · 2018-05-20 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. There's been lots of speculation (from both longs and shorts) that Tesla would do this. It's a pretty obvious decision which lets them give the tax credit to tens of thousands more customers. It'll make their Q2 a bit worse, of course, but all that will get offset into Q3.
  Their Q3 sales numbers are going to be massive - both having a high production rate, and stockpiled deliveries going out.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
3. Re:Huh. by haruchai · 2018-05-20 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  "Their Q3 sales numbers are going to be massive - both having a high production rate, and stockpiled deliveries going out."
  With AWD now available for Model 3, I predict there's going to be a sharp drop in orders for S75D, which will negatively impact Tesla's profit in Q3, the first of which Elon promised would show profitability
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
4. Re:Huh. by Rei · 2018-05-20 12:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  All of Tesla's models are currently backordered, so any drop on S75D wouldn't be that meaningful. And S model production is interchangeable; their real limit is that the number of cells that Panasonic can provide is only enough for about 100k S+X vehicles per year, and they adjust their pricing and introduce new options on these vehicle lines at rate to maintain this (they could expand 18650 production, but neither Tesla nor Panasonic have interest in this, since they see the 2170s as the future). I do think you're right that demand for S75D will drop, and I can envision Tesla discontinuing it while sweetening up the 100s. Of course, that will only decrease the number of S+X vehicles that they can make per year, since more cells are needed for the 100 packs.
  I feel pretty confident that they're eventually going to refresh S and X atop the Model Y platform. Since Y's platform is basically a stretched, upgraded 3, and a stretched pack means not only more capacity, but more power.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
5. Re:Huh. by haruchai · 2018-05-20 14:43 · Score: 2
  
  "they could expand 18650 production, but neither Tesla nor Panasonic have interest in this, since they see the 2170s as the future). I do think you're right that demand for S75D will drop, and I can envision Tesla discontinuing it while sweetening up the 100s. Of course, that will only decrease the number of S+X vehicles that they can make per year, since more cells are needed for the 100 packs"
  I thought Tesla still hasn't fulfilled the 2 billion 18650 cell contract with Panasonic, enough for over 250k cars with 100 kWh packs?
  If that's a take-or-pay contract, it may cost Tesla serious coin to get out of it and switch to 2170s entirely - something Elon said a couple years ago wasn't in the cards.
  If Panasonic wants to partner with Tesla for a new factory in China now that it seems the ownership rules are being relaxed, perhaps they'll have a cheaper out.
  I feel pretty confident that they're eventually going to refresh S and X atop the Model Y platform. Since Y's platform is basically a stretched, upgraded 3, and a stretched pack means not only more capacity, but more power"
  They recently showed off some coming interior upgrades for the S and I suspect there's more to come before Q3.
  Most Model 3 owners seem pretty pleased but I can't believe that so few are complaining about the terrible seating position in the rear seats.
  They may not go back there often but anyone who sits there for more than a few minutes is going to be nibbling on their kneecaps.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
6. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 16:18 · Score: 0
  
  As noted at the end of the article and confirmed on FB groups, some have been notified their already configured orders are pushed to July.
  Supposedly that's to make sure the 200000th US delivery will not happen until Q3, prolonging the feferal tax credit
  It's too bad the numbers don't add up.
  With only some 10,000 model 3 delivered so far, even if TSLA does 5,000/wk (and Musk is chest pounding about 3,500/wk right now so 5,000/wk is estimation on the generous side), even at 5,000/wk, it would take 40 weeks to deliver 200,000. 40 weeks from now is Q2 2019.
  tl;dr TSLA deliveries are pushed back because TSLA CANNOT produce model 3 fast enough.
7. Re:Huh. by drinkypoo · 2018-05-20 23:17 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  One of my friends just got his Model 3, and it had rock damage to a body panel incurred during transport. Naturally, they didn't catch it, and he had to. Even more insulting, they won't let him option up to a dual motor now that they've finally announced those, the replacement has to be identically-optioned to his vehicle that they failed to transport correctly. Mud flaps aren't exactly new technology, but they don't seem to have been employed correctly here (because that's how you avoid throwing rocks at vehicles you're transporting.)
  Fail, fail.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
8. Re:Huh. by gmack · 2018-05-21 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously you have never seen kids throwing rocks at car transports. It is a sport in some places.
9. Re: Huh. by Rei · 2018-05-21 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I do see the rear seating position as a screwup - and such an easily remedied one too. There's tons of headroom (excess, really) back there; they should have just made the rear bench higher.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
10. Re: Huh. by Rei · 2018-05-21 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  The actual production target is 6k, not 5k. 33 weeks to 200k (which assumes a larger percent of orders being US orders than I expect). 2 1/2 quarters.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
11. Re:Huh. by Rei · 2018-05-21 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Tesla - like all manufacturers - does not own transport trucks (they don't own the oceanic shipping companies for overseas deliveries, either). They contract out, just like their competitors. Delivery issues during transport affect everyone equally. The only solution would be to vertically integrate the transportation system. Heck, given Tesla's obsession with vertical integration, they may well do that some day.
  And yes, the car you get is the state of the car when you sign on the dotted line. Tesla introduces new features, pricing, etc very quickly, with little to no warning. If you're not happy knowing that the day after you sign Tesla could come out with something newer, better, cheaper... don't buy a Tesla. They don't wait until year-end like most manufacturers.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
12. Re: Huh. by Rei · 2018-05-21 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  I have no clue what your argument is. Try again. And try being an adult next time as well.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
13. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  I thought Tesla still hasn't fulfilled the 2 billion 18650 cell contract with Panasonic, enough for over 250k cars with 100 kWh packs?
  If that's a take-or-pay contract, it may cost Tesla serious coin to get out of it and switch to 2170s entirely
  I'm pretty sure that if both Tesla and Panasonic are interested they could both renegotiate the contract, especially if Panasonic has a short (or non-existent) stock of 18650 cells.
14. Re:Huh. by Shirley+Marquez · 2018-05-21 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly this. So long as Tesla will still be a customer, Panasonic should be happy to allow them to shift the distribution of cell sizes that they buy.
15. Re:Huh. by drinkypoo · 2018-05-21 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Tesla - like all manufacturers - does not own transport trucks
  Too bad they aren't competent in their selection, either, or the protection of the vehicles. Supposedly they've belatedly started adding protective materials for shipping.
  
  And yes, the car you get is the state of the car when you sign on the dotted line.
  Having fucked up, and having to now produce yet another vehicle (the vehicle he refused can no longer be sold as new, as well) they might as well get some good will back by allowing the buyer to option up. But no.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
16. Re:Huh. by Shirley+Marquez · 2018-05-21 05:51 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Tesla's initial use of 18650 cells had nothing to do with any inherent advantages or disadvantages of that size; it was about the fact that the size was in high volume production because of its use in laptop computer batteries. If you slice open the removable battery from an older laptop you will probably find 18650 cells inside.
  But the laptop computer business has changed. Thin and light designs now dominate the business; those have non-removable flat batteries inside, much like overgrown versions of the ones now found inside cell phones. Meanwhile, Tesla is shifting its car batteries to a larger size of cell to reduce manufacturing costs: fewer cells means fewer interconnects, less complexity in charge balancing hardware and software, and so forth. And now Tesla is a large enough buyer to get Panasonic to make a new size of cell to meet its needs, something that wasn't true back in the company's early days.
  With both of these factors in play, the market for 18650 cells is declining. It would make sense for Panasonic to allow Tesla to shift some of its previously contracted orders to the new size, leaving Panasonic's existing capacity available to fill orders for the remaining legacy markets for 18650. If there is a need for such a renegotiation it would make sense for both companies, so Tesla should have no difficulty working out a new deal.
17. Re: Huh. by drinkypoo · 2018-05-21 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  I do see the rear seating position as a screwup - and such an easily remedied one too. There's tons of headroom (excess, really) back there; they should have just made the rear bench higher.
  There may well be a crash and/or rollover safety aspect to the seating position.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
18. Re:Huh. by drinkypoo · 2018-05-21 06:24 · Score: 2
  
  Obviously you have never seen kids throwing rocks at car transports. It is a sport in some places.
  It doesn't actually matter if the rocks are being thrown up by trucks without flaps (which I see all the time, or at least, with inadequate flaps) or by children in need of extra-curricular activity. Either way, they should account for it. They tried to save money, and it's costing them money.
  Perhaps they should whip up some of these semis they're so proud of, and go into the vehicle transport business :)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
19. Re:Huh. by rahvin112 · 2018-05-21 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Those "Flat" Batteries as you call them are Lithium Polymer, not Lithium Ion. Completely different manufacturing process, ingredients and battery chemistry.
20. Re: Huh. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  There 200k limit is for all the cars the company sells combined, not per model. They're about to hit 200k because of all the S and X models they've sold.
  Don't let that stop you from spouting your idiocy though.
21. Re:Huh. by Bender0x7D1 · 2018-05-22 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Which makes no sense - even using Tesla's numbers.
  With 450k orders, and only 30k cars delivered, that means it is 42 weeks to deliver their current orders even if they hit 10k cars per week - which is the final goal for production, and not where they are at now.
  So, what it says to me is, "We will ignore the customers who have already waited 2 years; as long as you are willing to buy a vehicle which will give us a greater margin."
  Of course, it will also help lift their stock price just as they are requiring more funding.
  
  --
  Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
Sounds great, things are on track by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 11:33 · Score: 0

Made in America, by Americans, for Americans
1. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by Rei · 2018-05-20 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but Europe and the rest of the world have to wait :P I'm going to be waiting until at least Q1, since that's when the Eurospec goes into production. Could be worse; left-side-of-the-road countries aren't supposed to get theirs until Q3.
  Nice that they moved up the schedule on the standard pack though. Giga has really come uncorked. Performance is way out of my budget, but a standard pack plus AWD would be a killer vehicle for the price. We still don't know what the 0-60 on it will be, but if it's a similar 0,6s drop as in LR, then that'd be 4,9s for a $40k vehicle (which I won't have to pay our huge VAT on, and which will save me ~$3k in fuel costs per year) with some pretty nice standard features. Still not sure whether air suspension will be worth it. And there's only one thing from PUP that I wish wasn't bundled (I really want that glass roof.... even though it's not really practical, as it conducts heat more than a headliner).
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
2. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by Kernel+Kurtz · 2018-05-20 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking of tracks, what is its time around the Nurburgring?
3. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by Rei · 2018-05-20 12:02 · Score: 2
  
  I guess we'll find out :) The nice thing about the Model 3 vs. S and X is that the new motor has no rotor overheating issues. You can drive it full out lap after lap (and a number of owners have done just that).
  Now, it'll be interesting to see how the front motor behaves. Because they interestingly chose to add an induction motor in the front rather than a second PMSRM. At this point, we have no clue whether it's the same induction motor as in the S and X or a new design. And even if it's the same as the S and X, it's not clear that - only needing to deliver part of the vehicle's power needs - it would overheat. The software would obviously preferentially direct acceleration to the more efficient, no-thermal-limitations rear motor, only using the front when more power is needed than the rear can deliver.
  I can't wait for the videos to start filtering in from the track. Even the current Model 3 looks like a blast on it (until you burn out the not-designed-for-track-duty brakes, that is!)
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
4. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by haruchai · 2018-05-20 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  "standard pack plus AWD would be a killer vehicle for the price. We still don't know what the 0-60 on it will be, but if it's a similar 0,6s drop as in LR, then that'd be 4,9s for a $40k vehicle"
  It's supposed to be 4.5s according to Electrek. Considering that the LR is officially 5.1s but has tested as low as 4.7s, it could be even quicker
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
5. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by Rei · 2018-05-20 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  AWD LR is 4,5s. But LR is 0,4s faster than SR to begin with.
  I guess we'll find out :)
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
6. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by whoever57 · 2018-05-20 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  but has tested as low as 4.7s, it could be even quicker
  On Youtube, one guy showed repeated 0-60 runs in 4.4s.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
7. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 13:08 · Score: 0
  
  Nothing impressive. It is a very heavy car.
8. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by Rei · 2018-05-20 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  It is not by any standard "a very heavy car". The Model 3 LR is only marginally heavier than BMW's roughly performance equal model, the 340i. Model 3 LR-P is almost certainly lighter than most of its competitors in the market, since there's no extra batteries added, and electric motors give a lot of power per unit weight.
  Combine this with a low centre of gravity and a much praised suspension....
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
9. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 15:26 · Score: 0
  
  Tesla’s handle like shit.
10. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by AmiMoJo · 2018-05-20 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  The long wait and lack of any incentives in Ireland is making me look at CPO model X's. The S is too small and low for me.
  I'm worried about the be CPO no-refurb policy though. Don't want to have to reject the car like some people have. The cost of repairs is an issue too... I'm waiting to see what the M3 is like for body work.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
11. Re: Sounds great, things are on track by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 17:22 · Score: 0
  
  How many laps can a Tesla do running flat out on the Nurburgring on one charge?
12. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by jimbolauski · 2018-05-21 01:29 · Score: 2
  
  A model 3 made it 3 laps at Laguna Seca before the brakes were gone that's ~ 9 miles the Nurburgring is over 12. You can't keep the batteries or brakes cool enough to do a proper lap that long.
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
13. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  I'm curious? Why don't you just post the actual numbers? It weighs between 3549 and 3838 lbs. On the light side that's a bit heavier than a BMW M3. For comparison, my 2012 GTI is 400 to 800 lbs lighter. The Model 3 is not a light vehicle by any stretch of the imagination.
14. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by Rei · 2018-05-21 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't counting laps, but the brakes burned out around 14 minutes in, and he was averaging under 2 minutes per lap, so more like 7 laps. And they weren't racing brakes. There's a reason that racing brakes exist; stock brakes are not designed for prolongued heavy usage.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
15. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by jimbolauski · 2018-05-21 03:21 · Score: 2
  
  The model 3 had brake issues from the 3rd lap on, when brakes get hot they boil the fluid so you have to pump them in order to stop. 10k in brake upgrades certainly would help but then it's not stock, an m3 which Musk has a burning desire to out perform can go to a track day fully stock and do just fine going 10 seconds faster around Laguna Seca then the model 3. The model 3 is a great car but pretending it's a good track day car discredits all its remarkable features.
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
16. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by Rei · 2018-05-21 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  It weighs between 3549 and 3838 lbs. On the light side that's a bit heavier than a BMW M3
  No, why don't you post actual numbers. The BMW curb weights (+100lb gas on average, more when full) are:
  BMW 330i manual (0,1s slower than a 3549lb Model 3 SR): 3501+100 lb (101,4% of the weight, +0,1s)
  BMW 330i auto (same speed as a 3549lb Model 3 SR): 3541+100 lb (102,6% o the weight, 0,0s)
  BMW 340i manual (0,2s faster than a 3814 lb Model 3 LR): 3675+100 lb (99,0% of the weight, -0,2s)
  BMW 340i manual (probably-the-same-speed as a probably-around-3650+100 lb Model 3 SR AWD): 3675lb (103,4% of the weight, 0,0s)
  BMW 340i auto (0,3s faster than a a 3814 lb Model 3 LR): 3704+100 lb (99,7% of the weight, -0,3s)
  BMW 340i auto (probably-0,1s-faster than a probably-around-3650lb Model 3 SR AWD): 3704+100 lb (104,2% of the weight, -0,1s)
  BMW M3 manual (0,6s slower than a probably-around- 3915lb Model 3 LR-P): 3575+100 lb (93,9% of the weight, +0,6s)
  BMW M3 auto (0,4s slower than a probably-around- 3915lb Model 3 LR-P): 3630+100 lb (95,3% of the weight, +0,4s)
  BMW M5 (0,3s faster than a probably-around- 3915lb Model 3 LR-P): 4370+100 lb (114,2% of the weight, -0,3s)
  I'll repeat what I wrote: It is not by any standard "a very heavy car" And of course, real-world testing has shown that Tesla has sandbagged the model 3 LR performance figures, and probably the other model 3s as well, probably to boost sales of the S line; most people get under the nominal 5,1s in the LR.
  
  For comparison, my 2012 GTI ...
  ... does 0-60 in 5,4 seconds and is a much smaller car. Why not compare to a motorcycle while you're at it? People have been comparing Model 3 to the 3-series, Audi A4 and Mercedes C350 because that's the class that the vehicle is in.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
17. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by iamhassi · 2018-05-21 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  The 0-60 time is meaningless when it only has 1 gear. I owned a Model S with insane mode and while the 2 something 0-60 was shocking the highway acceleration was no better than your average sports car. That's because it can't down shift to accelerate faster like a ICE can. I lost many a highway race and you won't find any highway races of teslas on YouTube like you can of nearly every other car. All the Tesla races on YouTube start at either zero or under 30mph where they still have some decent acceleration, but once you get to 60 or 70mph the acceleration isn't there while a ICE sportscar just downshifts to 3rd and takes off.
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
18. Re:Sounds great, things are on track by Rei · 2018-05-21 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  A BMW M3 has starting price $66,5k
  A Model 3 LR has a starting price of $44k.
  Model 3 LR is not meant to be a track car. Model 3 LR-P is. And it comes with racing brakes.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
19. Re: Sounds great, things are on track by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  So the model 3 canâ(TM)t do one lap around the Nurburgring running flat out? I know brakes can be upgraded but my question is about the fundamentals of the design that batteries and motors quickly overheat? KERs systems in F1 last 50+ laps so I know the tech can be done.
Too much money by haruchai · 2018-05-20 11:36 · Score: 3

$78k for the performance version of a $35k base car? Is Tesla an American company or a German one?
And still have to wait until 2019 for air suspension?
The $5k for dual-motor / AWD is expensive enough.

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
1. Re:Too much money by whoever57 · 2018-05-20 11:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Having recently taken delivery of a Model 3, had I known that the dual-motor/AWD version would be available for $5k more while still getting the full federal tax rebate, I would have taken that option.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
2. Re:Too much money by Rei · 2018-05-20 11:52 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It's not just the Germans who do that. Go configure a Ford F-150 and see how much the price spikes when you check all the option boxes.
  The one thing that really sets Tesla apart is their heavy use of bundling. When you break down the performance vehicle cost - subtracting the cost of the known options, and making reasonable guesses for the new ones - it only works out to roughly a ~$15k premium. But of course they bundle it together with everything but the kitchen sink (more accurately, everything but autopilot). Kind of annoying, but of course it's a big encouragement for people to spend more on options. Which of course they'll justify to themselves later ;)
  I don't think $5k for the dual motor is expensive at all, given that in addition to giving you all wheel drive and a spare motor it drops the 0-60 by 0,6 seconds. You know how much you usually have to pay in an ICE vehicle to drop its 0-60 by 0,6 seconds? Doesn't come cheap. We had a poll on the Model 3 forum recently, and the average expectation was that this option would come in at around $4,5k. So pretty much spot on.
  The real question is why the performance version and the basic dual motor version are coming in at the same range. Performance will be heavier, and more importantly, is swapping out the aero wheels with efficient tires for 20" sports wheels with sports tires. Should be a significant range hit by comparison. But of course since Tesla deliberately sandbagged the EPA range numbers from 318 to 310mi, they have some room to play around with the figures. E.g. maybe performance goes down to an EPA 310 while the basic dual goes up to ~330 or so, and they just call them both 310. I guess we'll know for sure once deliveries happen and people start doing tests.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
3. Re:Too much money by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  Just like modern BMW/Mercedes, the target market is people with more money than sense. Sometimes social signalling is expensive.
4. Re:Too much money by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 13:44 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Rei has to be getting paid for this.
  He posts extensively on Tesla articles, sometimes over 10% of all posts.
  He always is pro-Tesla, always defensive of Tesla.
  He manages to get a suspicious amount of positive mod points, but only on Tesla articles. We all know how easy it is to get mod points with multiple accounts.
  Why do we let this go on? We didn't put up with cdreimer.
5. Re:Too much money by Rei · 2018-05-20 14:09 · Score: 0
  
  You're cute. :)
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
6. Re:Too much money by tquasar · 2018-05-20 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  When I bought my 2012 F-150 I had a similar experience. To get a better audio system I had to pay to upgrade the entire interior of the vehicle, seats, fabrics...more.
7. Re:Too much money by BoogieChile · 2018-05-20 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  Not unusual, especially for vehicles built for the motorsport homologations. There's be the standard model that is aimed at the everyday driver, and the highend versions that are very close to what ends up on the track.
  You can blow a $25,500 Chevy Camaro out to 74,000m, and back when Australia had their own manufacturer, Holden had a $33,690 standard family sedan that blew out to $170,000 in the superV8 homologation.
8. Re:Too much money by fozzy1015 · 2018-05-20 15:17 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The one thing that really sets Tesla apart is their heavy use of bundling.
  
  The one thing that sets Tesla apart is that there is no $35K Model 3. It's complete vaporware and can not be bought. People were suckered into giving Tesla an interest free $1,000 loan thinking they'd get a $35K Model 3 with the $7.5K tax credit, all to get as high of a reservation count for Musk to crow about and push the stock price ever higher.
  
  A reservation count that when probed a bit and asked by an analyst about the actual conversion rate when a holder is asked to configure, Musk prefixed his response with a full 15 seconds of silence before saying the question was, "too dry" and decided to spend the next 20 minutes allowing a dozen questions by a YouTube fan boy with a whole 51 shares to his name. It doesn't take Freud to know that the truth was something not supportive of the narrative Musk is trying to push.
  
  I recommend people listen to the archived 1Q18 conference call, including the two previous. If you're not an investor they are very amusing. If you are then they scream run for the exits. It's fun to go back and read Musk's comments about, "productizing the factory", listen to him rant about "stepped exponential production" curves and "air friction" being a potential limiter, and then read his short tweet admitting that he has no idea what he's doing and wasted billions of investor dollars trying to over automate final assembly. It's too bad we're not going to have too many more calls to laugh at.
9. Re:Too much money by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 16:41 · Score: 0
  
  Tesla simply cannot make a profit at 35k. So we get a lot more expensive cars, and usual hype by the truckload
10. Re:Too much money by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 17:19 · Score: 0
  
  Question is at 36:30.
11. Re:Too much money by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 21:01 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't worry about it. Given Tesla's slow time to roll out new features, you would have been waiting a while.
  Also they retain their value better than a Macbook. When they finally do have them out, just trade-up.
12. Re: Too much money by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 00:18 · Score: 0
  
  The 170k option wasn't made by holden, they part made it then it was finished by HSV with a corvette z06 engine. The final price is heavily influenced by small production runs by a boutique covering their own emissions and crash testing. The more typical HSV price was more like 70k
13. Re:Too much money by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  I've noticed similar. Not surprised you got modded -1 for pointing it out. He's got to be a shill, just the sheer number of posts and the length of them during the work day. No way is anybody going to spend that much time posting in their free time, and you would lose your job if you posted that much at work. He's got to be a paid poster. Some time I should do a word count he does on a tesla article. It wouldn't surprise me if the word count on all his posts add together to over 20K per article.
14. Re:Too much money by Type44Q · 2018-05-21 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Is Tesla an American company or a German one?
  A base-model 2018 Mustang lists for around $28k; a 2018 Mustang GT350R starts around $66k.
15. Re:Too much money by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  And they are not remotely the same vehicle other than the name
16. Re:Too much money by angel'o'sphere · 2018-05-21 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  If you are not pro Tesla, you are an idiot, and not cute.
  However I agree that all car companies should stay away from autopilots.
  Either the car can drive autonomous or it can't. Autopilot makes only sense in a traffic jam with stop and go traffic ..
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
17. Re:Too much money by haruchai · 2018-05-21 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  "The one thing that sets Tesla apart is that there is no $35K Model 3"
  Based on what Elon replied to a tweet asking about this, I don't expect to see any before 2019.
  He said that Tesla needs about 3-6 months of 5k/wk production before it makes financial sense to ship base-level cars.
  Given that he's always too optimistic, I wouldn't count on seeing them offered this calendar year.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
18. Re: Too much money by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  The $35k version was explicitly slated for 2019 or later. It was never promised before then. Also, the $1k reservation is easily refunded for anyone concerned.
  Citation: 3 reservations, 1 refunded.
19. Re:Too much money by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  Why the fuck do you need a tax rebate if you can afford a Tesla?
  Send me a thank you card.
  Signed,
  The American Taxpayer, AKA Elon's butt boi.
20. Re:Too much money by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  Well you're foolish then. The Model S has had a non-D version and D version and the pricing was there so you should have had at least some small idea of the pricing.. Suffer quietly scrub!
21. Re:Too much money by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  That's been known for two years, don't you follow Elon on twitter?
22. Re:Too much money by haruchai · 2018-05-21 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  When I bought my 2012 F-150 I had a similar experience. To get a better audio system I had to pay to upgrade the entire interior of the vehicle, seats, fabrics...more.
  Really?? Wow, Ford is just milking that cash cow yet are seriously in debt.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-05-20 11:38 · Score: 1

<eom>
1. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Rei · 2018-05-20 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's not only standing up, but moving forward a few rows.
  I'm not sure why people have had this notion that despite the fact that the vehicle as a whole was significantly delayed - mainly due to pack production delays - the SR pack should nonetheless have come out on the original schedule. Where's the logic in that? SR was never supposed to go into production until after the battery line was running at full. It's finally getting close to that, at last.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
2. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by zippthorne · 2018-05-20 12:02 · Score: 2
  
  Doesn't that also mean that the people for whom the federal tax credit would be the biggest relative benefit will be likely to miss actually getting the benefit, though?
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
3. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Rei · 2018-05-20 12:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It looks like Tesla is going to hit the US limit - deliberately - right at the start of Q3. This means that the full $7500 credit for buyers in Q3 and Q4; a half credit in Q1 and Q2; a quarter credit in Q3 and Q4; and then gone in 2020.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
4. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-05-20 12:19 · Score: 2
  
  So - if you order today, you only have to wait 6 to 9 months! And if you had ordered the sub-$50K option, you only have to way another 6 to 12 months! Hurray! Tesla is cranking right along!
  
  The Model 3 with Long Range Battery and All Wheel Drive Dual Motor and the Performance versions are going from 12 to 18 months to just 6 to 9 months.
  
  As for the least expensive version of the Model 3 with the Standard battery pack starting at $35,000 in the US, the timeline for new reservations is going from 12 to 18 months to just 6 to 12 months.
  Seriously, a 6 to 12 month wait after ordering? Really? Rolls Royce can hand-build you a fully-bespoke car faster than that...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
5. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Rei · 2018-05-20 12:22 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Rolls-Royce doesn't have a waiting list of nearly half a million people.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
6. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-05-20 12:24 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Tesla doesn't have the fit-and-finish of Rolls Royce.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
7. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Rei · 2018-05-20 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  Nice non sequitur. And beyond that, I doubt you've ever even seen a Model 3. Or talked to anyone who owns one.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
8. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-05-20 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's not only standing up, but moving forward a few rows [electrek.co].
  After all we've been through over the past year plus, it's cute that you're saying with a straight face that we should believe a delivery promise from Elon that's still 6-12 months out.
  
  I'm not sure why people have had this notion that despite the fact that the vehicle as a whole was significantly delayed - mainly due to pack production delays - the SR pack should nonetheless have come out on the original schedule. Where's the logic in that?
  Um, try the logic that Elon hyped this to the world as a mass-produced $35k electric car, and so he should actually deliver that instead of continually coming up with new high-margin options that he really really hopes people will tack on so he'll take a bit less of a bath on each shipment and buy a bit more time to come up with yet another distraction.
9. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-05-20 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  Like your non-sequitur? RR has a waiting list as well, yet they can deliver quicker than Tesla. And I have seen Model 3s in the wild, as well as one owned by a coworker at Dolby. So... It's nice, but about what I'd expect from a solid $20K Kia.
  But hey, you keep cheer-leading a 6-12 month wait for cars, from a company that was supposed to be delivering 5K/week last fall (then winter, then spring, now late summer), and still does NOT make a profit - BEFORE R&D and capital equipment expenditures.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
10. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-05-20 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  When you have no answer - tap dance, distract, and obfuscate. Musk is a master at that...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
11. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by whoever57 · 2018-05-20 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  He may have seen a Model 3, but he hasn't seen a Rolls Royce up close. Fit and finish isn't good on them.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
12. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously, a 6 to 12 month wait after ordering? Really?
  Nope, you can buy any model Tesla today if you have the cash. Or did you mean you wanted to get it at the base/preorder price? I've bought and sold a Tesla three times so far, made a profit on each of them by pre-ordering early and selling to impatient wannabes. And when my AWD3 comes in I'll sell the 2WD3 too.
13. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-05-20 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  It was on the Silver Shadow II I owned for a few years back in the mid-90s. You could pick them up for $25K, and they kept most of that value when sold 3-4 years later...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
14. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Rei · 2018-05-20 13:27 · Score: 2
  
  After all we've been through over the past year plus, it's cute that you're saying with a straight face that we should believe a delivery promise from Elon that's still 6-12 months out.
  For new orders. And what part of moved forward did you not understand? Even a delay would mean "back to the earlier schedule".
  Sort of reminds me of the situation with the Model 3 production in general. The whole thing was heavily moved forward to an extremely aggressive schedule, then fell back to its original schedule, and you get people hyperventilating about the storm in a teacup.
  
  and so he should actually deliver that instead of continually coming up with new high-margin options
  They're not "new high-margin options"; they're options that have been announced from the beginning, and more to the point, they're the two options that were the reason for most deferred orders. More people wanted dual motor and performance than wanted SR or non-PUP. And furthermore, these options have nothing to do with the battery pack, which was - until recently - the most bottlenecked part. So why on Earth shouldn't they make them available?
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
15. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-05-20 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  A new Tesla, available today? My, that must piss off all those folks on the waiting lists!
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
16. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-05-20 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sort of reminds me of the situation with the Model 3 production in general. The whole thing was heavily moved forward to an extremely aggressive schedule, then fell back to its original schedule
  When was the published schedule EVER set to be deliveries in any reasonable quantity starting in late Q2/early Q3 (at best) 2018?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
17. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Rei · 2018-05-20 13:45 · Score: 2
  
  The goal in 2014 was 500k per year by 2020. They should hit that in early 2019. That was still the goal in August 2015, although they were talking that they might be able to exceed it. First deliveries - not 5k per week, but first-off-the-line - were to be "late 2017". So rather than "by the end of July" for the first delivery, it was to be "by the end of December", six months later.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
18. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-05-20 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Wow -- modded both overrated AND underrated. I've reached Slashdot nirvana.
19. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-05-20 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  For new orders.
  Yes, I noticed the conspicuous absence of any promises for delivery for people who have had reservations for years. That strongly suggests they're in the same 6-12 month range. Consistent with that, one of the commenters in your article said they had a long-time standard battery reservation and were still showing December delivery.
20. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Lanthanide · 2018-05-20 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  Tesla hasn't been making cars for 114 years.
21. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Rei · 2018-05-20 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  (Ed: actually, probably more like late 2019... but still..)
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
22. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by cerberusss · 2018-05-20 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, a 6 to 12 month wait after ordering?
  Here in Europe, there's a lot of EVs that have this problem. The Volkswagen e-Golf has a 6 month delivery, and this year Hyundai stopped taking orders for the Ioniq (i.e. more than 6 month delivery).
  
  --
  8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
23. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by AmiMoJo · 2018-05-20 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  So does the $35k promise not include the tax credit?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
24. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by drinkypoo · 2018-05-20 23:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nice non sequitur. And beyond that, I doubt you've ever even seen a Model 3. Or talked to anyone who owns one.
  Anyone who keeps up with the automotive press knows that the Model 3 fit-and-finish has been very poor to date. Tesla is working out their manufacturing processes, and it's not surprising that they've having problems. Let's not pretend they're not having them. Every teardown of the vehicle so far has quantified their panel gaps as being far below average consistency, for example.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
25. Re: Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 00:22 · Score: 0
  
  There's only so long you can do that before it all crashes down.
26. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Rei · 2018-05-21 02:42 · Score: 2
  
  No. It's $35k without the credit; $27,5k if it gets a full credit. LR is $44k without the credit, $36,5k with a full credit. LR + PUP is $49k without the credit, $41,5k with a full credit.
  Where I am it works in just the opposite manner. All cars have a massive VAT (for example, a BMW 3-series' VAT will be around 40%). EVs don't have to pay it. We also have huge gas prices (in US dollars figures they're now over $8/gal).
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
27. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Rei · 2018-05-21 02:49 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Anyone who keeps up with the automotive press knows that the Model 3 fit-and-finish has been very poor to date
  And anyone who actually follows real buyers through their delivery process realizes how absurd the media hype has been, taking every single case they can find of a fit and finish error and blowing it all out of proportion, creating a narrative that simply doesn't match reality.
  No, all vehicles have not been flawless. But this picture that they've been painting where your average car is held together by duct tape just doesn't even remotely match reality. Most people - after hearing the media scare stories - inspect their vehicles with a fine-toothed comb. And most find nothing whatsoever.
  Check out the Model 3 forum and start following people's reports as they get their config invites, wait for their VIN, get their delivery dates, go to pickup, and give their feedback afterward.
  And BTW your claim about "every teardown" is wrong. You mean "Every teardown by one Randy Munrone". Ingineerix, Jack Rickard, and Evannex disagree.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
28. Re: Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  You haven't bought many new cars have you? 6 months is the average wait time for many models and brands.
29. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  People want to keep their fantasies. Tech people love their toys and the truth.
  Tesla stories always have the first two and lack the third.
30. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by drinkypoo · 2018-05-21 06:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  And BTW your claim about "every teardown" is wrong. You mean "Every teardown by one Randy Munrone". Ingineerix, Jack Rickard, and Evannex disagree.,
  You mean Sandy Munro? You know those guys have chops, right? They're not amateurs. Also, I don't know if you took the time to actually watch the entire interview, but he gave Tesla credit for numerous things that he thought they did extremely well — better, in fact, than literally anyone else. The electronics leap immediately to mind.
  Besides that though, there are plenty of other media references as well, not to mention the owners complaining all over the official forums. Please don't pretend like Tesla isn't having quality control problems. They absolutely are, and there's no credibly denying it. When you get in to this kind of money, it's not cute to have problems like that. It's not an especially huge amount of money to spend for a product that does what it does, but it is enough money where it's disappointing for it to have that kind of flaw. If we didn't care about style, we'd all drive identical-looking vehicles which were based on the intersection of crash safety and aerodynamics.
  It would be less embarrassing if this were Tesla's first car, but it isn't...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
31. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  While the tax credit was nice to have, it was not a decision maker in our choice to buy a Model S.
32. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by Major+Blud · 2018-05-21 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  taking every single case they can find of a fit and finish error and blowing it all out of proportion
  Are you including Consumer Reports in that as well?
  https://www.consumerreports.or...
  
  --
  If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
33. Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? by AmiMoJo · 2018-05-21 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks. It's not dissimilar in Ireland... Problem is I need an EV sooner rather than later, so waiting for the M3 might mean having to go back to a fossil.
  For some reason MX and CPO prices in Ireland are stupid.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Air suspension? by plopez · 2018-05-20 11:39 · Score: 1

oblig.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

--
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
1. Re:Air suspension? by Rei · 2018-05-20 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Video not available here :P What's in it?
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
2. Re:Air suspension? by plopez · 2018-05-20 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  crap https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  OK I hope that helps. If not go to youtube and search on "Low Rider" by WAR
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
3. Re:Air suspension? by Rei · 2018-05-20 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  Haha, apropos :)
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
Performance by fluffernutter · 2018-05-20 11:51 · Score: 1, Interesting

Tesla seems to take all the fun out of performance. It used to be able oil and gas and the small of exhaust coming out of two dual 2.5" exhaust pipes with a sound that made an indication of how fast it was. Now it's just a really quick golf cart.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
1. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  keep sending your money to bearded jihadists in saudi arabia that want to kill you then grandpa
2. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 12:07 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. That's what many don't understand: many people buy cars and trucks for the "VROOM!" factor. All the big auto makers
  hire acoustic engineers to make exhausts sound a certain way.
  And not forget some of the people who must have black smoke coming out of their tailpipe or they're not a "man".
  I see a future market for sound effects add-ons to EVs to make them sound like an ICE muscle car. Maybe even oil burners for EV trucks.
  Silicon Valley people should spend some time in Waffle House states to understand. And they'd also understand that Tesla isn't going to take the automotive world by storm; so it shouldn't have a market value of GM's.
3. Re:Performance by fabioalcor · 2018-05-20 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Then you're not the in the target public, just don't buy it.
4. Re:Performance by Rei · 2018-05-20 12:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I would love ironic, mismatched sound packages for the car (affecting both driving sounds at the horn). Examples:
  * Old carburated sports car
  * Model T
  * Diesel semi
  * Galloping horse
  * Bicycle with a card in its spokes
  * Jetsons car
  * Cruise ship
  * Roomba
  * Milleneum Falcon trying to go into hyperspace but failing
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
5. Re:Performance by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-20 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  I want mine quiet as possible, while still being fast and good handling. I'd love something like a Gen 1 Tesla roadster with longer range or electric MR2 with Tesla drivetrain.
  Loud pipes just attract cops, which tends to put a damper on opportunities to have fun behind the wheel.
6. Re:Performance by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-20 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  You can have more fun if you're not attracting cops or waking up the grumpy ol' neighbors. Problem is that Teslas are meh-dans and EthYooVeeth. Give me a cheap, simple, Roadster with a long-range electric drivetrain. Think 90s MR-2 except electric, not gas.
7. Re:Performance by Kjella · 2018-05-20 12:39 · Score: 2
  
  Tesla seems to take all the fun out of performance. It used to be able oil and gas and the small of exhaust coming out of two dual 2.5" exhaust pipes with a sound that made an indication of how fast it was. Now it's just a really quick golf cart.
  Meh, speed limits and traffic do that. Sure, it's fun accelerating 0-55 mph faster than everything else but when you got a car that could do 155 mph you've barely tasted it. I'll admit I didn't really understand why anyone would go to a track to drive a car before I got a sports car, like can't you just drive it? Turns out driving on public roads is really just a tease, you can hear the roar but then you have to muzzle it if you want to keep your license.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
8. Re:Performance by fluffernutter · 2018-05-20 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Might as well just put a card in the spokes. Then it's all pretend.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
9. Re:Performance by fluffernutter · 2018-05-20 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  Part of the fun *is* waking grumpy ol' neighbors.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
10. Re:Performance by fluffernutter · 2018-05-20 13:03 · Score: 2
  
  I have a classic Chevy with a 454. I didn't have to drive it fast, it was just fun standing behind it while it was idling.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
11. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 13:28 · Score: 0
  
  Just hope that the "grumpy old neighbors" aren't the type to get mad enough to scatter a box of nails in your driveway or key your car.
12. Re:Performance by plopez · 2018-05-20 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  I hope you don't live in a "stand your ground" state when you wake up your 60ish Vietnam Vet neighbor with who has nightmares every night.
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
13. Re:Performance by plopez · 2018-05-20 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  That's why God gave us Nevada[1]
  [1] And for the gambling and prostitution. That and beer is proof God loves us.
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
14. Re:Performance by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-20 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  If legal weed passes, NV will be complete. A marching maralist moron free zone...
  https://www.abqjournal.com/880...
15. Re:Performance by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-20 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  (mOralist)
16. Re:Performance by Lanthanide · 2018-05-20 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  Vroomtones. They already exist.
17. Re:Performance by Peter+P+Peters · 2018-05-20 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  Tesla seems to take all the fun out of performance. It used to be able oil and gas and the small of exhaust coming out of two dual 2.5" exhaust pipes with a sound that made an indication of how fast it was. Now it's just a really quick golf cart.
  I think my great granddad said the same thing when the ICE replaced the steam engine. And his great granddad said the same when steam replaced the horse. And his....
  Welcome to progress.
18. Re:Performance by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-20 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, electric cars were more popular than gas in your great-granddad's times, at least among the rich who didn't want to crank up a motor...
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
19. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 16:27 · Score: 0
  
  Here, kid, educate yourself: https://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised
  Saudi Arabia: 8.1%.
  "People have tended to exaggerate how much oil we imported from the Middle East," says John Duffield, an energy expert and professor of political science at Georgia State University.
  Like you.
20. Re:Performance by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-20 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  Still, electricity from clean sources like wind, hydro, solar, and nuclear (yes, nuclear) is cleaner than burning any fossil fools like oil or natural gas.
21. Re: Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 17:30 · Score: 0
  
  Grandpa doesn't care because people are busy being rude to him and if they gas themselves with car fumes 20 years from now he's already dead anyways.
22. Re:Performance by cerberusss · 2018-05-20 18:42 · Score: 2
  
  I have a classic Chevy with a 454 (...) fun standing behind it
  I don't get it, what's fun about an asthma attack? :-P
  
  --
  8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
23. Re:Performance by ledow · 2018-05-20 19:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Electric cars (and bikes) just confirm what I always knew.
  Nobody's actually interested in the speed, or the acceleration. What they want to do is make a noise and be loud and "sound" cool.
  Seriously, Harley Davidson could make an electric motorbike that out-accelerates all their other models (they are actually doing that). All the bike enthusiasts I talk to laugh at that idea - they don't even mention "range" or "battery life" (I think they have a hard time saying "battery" to be honest, if it's not full of some environment-destroying fuel, they can't play Mad Max). They just think the idea of something near-silent is counter to why they buy the bike.
  They don't really admit that, but that's all it's ever been about. Not "Hey, I have the faster car". Not "I love the speed". Nope.. .it's how I can get everyone's attention and who's looking at me?
  The cars are the same. Line up a dozen sports cars and nobody will look at the electric model. Even though it will out-accelerate the $200,000 supercar (and let's be honest, any race where you're just at top-speed all the time is boring... an electric car would win in a drag-race, in a rally, on a track, etc.).
  Look at the motor-sports and electric cars don't really figure. Even the "electric formula one" kind of things get zero attention. But hey, put regenerative braking into something and use that to boost the performance, that's okay because it makes a lot of noise still.
  Racing is literally about "who can be noisiest, messiest, cause the most disruption, and nearly trash their car" not "who wins".
  For years, consumer cars have gotten faster and faster, but nobody really notices or thinks it matters, because they've also become quieter and quieter. Everyone drives what would have been a Formula One car back in the sixties, but now those kinds of cars are "granny cars", because they don't make lots of noise.
  Sorry, but all those "car enthusiasts" that I know spend more time polishing and waxing, and bolting on ridiculous addons to their car than they ever do tweaking performance. Hey, unless you get a modchip that makes the car noisier and smokier...
24. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 23:09 · Score: 0
  
  As if his Harley comes anywhere close to meeting noise specs.
25. Re:Performance by drinkypoo · 2018-05-20 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, it's fun accelerating 0-55 mph faster than everything else but when you got a car that could do 155 mph you've barely tasted it. I'll admit I didn't really understand why anyone would go to a track to drive a car before I got a sports car, like can't you just drive it? Turns out driving on public roads is really just a tease, you can hear the roar but then you have to muzzle it if you want to keep your license.
  You don't even need a sports car for that. I've got an A8 Quattro that is supposed to hit a buck seventy-eight, and it's just an executive luxo-barge. (The size is very close to my 300SD, within a few inches in each direction. It's well-established formula.) I don't think I'd try that until I refreshed my rear suspension and my motor/trans mounts, though :)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
26. Re:Performance by hazardPPP · 2018-05-20 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  Tesla seems to take all the fun out of performance. It used to be able oil and gas and the small of exhaust coming out of two dual 2.5" exhaust pipes with a sound that made an indication of how fast it was. Now it's just a really quick golf cart.
  Chacun à son goût.
  These things you call "fun" are to me noise and air pollution. I love the fact that performance electric cars are fast and quiet. I look forward to a day when all cars emit no exhaust and almost no sound.
27. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 00:13 · Score: 0
  
  My whole life arrogant manual drivers said that they only drive stick because the performance is so much better. Well, why do stick shifts still exist? Oh because manual drivers were actually losers trying to be cool and didn't give a rats ass about performance. You are no different. If you don't think going faster is cooler, then you are I are just different creatures. The smell of petrol doesn't excite me much. Being thrown back into my seat and cornering until I'm not quite sure my wheels will grip the road is my idea of a good time. It's time to admit it gearheads: you never cared about cars going fast. You just wanted to have an in crowd with special knowledge of carburetors and timing belts. For many of us, we never gave two shits how the car goes fast, we just want it to go FAST. Get a new thing to feel superior about, because electric vehicles will remove the value of aftermarket tuning.
28. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 00:34 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, people want to sleep in their beds in their homes at night?
  How quaint.
  Screw 'em.
29. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 00:36 · Score: 0
  
  I hope you don't live in a "stand your ground" state when you wake up your 60ish Vietnam Vet neighbor with who has nightmares every night.
  Take your strawman somewhere else.
30. Re:Performance by thegarbz · 2018-05-21 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Not at all. They put the fun into performance. What you're complaining about is they took the noise out of the performance or the fun out of the noise.
  You're not the target market for a performance car. You're the target market for a Hyundai Excel with two down-pipes where the exhaust pipes should be (though only one hooked up to the exhaust system), and a fully-sick bonnet scoop on a car with no intercooler.
  Of course if you want to be publicly notorious you could just go stand on the road and masturbate. It's cheaper than buying either a performance car or a loud car.
  Me? Fuck Telsa. I'm waiting for the Porsche Mission E
31. Re:Performance by fluffernutter · 2018-05-21 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  But if you have a mod chip with some fake sound, then you're just like a kid putting a card in his spokes. A fact about gasoline is that auto-makers successfully hid the fact that it makes us dependent on other nations with very different beliefs than us, so ICEs came to represent freedom. It's going to be hard to market an EV as representing freedom when you need to be tied to a charging station for at least a 1/2 hour just to drive out of your state.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
32. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 01:17 · Score: 0
  
  Stand your ground would involve him having to break in to his neighbors house first. Shooting at people driving past your house, no matter how loud their car is or what hour it is, is illegal everywhere in the US.
33. Re:Performance by mjwx · 2018-05-21 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  Tesla seems to take all the fun out of performance. It used to be able oil and gas and the small of exhaust coming out of two dual 2.5" exhaust pipes with a sound that made an indication of how fast it was. Now it's just a really quick golf cart.
  Its worse than that, along with the pomp and pageantry of a properly fast car, they've also made them horrible to drive.
  
  I've driven a Model 3, the steering is wallowy and soft, there is a huge dead zone in the middle of the wheel and to say that it's unresponsive is a huge understatement. It might be able to go fast in a straight line, but forget the corners. A much slower Mazda MX-5 will be seriously outperforming you. For any kind of spirited driving, it is a truly dreadful car to drive.
  
  The Nurburgring, that place that draws much ire from Clarskson and May because it's considered the benchmark for automotive performance. A fast car (as in a modern hyper/super car) goes round in just under 7 minutes. A fast road car does it in under 8 mins. Normal road cars do it in over 9 mins and Sabine Schmitz of Top Gear and D Motor fame took a Ford Transit van around in 10:08. Now what time has the Model 3 posted... Well it hasn't because in order to post a time you need to do a lap, at full chat the batteries in a Model 3 cant last the 3.1 miles of track.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
34. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  I've not read your entire post, just the first couple sentences, but as a motorcycle guy, I promise you for us sport bikes guys, it's all about speed. And electrics don't help with that at all. My bikes acceleration is limited by physics. If I crank it as hard as it can, it'll flip over backwards. Electric bikes won't help that at all. And as for top speed, motorcycles are limited by a gentlemens agreement to not make bikes that go faster than 300kph stock. This is basically to keep regulators of their backs since when they were making bikes that could go faster off the showroom floor for $15k, people started talking about how irresponsible it was. It's a gentlemens agreement that some electric bike manufacturers aren't abiding by and is honestly pissing the rest of the community off. If they get regulators involved and I can no longer easily increase the max speed of my bike, I'm going to be pissed.
35. Re:Performance by rastos1 · 2018-05-21 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Would you kindly blast all that noise into your earplugs and leave the rest of the world in quiet?
36. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  /|\ Found the faggert who can't drive properly.
37. Re:Performance by Jeremi · 2018-05-21 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Nope.. .it's how I can get everyone's attention and who's looking at me?
  This has a good deal of truth to it -- OTOH, winning a competition is also a good way to get everyone's attention. Therefore, in the circumstances where an electric car can outperform traditional ICE cars, it should also gain a following.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
38. Re:Performance by Dragonslicer · 2018-05-21 02:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Tesla seems to take all the fun out of performance. It used to be able oil and gas and the small of exhaust coming out of two dual 2.5" exhaust pipes with a sound that made an indication of how fast it was. Now it's just a really quick golf cart.
  I'm sorry about your penis.
39. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  You neglect to mention sleeper car enthusiasts, quite possibly because you never noticed them. The "sleeper" car enthusiast tends to build fast cars without trying to make excessive noise or being noticed. I have a Toyota inline 6 (2jzgte with 70mm turbo and Megasquirt ECU) swapped into a 1992 Volvo station wagon. The car is also equipped with an exhaust system with electronic baffles to quiet the car down. There are many who build sleepers, IE cars that go fast, but do not look or sound fast.
  Many auto-enthusiasts are into grabbing attention, but there are also many who just want to go fast but could care less about what others think. The Tesla Model S 100d would not sell so well, nor would Mercedes offer an AMG de-badging service, if there weren't sleeper car enthusiasts.
  Once prices go down on electric drive-train parts, I'll probably try to graft an electronic differential to the rear-end of one of my front-wheel drive wagons. Having electric awd and better launches would make for some fun stop-light take offs.
  
  Electric cars (and bikes) just confirm what I always knew.
  Nobody's actually interested in the speed, or the acceleration. What they want to do is make a noise and be loud and "sound" cool.
  Seriously, Harley Davidson could make an electric motorbike that out-accelerates all their other models (they are actually doing that). All the bike enthusiasts I talk to laugh at that idea - they don't even mention "range" or "battery life" (I think they have a hard time saying "battery" to be honest, if it's not full of some environment-destroying fuel, they can't play Mad Max). They just think the idea of something near-silent is counter to why they buy the bike.
  They don't really admit that, but that's all it's ever been about. Not "Hey, I have the faster car". Not "I love the speed". Nope.. .it's how I can get everyone's attention and who's looking at me?
  The cars are the same. Line up a dozen sports cars and nobody will look at the electric model. Even though it will out-accelerate the $200,000 supercar (and let's be honest, any race where you're just at top-speed all the time is boring... an electric car would win in a drag-race, in a rally, on a track, etc.).
  Look at the motor-sports and electric cars don't really figure. Even the "electric formula one" kind of things get zero attention. But hey, put regenerative braking into something and use that to boost the performance, that's okay because it makes a lot of noise still.
  Racing is literally about "who can be noisiest, messiest, cause the most disruption, and nearly trash their car" not "who wins".
  For years, consumer cars have gotten faster and faster, but nobody really notices or thinks it matters, because they've also become quieter and quieter. Everyone drives what would have been a Formula One car back in the sixties, but now those kinds of cars are "granny cars", because they don't make lots of noise.
  Sorry, but all those "car enthusiasts" that I know spend more time polishing and waxing, and bolting on ridiculous addons to their car than they ever do tweaking performance. Hey, unless you get a modchip that makes the car noisier and smokier...
40. Re:Performance by Rei · 2018-05-21 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  That's pretending that oil isn't fungible.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
41. Re:Performance by Rei · 2018-05-21 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  You have not driven a Model 3. And you seem to think people here are idiots.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
42. Re:Performance by Enigma2175 · 2018-05-21 02:53 · Score: 2
  
  Well it hasn't because in order to post a time you need to do a lap, at full chat the batteries in a Model 3 cant last the 3.1 miles of track.
  Do you have a reference for that or are you just a "hater"? I haven't seen any Model 3 times for the Nurburgring but here's an article (complete with video) about a Model 3 doing 9 laps at full speed around Laguna Seca. Laguna Seca is 2.2 miles so that's around 20 miles at full bore on a road course without the car limiting the power, is there a reason to believe that it couldn't do that on the Nurburgring?
  
  --
  Enigma
43. Re:Performance by ledow · 2018-05-21 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  So you already have bikes which are at the top acceleration they can be, and at a speed that all the others are at.
  So... erm... what's the point, exactly? It's surely then NOT all about the speed again.
  It's a bit like Formula One - everything could be very much faster but you're just not allowed to do that and each year the restrictions get tighter, so you're into people winning by 0.001 of a second (i.e. small enough that a light breeze could make all the difference).
  This is the bit that, to me, makes such things very boring indeed. Now, if you said "you can only spend so much" or "you only get a litre of fuel", then it gets interesting again... people can innovate.
  But if an electric bike can go no faster than a petrol bike, because of safety and convention, and all the enthusiasts buy that kind of bike, then what does it matter what bike you have at all?
44. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  I know you were just making a point with the "F1 car from the 60s remark" but just for info, for example a Ferrari 158 has a power to weight ratio double that of an Audi S3. They also weighed nothing so cornered and braked (far) better than a current day road car.
45. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  Re your racing comments: That's because electric cars just can't compete with internal combustion engines, except for certain very specific scenarios. None of the lower-tier FIA motorsports get anywhere near the viewership that F1 does, whether you're talking about Formula E or GP2. Formula E et al are just less interesting to watch -- why would I want to watch a race among drivers that can't quite cut it in the big leagues? The formula E cars are nowhere near as quick as F1 cars and races are shorter due to their more limited range.
  Electric cars are great at accelerating quickly... But they're too heavy to handle well. There's no full-electric in existence that can compete with a similarly-classed ICE. Unless you're only interesting in drag racing, it's really a vehicle's ability to take corners at high speed that wins races, and the extra heft required by electrics just doesn't allow them to compete similarly yet. And they're not even at the top of the acceleration game either -- Wake me up when an electric vehicle competes with the likes of top fuel and can get up to 300 mph in 1/4 mile.
  Watching competitive sports with full-electric vehicles is like going out to watch a T-Ball game.
  I think you've demonstrated that YOU are more interested in sound, and don't understand other people's interest in motorsports or vehicles.
46. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody's actually interested in the speed, or the acceleration.
  I'm actually interested in the acceleration and handling, and am personally looking forward to the day when almost all moderate-traffic stoplight intersections in the United States become traffic circles.
47. Re:Performance by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2018-05-21 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Just FYI - your link is two years old. Cannabis is already legal in Las Vegas.
48. Re:Performance by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2018-05-21 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  All the rest of Nevada, too.
49. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody's actually interested in the speed, or the acceleration.
  But Teslas are extremely popular cars, and speed is a large part of it. This is a large rant based on something we all know isn't true.
  Harley Davidson could make an electric motorbike...
  LOL. Harleys are a joke with good marketing. They are loud and they suck, and I think most bikers would agree.
50. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  and let's be honest, any race where you're just at top-speed all the time is boring... an electric car would win in a drag-race, in a rally, on a track, etc.
  Electric cars have been tested in races, and they do not win currently. Batteries overheat or die before the race ends.
  The German track, Nurburgring, is used as a global benchmark for car performance. The Tesla P100D failed to complete one lap. The track is demanding and ~14 miles long.
51. Re:Performance by plopez · 2018-05-21 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Nice. There's nothing like cruising down the highway just past Tonapah at 155 mph in your Tesla with a hostess next to you, smoking a joint; occasionally taking a sip from a fine craft microbrew; and placing online bets.
  If it just wasn't for those pesky bats.
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
52. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck off, ya old bastard! Imma do donuts in your yard!
53. Re:Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  You just hang with a different crowd. Everyone I know spends their money on control arms, toe-links, camber plates, magnesium wheels, carbon fiber brakes, tires, and adjustable suspension that costs half as much as a lot of new cars. I don't know anyone with a modified exhaust. Sport exhaust is usually alreay stock on the cars I'm thinking of.
  These cars go fast enough to scare, main, and kill, and they do. So that part is covered. More faster is not always more better esp. when you are already going through turn 1 at Laguna at a buck-35.
  And it won't go into limp mode after 2 laps like the Tesla I was behind that one time...
54. Re:Performance by fluffernutter · 2018-05-21 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Cutting the grass is far, far more uncomfortable for me.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:jesus is lord by Rei · 2018-05-20 12:04 · Score: 1

There's only one way to settle this.

--
Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
How about a fucking gauge cluster by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 12:38 · Score: 0

I will not buy a car that puts all needed driving info on the center stack. I need that info in my line of sight.
1. Re:How about a fucking gauge cluster by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-05-20 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's OK - it has Autopilot, so you don't need to keep your eyes on the road, you can stare at the screen as you work your way though the menus and touch panel to select what you want!
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
2. Re:How about a fucking gauge cluster by Rei · 2018-05-20 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile, in the real world, the commonly used functions are on the steering wheel.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
3. Re:How about a fucking gauge cluster by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-05-20 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  Like the wipers?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
4. Re:How about a fucking gauge cluster by whoever57 · 2018-05-20 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  Like the wipers
  Rain-sensing wipers plus individual wash/wipe controlled by a stalk switch. What else do you need?
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
5. Re:How about a fucking gauge cluster by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-20 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  A simple electric car, without everything being controlled by HAL-9000.
6. Re:How about a fucking gauge cluster by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-20 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  Also, having a car where everything stops working if that giant iPad in the middle breaks (and probably costs $2000 to replace) really sucks. And it probably doesn't work if you're wearing winter gloves either. As far as "don't break the screen", try having kids, dogs, carrying lumber front-to-back, etc, etc, etc.
7. Re:How about a fucking gauge cluster by whoever57 · 2018-05-20 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  I assume you don't have a touchscreen phone, do you?
  Technology progresses. The controls that you might need to operate immediately are on the stalks, which, together with the automation means that the touchscreen in the Model 3 works well.
  Someone else commented on the location of the screen. I would refer them to the venerable Mini and many other old cars which only had a central speedometer and controls.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
8. Re:How about a fucking gauge cluster by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-20 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  I paid $100 for my touchscreen phone, making it a disposable item. Far different from a $35000+ car. Break the huge, ugly "iPad" in the middle of a Tesla Model 3? No HVAC controls, no wiper off switch, no radio/Bluetooth, no ... .... ... ...
  The (old and new) Mini's gauge cluster is also mounted far higher on the dash and more forward -- it's much better protected from damage than the Tesla's "free floating" screen that actually protrudes a bit into the driver and passenger spaces.
  If this is "technology" advancing, then all hail King Ludd!
9. Re:How about a fucking gauge cluster by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-20 17:32 · Score: 2
  
  BTW - the Nissan Leaf does the interior thing right, unlike the airy-fairy edgy Model 3. Nice big buttons for gloved hands to be able to use. Small, dash-mounted, well-protected LCD. Important info on a screen in front of the driver
10. Re:How about a fucking gauge cluster by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  Last couple rental cars I had were Chrysler 300Cs, comfy cars but they also doubled down on the touchscreen stupidity to where trying to adjust the heated seats or even change the music was risking an accident given how much time you had to spend navigating menus and hardly any steering wheel controls.
11. Re:How about a fucking gauge cluster by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't the speedometer on the central console and not the steering wheel? I mean, from pulling up some pictures on the interior on google, that's certainly what it looks like. I don't know about you, but for me that's probably the most commonly used function on the driver controls.
12. Re:How about a fucking gauge cluster by Rei · 2018-05-21 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  A speedometer is not a "function". Yes, it's on the upper left of the screen, just beside the wheel.
  I'll take it that you've never driven a car with a central speedo (this isn't even that central). After they get used to the different location, most people love them. Either way you're looking mostly "down", only in the latter it's "down and slightly to the side". But it means the wheel never blocks the speed, and it lets them lower the dash and give a better field of view out the front.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
13. Re:How about a fucking gauge cluster by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-05-21 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Consumer Reports seems to say the control cluster sucks as well...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
One of these days by nehumanuscrede · 2018-05-20 13:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Mr. Musk might realize that the vast majority of folks aren't going to spend nearly $80k on a vehicle that does nothing but depreciate the instant you drive it off the lot. When his vehicles can financially compete with an ICE flavor, we'll talk about it. Until then, no.
Applying the typical 20/4/10 rule of thumb on an $80k car:
20% Down Payment: $16k
Finance Length: $64k for four years @ ~3% = ~$1400 / month
Gross Income Required for 10% rule: > $140,000 / year*
* > because I'm not taking interest and insurance amounts into account.
US Median Income 2015-2016: $57-59k. Relevant because his Model 3 is supposed to
be the affordable model for the masses.
If he doesn't realize it sooner rather than later, his little car project may implode.
It's hilarious just how out of touch with reality the super rich really are . . . . . . :|
1. Re:One of these days by crow · 2018-05-20 13:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So the same proportional numbers give $62K income needed to afford the base $35K model, which is spot on. The performance model isn't designed to be affordable. It's designed to be profitable.
  Of course, you know that, but you want to attack. Too bad your own facts show that the base Model 3 is affordable, just as promised. And that's without taking into account the reduced total cost of ownership for an electric car. And wait three years until you can buy one used for $20K that still drives just like new.
2. Re:One of these days by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-05-20 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  So the same proportional numbers give $62K income needed to afford the base $35K model, which is spot on.
  So when do those affordable base models start shipping?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
3. Re:One of these days by Kjella · 2018-05-20 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  The average price of a new car is $36k, Model 3 starts at $35k. If selling to >50% of the market is not mainstream, well then the problem is you.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
4. Re:One of these days by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2018-05-20 14:12 · Score: 2
  
  It's hilarious just how out of touch with reality the super rich really are . . . . . . :|
  Most super rich are out of touch with reality. Musk is also out of touch with reality but in a different sense in a different plane. I mean how many super rich would think of landing a rocket back vertically? Then do it?
  What is even more hilarious is jobless people with enough idle time to gas about in slashdot think they know more than Musk.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
5. Re:One of these days by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2018-05-20 14:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Looks like fourth quarter shipping will be largely base model 3. Third quarter will be residual first production orders. 2019 first quarter on, it would be premium AWD models coming into the mix. So we should see about 50,000 base model 3s this year.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
6. Re:One of these days by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 14:21 · Score: 0
  
  Mr. Musk might realize that the vast majority of folks aren't going to spend nearly $80k on a vehicle that does nothing but depreciate the instant you drive it off the lot.
  Every single car ever made does this, ICE or not. What's your point?
7. Re:One of these days by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 15:05 · Score: 0
  
  You're forgetting the miracle of government backed financing. Sure, not many people can afford this, but that won't stop them.
8. Re:One of these days by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 15:23 · Score: 0
  
  Average price doesn’t represent 50% of the market retard. Learn what medium price is dumbass.
9. Re:One of these days by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 15:41 · Score: 0
  
  Model 3 starts at $35k.
  After the reservation fee and 7.5k in free government money which is disappearing soon.
  That 35k becomes 43.5k for a bare-bones model with no options and a very long wait time.
  It would be better for the environment if those tax incentives were given to the poor for their clunkers to get off the road, but wealthier people want their electric toys instead.
10. Re:One of these days by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-20 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the "clunkers" should keep clunking for as long as possible. 2/3 to 3/4 of the energy cost of a car is building a new one. But if people are buying new cars anyway, they may as well be electric.
11. Re:One of these days by Peter+P+Peters · 2018-05-20 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  Most super rich are out of touch with reality.
  Yet they are super rich. What does that tell about the value of keeping things real?
12. Re:One of these days by Bert64 · 2018-05-20 16:41 · Score: 2
  
  A clunker that does very few miles is better for the environment than a new car...
  A LOT of resources are consumed to manufacture a car, for an old clunker that's a sunk cost.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
13. Re:One of these days by Trogre · 2018-05-20 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  Or the other EV's out there that sell for a fraction of that price.
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
14. Re:One of these days by AmiMoJo · 2018-05-20 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair super rich Jeff Bezos landed a rocket vertically a few weeks before Tesla did. In fact the idea goes back to the 1950s at least, and was considered for Apollo.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
15. Re:One of these days by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 21:51 · Score: 0
  
  You're complaining about cars in general... People that buy new are rubes.
16. Re:One of these days by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2018-05-20 23:19 · Score: 2
  
  a vehicle that does nothing but depreciate the instant you drive it off the lot
  As opposed to...? Hilariously, though...
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
17. Re:One of these days by drinkypoo · 2018-05-20 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  Mr. Musk might realize that the vast majority of folks
  He doesn't need the majority of folks, he can already sell more cars than he can deliver.
  
  It's hilarious just how out of touch with reality the super rich really are . . . . . . :|
  ^ irony
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
18. Re:One of these days by drinkypoo · 2018-05-20 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  A clunker that does very few miles is better for the environment than a new car...
  A LOT of resources are consumed to manufacture a car, for an old clunker that's a sunk cost.
  One-third or less of an automobile's lifetime energy consumption is in its production. Further, automakers can choose to get some of that energy from renewable sources, which reduces their ecological impact.
  I'm all for (and about) maintaining older vehicles, but newer vehicles tend to be so much more efficient that it doesn't make sense from an environmental standpoint to keep them more than about a decade, tops. The average age of the US fleet is now up to something like 11.7 years, and it continues to rise. This is a leading indicator of economic health, and it's not a good one, but that's another subject. It's also not best for our personal, medical health — since the newest cars have the most emissions equipment.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
19. Re:One of these days by thegarbz · 2018-05-21 00:41 · Score: 2
  
  Mr. Musk might realize that the vast majority of folks aren't going to spend nearly $80k on a vehicle that does nothing but depreciate the instant you drive it off the lot.
  Given how he's unable to keep up with demand for said very expensive vehicles I think you couldn't be more wrong.
20. Re:One of these days by jawtheshark · 2018-05-21 01:44 · Score: 2
  
  newer vehicles tend to be so much more efficient that it doesn't make sense from an environmental standpoint to keep them more than about a decade
  Is that so? My Audi TT, 1.8T from 2000 (with 363000km on the counter) gets about 8.5 l/100km, when driving reasonably. My wifes brand new (december 2017) Audi A4 1.4TFSI gets something like 7.5l100km, and it is an a dual clutch automatic that is tuned for low consumption in D-mode. It also has stop/start system. Mine is manual and has virtually no electronic toys and/or assistance systems.
  Is 7.5 l/100km really "so much more efficient" than 8.5 l/100km?!?
  
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
21. Re:One of these days by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-21 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  Base price for a model3 is $60000. They won’t sell you one for less.
22. Re:One of these days by crow · 2018-05-21 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  No, base price shipping today is $49,000 (plus $1000 destination fee), so $50,000. I have no idea where you're getting the extra $10K.
  They should have the base price at $35,000 (plus destination fee) before the end of the year.
23. Re:One of these days by Cederic · 2018-05-21 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  One-third or less of an automobile's lifetime energy consumption is in its production.
  
  Unless you start throwing away perfectly functional vehicles because they're not shiny and new any more.
24. Re: One of these days by Ost99 · 2018-05-21 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  The base model 3 is supposed to be $35k before the tax rebate.
  
  --
  ---- Sig. gone.
25. Re:One of these days by Cederic · 2018-05-21 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Even at today's inflated fuel prices, that's 700 quid over the lifetime to date of my current car.
  Given I can get 50% higher fuel economy just by changing my driving style I think your challenge is extremely reasonable.
26. Re:One of these days by drinkypoo · 2018-05-21 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  So when do those affordable base models start shipping?
  They don't become really affordable until they're used. Most people don't buy new cars. One can expect Model 3s to hold pretty much all their value until Musk can clear his substantial production backlog though, which is another excellent reason to justify their purchase.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
27. Re:One of these days by drinkypoo · 2018-05-21 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you start throwing away perfectly functional vehicles because they're not shiny and new any more.
  They might be perfectly functional and yet it might still be better for the environment to replace them. Besides, used vehicles don't just get thrown away, as a rule; while a few people did dispose of valuable vehicles during "Cash for Clunkers" as a rule if a vehicle is worth much, it gets sold on whether you sell it to a wrecking yard or to a private party. Rebuildable, valuable vehicles sold to wreckers just get put out front (and/or on the internet) as "builders".
  If someone replaces a car just a few years old with a newer car because they want something shinier, then their car gets sold to someone else who has an older car, and maybe their car gets sold down to someone else who has a still older car yet. All of these people are now improving their emissions, so the positive impact is potentially substantial.
  There's a limit to the rate at which the used market can absorb vehicles, and that moderates purchasing habits by affecting resale values, so the system is reasonably self-regulating. And since the US fleet is at literally an all-time record age (which has been getting older for years now) we can be assured that the rate of turnover is slowing, not increasing.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
28. Re:One of these days by Bert64 · 2018-05-30 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  The TT is a smaller vehicle than an A4...
  Although modern cars also carry a lot more weight around than older ones, which offsets some of the efficiency gains made with the engines and drivetrain.
  But the cost difference to purchase a 2000 TT vs a 2017 A4 is quite high, and a 2000 model car will have already suffered most of its depreciation. You'd have to drive quite a lot for the fuel cost to exceed the difference in purchase cost.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
29. Re:One of these days by jawtheshark · 2018-05-30 20:05 · Score: 1
  Oh, I knew someone would come up with the weight/size thing. Thing is: you're wrong.
  
  Audi TT, 2000 - 1465kg
  Audi A4, 2017 - 1445kg
  
  Yes, these are the exact cars we have.... Correct engine, correct body type. Surprise! The TT is heavier! (Maily due to the haldex system, but that is of no concern for this discussion)
  You have to understand that the Audi range below the A6 (and the TT is basically an A3. Don't kid yourself) are all very very similar in pretty all aspects. That is the a reason I allowed this comparison, but then I am quite familiar with their lineup.
  As for the cost, well, we bought them both new. You'd also be surprised to hear that the Audi TT was 35000€ (full option) new in 2000, and the Audi A4 was 42000€ in autumn last year. Adjusted for inflation, for my country the Audi TT would cost about 50000€. More expensive, but not in a shocking way. Given the A4 has 150HP, and the TT has 225HP, we'd need to adjust the A4 to an +200HP engine. Base price of the A4 Avant S-Tronic 150HP (what my wife has): 35850€. Base price of the A4 Avant S-Tronic 2.0 TFSI S-tronic iwth 252HP: 44000,00€. (Neither being Quattro, which the TT is... well kinda, again: Haldex system) The difference between the two models (assuming all options remain equal): 8150€. Needless to point out that this would elevate the price of the A4 to the inflation adjusted price of the TT.
  TL;DR: the cars are a totally valid comparison.
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
30. Re:One of these days by Bert64 · 2018-05-31 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  My point about the purchase price was if you were to purchase them now... A 2017 A4 is only a year old and will still retain most of its value, a 2000 TT will be quite cheap at this point.
  All else being equal a TT should be lighter than an A4 as you point out it's basically an A3, assuming the same year and equivalent drivetrain options... I would assume that a 2017 TT should weigh less than your A4.
  A better comparison would be between a 2000 and 2017 TT...
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
31. Re:One of these days by jawtheshark · 2018-05-31 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously. Stop assuming things: current model TT is 1515kg.
  
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
SR battery meaning by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 13:09 · Score: 1

SR battery seems to mean standard range as compared with LR meaning long range. Tim S.
1. Re:SR battery meaning by Rei · 2018-05-20 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  This is correct.
  
  --
  Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
We know we are paying more. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2018-05-20 14:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

The 35 K car is the promise. We Tesla backers know it is going to be very barely profitable to sell that car. So we understand Tesla has to make profits from the people who are willing to pay more. I cheered on the X and S owners as people who are paving the way for me to get my affordable Tesla. When it came within striking range, I too stepped in and got a model 3 at 55K on the road.
"Premium" interior (in any color I want as long as it is black) that gives me open pore wood trim and two more USB ports? For 5K? If any ICE car dealer pushed that option I would laugh at him so derisively he would cringe. Here I forked over the cash for obviously over priced profit center knowingly and willingly. That is my bit for the 35K for the masses.
AWD at 78K is outrageous in some sense. Electric dual motor AWD is so much simpler than the transfer case, locking differential, dual drive axle ICE AWD trans. ICE AWD is just 3 or 4 K more, and they make a good profit on that. Electric is just one more motor and all the rest is software. It should not cost more than 600$, and it would sell for 1000$ more in normal circumstances, if there are enough electric cars on the market giving competitive pressure. But... as it stands now, Tesla can bundle it with mauve interior and pink wheels and a unicorn hood ornament and price it at 78K. And there are lots of people willing pay. I see it as a good thing. Make as much profit as possible, amortize the factory, pay off the fixed costs, so that some day we can have a really affordable electric car for the people.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:We know we are paying more. by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-05-20 15:56 · Score: 2
  
  We Tesla backers know it is going to be very barely profitable to sell that car. So we understand Tesla has to make profits from the people who are willing to pay more.
  Well, you're more honest than most. You knew that the Model 3 program was set up to be untenable from the beginning, and that the only way for Elon to even try to balance things out was to make people like you feel good about overpaying for upgrades that you know full well you're overpaying for . Not to line Elon's pocketbook, of course, but for the good of humanity. Because humanity needs Teslas.
  Every day that goes by this whole thing has more and more freakish cult overtones to it.
2. Re:We know we are paying more. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  Because humanity needs Teslas.
  Not Teslas specifically. But we need decent electric cars. Tesla are doing their best to deliver that and as a byproduct providing competitive pressure for other manufacturers to do so.
3. Re:We know we are paying more. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2018-05-20 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  I was very excited to hear about BMW i3. I was ready to buy it at 45K for a 100 mile range +a limp home ICE car. BMW talent scouts snagge expats from Mattel and Fisher Price to design their car.
  Leaf? Very optimistic and terrible over estimate of range. Billed as 125 miles, it barely delivers 90, on a good day. Contrast this with Tesla that gave me 93 miles on a estimated 91 miles of charge yesterday.
  People report a nagging suspicion M3 LR is more than 310 miles, it seems to be software limited to 75 kWh. EPA estimate was 345 miles, and it is being sold as a 310 mile battery.
  A truly committed EV maker will force rest of the industry to deliver EV. That is why I am paying more knowingly. I have quite a few friends, call them fellow bleeding hearts if you want to, who have done the same.
  Funny thing is, if we bleeding heart liberals spend our money on what we like, it is laugh worthy. If gun nuts stock up on ammo after every school shooting or if corporations spend influencing elections, "Freedom of speech, money is speech". I see you equally laugh worthy.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
4. Re:We know we are paying more. by thegarbz · 2018-05-21 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  AWD at 78K is outrageous in some sense
  Huh? AWD costs $5000, perfectly reasonable, and incredible given the performance increase you get.
  What you get for $78k is all the premium options ticked. A car internally more like a Jaguar than little (by American standards) family town car.
5. Re:We know we are paying more. by 110010001000 · 2018-05-21 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  The Nissan Leaf is $30k. What are you "backing"? Other companies are already producing affordable EV's.
6. Re:We know we are paying more. by drinkypoo · 2018-05-21 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  "Premium" interior (in any color I want as long as it is black) that gives me open pore wood trim
  Ugh. Wood trim is more trouble than it's worth, no matter what you do or don't do to it. Sealing it eventually leads to it delaminating, and not sealing it leads to it being dirty. I want to swap my A8 pleather/wood over to S8 Alcantara/CF, bad.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
7. Re:We know we are paying more. by djinn6 · 2018-05-21 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  A truly committed EV maker will force rest of the industry to deliver EV. That is why I am paying more knowingly. I have quite a few friends, call them fellow bleeding hearts if you want to, who have done the same. Funny thing is, if we bleeding heart liberals spend our money on what we like, it is laugh worthy.
  It's not so much "laugh worthy" as concerning. Any American driving a gasoline car can look across the pond and see exactly how far liberals will go to force it on everyone. They have very high gas taxes, highway tolls, license and registration fees, and VAT. Basically, they make it impossible for the poorer folks to drive anywhere, all in the name of being green.
  
  When EVs become a significant part of the market, you can bet the liberals will try to ban gasoline cars. That's great for people like you (and me) who can afford them and no longer have to deal with the pollution, but it's terrible for people who can't.
  
  Personally speaking, I don't think the current crop of electric vehicles has better utility than my much cheaper gas car, so I'm holding off for now.
Re:Low cost, affordable by Rei · 2018-05-20 14:15 · Score: 1

I have trouble seeing why people would choose a base S over a performance 3. Faster, lighter, can do sustained track duty, more efficient (aka, more range per minute spent supercharging), longer range, etc, etc. I guess if you need the S's extra cargo room... Or maybe if you were a courier and wanted that unlimited mileage warranty...

--
Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
Re:jesus is lord by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 14:21 · Score: 0

And only chris can bring delusion perfectly.
Creimy Dumpty sat on the wall,
Creimy Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses
And all the king's men
Couldn't put Creimy Dumpty
Together again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Chris: here is an IQ test for you: please tell us what is the difference between the first half and the second half of the video?
P.S. That video is really funny anyway, it's like watching you stumbling over and over again. Of course, with 434,000,000+ views and 12,000,000+ subscribers, it is a different ball park than the one you are used to be into.
Tax credit means less when min config is 47K by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-20 15:14 · Score: 2, Informative

The initially adevertised 35K trim was never shipped. Now Tesla is trying to get people to buy a 57K Model3, at least at the Colorado Cherry Creek dealer I visited last week.
1. Re:Tax credit means less when min config is 47K by greg_robson · 2018-05-21 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  It was never going to be shipped first.
  The 57K model is reckoned to have a 20-25% profit margin by external observers. Elon has stated they are working on these to guarantee a healthy cash flow while they increase production volume before bringing in the lower priced specification model 3.
  25% of 35K gives less margin for slower production affecting costs and Tesla would be foolish to not know that the first production line can handle a steady 5,000–6,000 a week before committing to a lower profit (by magnitude) car.
  https://electrek.co/2018/05/21...
Re:Low cost, affordable by whoever57 · 2018-05-20 15:15 · Score: 1

I have trouble seeing why people would choose a base S over a performance 3
1. Larger. More room.
2. Better storage. The trunk liftgate allows more luggage, dogs, etc. in the back.
3. Most Model S buyers don't care about price.
Yes, the Model 3 will cannibalize low end Model S sales, but I think you will see the minimum configuration of a Model S become more expensive.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
How does it not compete? by SuperKendall · 2018-05-20 15:35 · Score: 1

I probably wouldn't buy an $80k car, but to claim this car "does not compete" with ICE cars is absurd.
It accelerates faster than ICE cars around the same price.
It also probably handles better than most of the iCE cars around the same price.
It even has around the same range (maybe better) than ICE cars around the same price.
You go into financing details which are true of ANY $80k car, you do absolutely northing to back up your ignorant claim.
If I were looking at $80k cars, why would this car not be at the top of my list? From everything we know right now, it would be. That is plainly competing.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ludicrous Mode? by Stele · 2018-05-21 02:59 · Score: 1

Which package offers Ludicrous Mode?
Bottle of "old car smell" and vroom vroom MP3s by drnb · 2018-05-21 06:40 · Score: 1

Tesla seems to take all the fun out of performance. It used to be able oil and gas and the small of exhaust coming out of two dual 2.5" exhaust pipes with a sound that made an indication of how fast it was. Now it's just a really quick golf cart.
An over the air software update can fix that, they can play "vroom vroom" noises on the cabin speakers.

Add a bottle of "old car smell" spray and you can have your oil/gas/exhaust odors too.
Over 60% of electricity comes from fossil fuels by drnb · 2018-05-21 06:46 · Score: 1

Still, electricity from clean sources like wind, hydro, solar, and nuclear (yes, nuclear) is cleaner than burning any fossil fools like oil or natural gas.
In the US over 60% of electricity comes from fossil fuels, including 30% from coal. Renewables only account for 17%.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs...