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.
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...
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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....
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
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
(Ed: actually, probably more like late 2019... but still..)
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.
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...
Meanwhile, in the real world, the commonly used functions are on the steering wheel.
Haha, apropos :)
You're cute. :)
And by the way, just so you know, Toyota sold off a large chunk of the equipment at NUMMI:
And transferred most of the rest:
Tesla bought the small amount that was left over at the plant, about $15m worth (which is almost nothing in the automotive industry).
What part of "it's been entire retooled for Tesla's vehicles and greatly expanded" was difficult for you?
You're totally right. Tesla should have made Pontiac Vibes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow, a company that is not pouring everything it gets and then some into expansion is paying dividends? You don't say!
Hey, the 10-year-old "Tesla Deathwatch" called, they want you to write a column for them.
This is correct.
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.
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?
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....
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)
Nice non sequitur. And beyond that, I doubt you've ever even seen a Model 3. Or talked to anyone who owns one.
Rolls-Royce doesn't have a waiting list of nearly half a million people.
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
AWD LR is 4,5s. But LR is 0,4s faster than SR to begin with.
I guess we'll find out :)
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.
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.
There's only one way to settle this.
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!)
Video not available here :P What's in it?
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.
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.