
Model 3 Mid Range Battery Available - arturogarrido
https://3.tesla.com/model3/design?#battery
======
krrrh
Just in case anyone is wondering how this plays out pricewise, the base model
is $46.2k, but they headline the price as $33.2k:

Price $45,000

Incentives: -$7,500

Gasoline savings: -$4,300

Price after savings: $33,200

Destination & doc fee: $1,200

It's rather disappointing that for all the talk from Tesla about disrupting
the way people buy cars they maintain nonsense practices like adding on
destination and doc fees, and add new ones like working gasoline savings into
the displayed price.

~~~
zeroxfe
I kinda get you, but just because there's a bunch of marketing gibberish on
the pricing page doesn't mean they aren't being disruptive.

~~~
RL_Quine
I think part of the point of being disruptive is that you don't need to sink
that low.

~~~
greglindahl
The iPhone disrupted the phone buying process, and still showed you a
discounted price, after phone carrier subsidy.

------
imladyboy
It also appears they have removed the option for purchasing the "Full Self
Driving" functionality.

~~~
tbabb
Quite sensibly. It seemed pretty shady to me to charge customers for a feature
that wasn't delivered or legally approved or likely even finished.

I suspect they're finding the shipped hardware isn't enough to accomplish what
they want with the necessary reliability. Elon has already hinted that shipped
3's will need a computer upgrade to support full self-driving. They are
probably wisely backing off on guaranteeing full self-driving on hardware that
hasn't been proven to succeed to specification.

Total speculation, but I'd bet a chocolate chip cookie that they'll find they
need to make changes to the sensor array as well. (If I were designing this
from scratch, I'd want a wide stereoscopic baseline between cameras for
optical ranging. They have multiple cameras, but they are narrowly spaced, and
may have fields of view that differ too much for stereoscopic fusion. I'd aim
for "larger number of shittier/cheaper cameras.")

~~~
teej
> It seemed pretty shady to me to charge customers for a feature that wasn't
> delivered or legally approved or likely even finished

It's still available for the Model X and Model S. The disclosure when you pay
for it is very clear. They are not acting sketchy when they sell it to you.
I'd guess it has more to do with not enough people ordering it, so removing
the option streamlines fulfillment.

> I suspect they're finding the shipped hardware isn't enough to accomplish
> what they want with the necessary reliability.

Yeah they already admitted to this. Anyone who has paid for full self driving
is getting a Hardware 3.0 (HW3) upgrade for free. They said full self driving
will require HW3.

> Total speculation, but I'd bet a chocolate chip cookie that they'll find
> they need to make changes to the sensor array as well.

Yeah, as an owner I'm pretty worried that will be the case but I guess we will
see. I doubt they will admit to this publicly though - they seem adamant that
the sensors today should be sufficient.

~~~
tbabb
> The disclosure when you pay for it is very clear.

IMO their marketing probably leads customers to be more optimistic about the
expected payout of their $x,000 investment than is justified. Though that is
not necessarily deliberate deception, they may be unrealistically optimistic
themselves.

Misleading marketing or not, I'd say it's sketchy in the sense that it's an
over-promise. If they eventually have to face a reality where their hardware
doesn't it cut it, they might be on the hook for thousands of customers'
respective thousands of dollars of pre-orders, which is a huge capital
liability. Quite possibly 10 figures.

------
asaph
This is neither the short range battery (220 miles, $35k base price) or the
long range battery (310 miles, $49k base price). This is a 3rd option: mid-
range battery (260 miles, $45k base price).

~~~
gaius
Are these all not physically the same battery and the range is a software
unlock? ISTR Tesla unlocking the additional range for free last time when
there were storms in Texas.

------
elihu
> Model 3 Mid Range Rear-Wheel Drive $45,000

> Incentives - $10,000

> Gas Savings- $4,300

> Price after Est. Savings $30,700

This is good news, but it's still not the $35,000 model.

Also, what's the breakdown on the incentives? I thought the federal rebate was
$7500 if they haven't run out of those yet. Are they including state rebates
(which presumably aren't the same everywhere)?

Including "gas savings" in the price seems more than a little disingenuous.

~~~
mynameisvlad
Yes, they likely are. I only see $7500 as my incentives line. You can click
"Learn more" in the Federal Tax Credit blurb to get more info on the
incentives, it might include state information.

I assume the 35000 model is the "Standard Battery available in 4-6 months"
that's below the options.

~~~
elihu
You're right, they're including a $2,500 California rebate.

------
shaftway
It looks like they've removed the long range single motor option. It used to
be

\- Long range single motor: $49,000

\- Long range dual motor: $54,000

\- Long range performance: $64,000

Now it's:

\- Mid range single motor: $45,000

\- Long range dual motor: $54,000

\- Long range performance: $64,000

So it looks like a savings of $4,000 off the older long range single motor.

~~~
kennysmoothx
The RWD LR model 3 was my go-to and the one I was considering.

With this change, they have now essentially replaced that model with one that
has 50 mile less range.

Now the long range version looks so much less appealing as the price is now
over $60k($5,000 more for entry LR) for an AWD upgrade I have absolute no use
for.

reply

~~~
shaftway
I'm the opposite direction. I got a RWD LR model 3, but I hardly ever drive
it. And when I do it's all local stuff, well under 100 miles per day. I'd
rather have saved the $4,000 and gotten a mid-range.

If someone approached me and offered to trade their mid-range + $3,500 for my
long-range, I'd happily take that deal.

------
codeulike
This has 260 mile range, and the webpage says 'Standard battery available in 4
to 6 months' so this still isn't the $35k Tesla. Its a sort of in-the-middle
option.

Long Range > Mid Range > Standard

------
RivieraKid
They've probably exhausted RWD demand backlog so I wouldn't be surprised if
this was (initially)a software-limited long range battery, so that they can
sell their RWD inventory.

~~~
wemdyjreichert
That would be incredibly environmentally irresponsible, considering the impact
of mining lithium, cobalt, rare earths etc. You'd basically be wasting limited
resources, which would run contrary to Tesla's stated mission of creating a
more sustainable future.

~~~
njarboe
My guess is that all the battery is used and the extra capacity allows for a
"full" charge without really getting full. It could also let the range stay at
the original level for a lot longer as the battery deteriorates. I would hope
so anyway.

------
Sohcahtoa82
I just noticed they're now advertising the 0-60 of the performance trim as 3.3
seconds. Only a week or so ago, they were advertising 3.5 seconds.

I might have to test drive one soon. My wife is strongly disapproving me
getting a Roadster in a few years. If I find that 0-60 in 3.3 seconds is
enough, I might settle for a Model 3.

EDIT: They also removed the option to purchase full self-driving.
Interesting...

~~~
r00fus
3.3 is pretty dang fast. People sometimes complain about how fast my budget EV
(hint: not a tesla) accelerates when I drive them around.

I test drove a 90D and the acceleration off the line is heart-stopping. And
that is listed at 4.7s.

~~~
Sohcahtoa82
I've been on roller coasters that launch from 0 to 120 mph in 3.8 seconds,
which is quicker than a Roadster 2.0. I rode it enough times that even that
kind of acceleration no longer felt mind-blowing.

I'm worried that getting a car that does 0-60 in 3.3 would actually feel
somewhat underwhelming considering that I'm, I guess "calibrated", for
something quicker. Maybe I'd feel different though when I'm in control with
the power at my command.

I'll probably test drive a Model 3 next year.

------
trizic
It's still $45k, now we will have to wait for the non-premium interior option
for the $35k price.

EDIT: $40k price since it seems that there will be a smaller battery than
this. Seems like a good way to make more money when people wanting the smaller
range battery get tired of waiting.

------
asaph
Enhanced autopilot is now $5k up front or $6k later. It used to be $4k up
front or $5k later.

------
borkt
I really can't bring myself to buy a new car but this would be about the most
enticing. Even if I were wealthy I would probably still buy used cars (and my
hobby is racing so it is not as if I don't appreciate cars).

~~~
nukleosome
at high 'racing' speeds, perhaps you should be aware that it doesn't have the
best aerodynamics for road-holding (i.e. negative lift or downforce). also
many people have reported some vibration issues that couldn't be resolved;
[https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/vibration-high-
speeds](https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/vibration-high-speeds)

~~~
r00fus
Can you kindly recommend a good $40k-ish car that actually generates
downforce?

~~~
nukleosome
BMW 3 series or Golf GTI - tried both on max speed. super stable.

------
hartator
$6,000 for auto-pilot? When the sensors are already in all cars? Can I run my
own models à la comma.ai?

~~~
hughes
Do you honestly think the biggest cost associated with this program is the
sensors?

~~~
hartator
If it's only a software update, when most of ML efforts are open sourced, I
don't see why I can't install my own solution.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _I don 't see why I can't install my own solution_

You'd kill yourself and become Tesla's PR problem.

~~~
hartator
comma.ai seemed safe, technically is no different in term of softwares used.
Tesla auto-pilot did kill more than 10 people now. Why pay for something that
might be inferior than the free one?

------
SEJeff
This is mostly the end game of Elon's Tesla Master plan:

[https://solartribune.com/master-plan/](https://solartribune.com/master-plan/)

~~~
ruytlm
Regarding one of the last points in that, I continue to be baffled by
Elon/Tesla's focus on shared personal vehicles, instead of public transport.

~~~
njarboe
I continue to be baffled why people are baffled that most people prefer not to
travel in cramped, enclosed spaces with random strangers and without the
option to carry more than what you can hold in your hands. Sometimes people
even have more than one small child with them. Is that really so hard to
understand? The personal transport vehicle has been desirable from the
beginning of time and now (almost) everyone can afford one. The big downsides
are traffic congestion and space taken up with parking and roads. Those can be
almost completely mitigated with cheap tunneling tech and automatic driving.
Musk and friends are serious working on both of those projects also.

~~~
ruytlm
>I continue to be baffled why people are baffled that most people prefer not
to travel in cramped, enclosed spaces with random strangers and without the
option to carry more than what you can hold in your hands.

Transport is typically supply-led.

For roads, more roads encourage more drivers, and more drivers congest the
system, leading to marginal overall improvement - there are only so many cars
that can travel a stretch of road in any given period of time.

While with public transport there are also only so many buses/trains that can
travel a stretch of road/rail at a time, we are typically well short of
saturation - outside of some of the densest metros, there is often capacity
for increasing the number of services. Investment in these forms of transport
increases frequency and reliability, and simplifies connections. The
'downside' is that this increased efficiency tends to attract more users to
the public transport system - which yes, means imperfect reduction of
crowding, but still significantly improved throughput.

Also, the people on public transport are not 'random strangers', they are
members of your community.

Re carrying, as a sibling comment says: backpack. Alternatively one of those
granny trolleys. Plus, many buses/trains intended for longer transport (c.f.
commuting) have luggage racks.

~~~
njarboe
"More roads encourage more drivers"

Roads allow more people to do what they want to do. If we can eliminate the
bad things about individually controlled transport (road noise, inefficient
petroleum based power, huge parking lots, etc) why should we not let people
have this great thing they desire. Are you anti-democratic?

Driving is not free. It takes time and money for gas and wears out your
vehicle. People don't (generally) just drive around for the hell of it,
especially at commute times when the roads a most full.

"the people on public transport are not 'random strangers', they are members
of your community"

This I think is the main reason some people want public transportation to be
mandatory. Somehow being forced to be with other people (who are all on their
phones, desperately pretending no one else exists) is a good thing? Standing
up for 40 minutes packed, hot, and smelly. Occasionally aggressive beggars;
homeless people who stink up the entire train car sleeping; mentally ill
people yelling at the ether, etc. Not all the time but at least once a month
if you are a commuter. I guess it is a cool experience to have to see how the
other half live, but a some point many people don't desire such things.

"backpack"

For the human race to continue, each couple must have greater than 2 children.
Try taking 3 children under the age of ten by your self, walking to a bus
stop, getting on the bus, getting on BART, walking to the doctors appointment,
and then back again. Basically impossible.

------
asaph
RWD base price is $33,200 (after incentives), even less than the long quoted
base price of $35k, though presumably incentives on the standard battery Model
3 (not yet available) would make the after incentives price even cheaper.

~~~
mynameisvlad
Only if you get the car before December 31st. With a 6-10 week turnaround,
you'd have to buy it now and hope you're lucky, but cutting it close either
way. And even then, it's not 33200, it's actually $37500 because of "potential
gas savings".

From Jan 1 to Jun 30, it'll be $41240 and from Jul 1 to Dec 31 2019, it'll be
$43125. As of Jan 1 2020, there'll be no more federal tax credit and the car
will be full price at $45000.

