How can a company go from closing almost all their stores, to reversing that decision in a week. How was that initial decision made in the first place? Was it Elon Musk snapping his fingers like Thanos? And then to turn it around in less than week shows a complete misread of the situation. Whoever made that initial decision should be fired, including Elon Musk.
I think Elon Musk has great vision, but he is in over his head with running and growing the company. He needs to hand the reins over to something who is better at this than he is. His behavior, including calling a person a pedophile, tweeting about going private, and fighting the SEC over Twitter shows a person who is mentally unfit to be a CEO. This last decision really cements it, and the company, employees and shareholders could truly suffer going forward if he continues as CEO.
Have you considered that maybe they're actually on a roll and doing just fine and this is mostly just tiresome media noise?
1) TESLA, not the media, were the ones they said they were closing ALL their retail stores, _a week ago_ - is this not newsworthy?
2) TESLA, not the media, were the ones who said they're now NOT closing retail stores open, _a week later_ - is this also not newsworthy?
If so, what makes them so trivial?
But the fact that you wrote this very comment tell us you want to.
So what really is there to complain about their PR strategy?
Haven't read anything there for a while.
The TTAC death watch is here:
... and did he even think of the people working there?
What about the MASSIVE investment they've made in that space?
So you're an employee working at these locations and you're comfortable with your job security? I don't think so!
Here's my take: He has committed himself to a goal that he views as essential to the survival of humanity. Thus in his zealousness, he will sacrifice anything, especially actual humans, to accomplish his "goal".
There was a time when I believed in his goal, but I've long since seen that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. He's happy to let Tesla factory workers injure and overwork themselves without fair representation. He views working at Tesla as analogous to "being in the special forces" (translation: sacrifice your life without fair compensation, then get thrown away when it suits him).
The inability of Tesla to remove Musk from power merely confirms the obvious fact that he stacked the board with yes-men. I have nothing but disgust for the army of Tesla fanboys who claim any valid criticism is really just FUD spread by shorts.
A bit hyperbolic, though the fact remains that he should consider strongly handing off the reins to a capable and trusted lieutenant (take a look at SpaceX - probably closer to his heart but run competently by Shotwell).
How about: he has committed himself to his ego, and his image as modern day industrialist/playboy Tony Stark?
So, from _his ego's perspective_, what he is doing is for the salvation of humanity. And thus any sacrifice is warranted.
Elon's goals are fairly well publicised.
If you do not agree with them you're not being forced to work or continue working there.
I for one whole heartedly support his approach to change....if not for Musk then who? I suspect it wouldn't be hard to make the case that if not for Tesla the electric car space would be years behind where it is today.
Can we have a take that doesn't start with "Elon is the messiah"?
Isn't it obvious that I don't share his way of thinking? (At least anymore)
That doesn't exactly smack of "sacrifice anything" - although you could modify your theory to some kind of cult leader-type complex, willing to sacrifice anyone else to the cause whilst having a good time themselves and it might fit quite well.
citation? what are you referring to here?
From his performance on Joe Rogan's podcast, it seems he doesn't really even know how to smoke marijuana.
If you want job security, work for a more traditional company that makes money doing something a little more mundane.
Given the flip-flopping, I'm unsure how much we can assume they understand.
Even if it was that, seems risky to want to do it knowing it's going to make you look more broadly.
This is how the conversation with the landlord would probably go:
Tesla: We're going to close our store in your mall.
Landlord: Good luck with that. Next month's rent is due in a week.
Tesla: But we're closing our store...
Landlord: You signed a multi-year lease without an early cancellation clause. I don't care if you're closing the store, you still owe me rent for the remainder of the lease. You can pay it as due or buy out your for X% of the aggregate remaining amount. [where X is some obscenely large percentage approaching 100% because the landlord has Tesla over a barrel and doesn't need to offer a discount].
Apple/Nike/Target, sure. Tesla, no.
At least he isn't running a country.
This is a company which has outperformed every possible expectation since the day Elon showed up, and part of that formula from the beginning has been the agility to about-face and react quickly to new data.
Some people say we need Elon out and “adult supervision” is required. Or maybe, “adult supervision” is where a company dead set on making the impossible a reality goes to die.
We don’t know what new data has come to light since their public announcement. The landlords threatened to sue to prevent Tesla from breaking their leases. Maybe the employees were planning some action? Maybe there was some groundswell of customer feedback on the new test drive model.
Maybe the announcement is the best way to truly gauge public feedback on a course of action, and a company that can quickly gauge that reaction and alter course instead of plowing ahead against the data just because they already publically committed has a huge competitive advantage.
Tesla is attempted to do something entirely novel and would be the first ever to succeed at it if they pull off this sales model. Fits and starts are to be expected and calling for heads to roll because of quick adjustments in strategy I think is exactly opposite from of reaction.
It's been just a week since the announcement. The only new data that could have come out in that time frame is data on the order of "you should have predicted this" (or explosive revelations that were being held for this sort of announcement, which we would have heard about already and have not). In other words, it means that the original plan was based on incomplete data, and it does not reflect well on the CEO, or whomever was in charge of the final decision, that they were making such a major decision in ignorance of details.
You can pry my all mechanically/hydraulically linked pseudo racecar from my cold dead hands.
Between uncertainty of the company’s future and just not knowing how well they support cars long term it could be an issue.
A Tesla P90D made of all those gasoline cars I used to have feel stupid. I can only imagine what insanity awaits us when electric drivetrains with that power are in actual sports cars rather than large sedans..
Also, congratulations on your 130th birthday ;-)
And this is something that is unique to EVs. Sure, a Porsche will have a very high max speed. But even it can't beat an eletric motor in acceleration.
Instant torque at any speed, not having to "rev up" and no gears are a massive benefit of having such simple drive trains.
I think other companies should take notice, and start offering higher performance EVs. Specially since the battery is the main cost driver, and electric engines are tiny. Add more power a 'premium' option.
It's not just about the environment, there are some measurable benefits of EVs for car enthusiasts.
Unless, of course, it's a Porsche Taycan:
I'm a Tesla fanboy and I agree with this wholeheartedly.
A lot of my fanboyism is based on the fact that Tesla is the ONLY company making performance EVs. The SLOWEST Tesla is still quicker than the fastest Leaf, Bolt, i3, or any other EV besides the i8, which doesn't count because it's a plug-in hybrid with only 15 miles of electric range.
I'm greatly considering a Model 3 Performance at the end of this year, but if another company announces an EV that will do 0-60 in under 3.5 seconds (EDIT: for under $75K) before then, I'd be willing to put off buying an EV to give someone else a chance.
It also starts at double the listed price of the Model 3.
I'd rather have an I-pace.
I'm a bigger fan of smaller cars. Even a Model 3 would feel big to me, since I currently drive a Subaru BRZ (Which is the same car as the Scion FR-S and Toyota GT86).
This is one of the reasons for my lack of enthusiasm about Tesla/electric vehicles. I don't especially care about acceleration performance - I'm perfectly happy with my $10k econobox that gets >700km per tank and handles pretty nicely.
A Lotus Exige 380 Cup, with the 2GR-FE 3.5 supercharged V6 from the Toyota Camry weights just 1105KG, of which 163KG is the engine, excluding the supercharger. The 85KWh cells in the Model S weighs 540KG in comparison and is almost 50% of the Exige's total weight.
I'm not sure how far off we are from solving this but I'm quite looking forward to improved cooling and lightweight cells that will make electric viable for ultra high performance sports cars.
The original roadster was based on the elise (similar to exige), and it was heavier.
I think the highest performance models now have the largest batteries mostly due to marketing. basically "If you want the performance, pay for more battery than you need".
Why not have a 35kwh car, a supercapacitor as a buffer and have it weigh significantly less for better performance? (at the expense of range)
Also, I wonder how a supercapacitor could increase range? I suspect performance and efficiency would both increase without energy bottlenecks between the motors and the batteries.
A Lotus Exige already has near perfect weight distribution and low center of gravity. Since it is mid-engined it also has 160KG of engine over the rear axle which improves traction.
Adding an extra 500KG and putting it lower in the vehicle will not improve braking performance, handling or agility.
car and driver is notorious for "dumping the clutch" on a lot of their tests. with the 918's dct, that likely means an automated launch control, though they still have come under fire for pushing the cars to their limit on their 0-60 tests, possibly damaging components in the process. Launch control can be quite hard on performance cars, some even have a lifetime counter on how many times it can be done.
in order to enter ludicrous mode in the tesla, you have to agree that you understand it may damage components of the car as well.
both cars have instant torque from electric motors, and AWD. the largest limiting factor keeping us from faster 0-60 times is definitely tire technology, most of these cars run on tires with very similar compounds, usually from Michelin or Pirelli. also, at 0-60 in ~3 seconds, it works out to about 1G, which makes me wonder how much people want to accelerate that quickly, or if they just want to be able to talk about the times on their new car.
I've driven my Tesla Model S 28,000mi in 14 countries and I'd never go back to a petrol car. 250-350mi range. 'Tank' full every morning. Supercharger, destination chargers and plugs in garages everywhere. Free parking in my London borough, no road tax, no congestion charge.
Does 60mph in 2.8sec, absolutely toasting everything at the lights with no nonsense noise byproduct or fuss.
Given that this is in the UK, they probably have 220V and 13A delivered to each outlet - that's 2.8kW.
Here is a screenshot of the Tesla app showing the car charging on an Ubitricity plug....
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKaEhBjt1ls, from Fully Charged. Video features a council official (who own the lights) and Ubitricity CEO.
Cable is locked at both ends. I've never tried it, but strikes me you'd have to be particularly stupid to put a cutting implement through a live electricity line.
Have you driven another high-performance car such as a Porsche Turbo or GTS? They have similar acceleration times as the best Tesla.
Also, we are comparing a sedan, with plenty of space for passengers and cargo, with a dedicated sports car.
Some engines are capable of delivering 100% of torque the second (within a couple 100ms) of hitting the throttle. To name a couple:
1. The Mercedes M278 twin-turbo V8 makes 700NM of torque between 1,800 and 3,500RPM. In other words, 700NM of torque is available from little above idle.
2. BMW B58 single-scroll turbo i6 makes 500NM between 1,600 and 4,500RPM.
Other turbo charged engines, such as those in supercars, have different kind of turbos turned for a more linear torque and power curve to better replicate their N/A predecessors, such as the McLaren M838TE which makes 620NM between 5,500 and 6,500RPM.
Lots of different engines out there with all kinds of different characteristics and power/torque curves.
It's a measure of how amazing the Tesla's performance is that you need something with race car-like specs to compete. On the other hand, that only holds true for about the first quarter mile. It's not going to keep pulling hard until 200mph. The roadster will, perhaps, someday.
That's 1 part of driving, it's just the part Tesla chosen to highlight because it's where electric cars have an advantage.
They are also heavier and tend to overheat if pushed.
Even in a 1/4 mile the Tesla is somewhere in the 10-11 second range. That's insanely fast, but it's not reaching the levels of purpose built drag racers or even some production cars.
It's also the part everyone driving on a public road notices and appreciates. There's a reason zero to sixty and quarter mile numbers have always been so widely quoted.
991 GT3: £111,802 (https://www.evo.co.uk/porsche/911-gt3/19269/new-2017-porsche...)
P100D: £129,400 (https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/tesla/model-s/98337/tesla-mode...)
There are a couple of good videos of Model S doing launch control on YouTube: https://youtu.be/8I-6_H0haAw?t=248
If one can afford a Model S, one can afford a lawyer to ask the judge for the court's accepted definition for "display of speed". My money says a Tesla with pedal mashed and launch control on would not fit the definition. All one is left with is pulling an illegal number of Gs, which I don't think cops have a measuring gun for yet.
In the real world, I've launched plenty hard on motorcycles on a regular basis to this day, and have occasionally blown past a sitting cop while doing it (getting around traffic from a light, or what have you). No smoke from the rear tire, front wheel stayed on the ground, speed not exceeded (or not by much), I've never been pulled over. Squeal tires, or have another car next to you accelerating at the same rate, or maybe even an overly loud exhaust, and now you've got problems.
If I see a car stationary at a junction, I can assume that 0.5 seconds from now, it will either still be stationary, be a little further forward or a little further back.
The range of possible positions is significantly reduced with an acceleration limit.
If some cars stop better than others, then if everyone slams the brakes on, the poor souls in cars that don't stop as well will collide.
Keeping a safe distance between cars mitigates this though.
I suspect you'd have a lot of the car industry against your campaign though...
The S&X price cuts are only warranted if they don't plan to bring their interiors up to par. The TM3 price confusion seemed mostly caused by their change up in how auto pilot and full self driving were sold. With enhanced auto pilot being removed for a lesser version and FSD taking some features from EAP. Even at the new two thousand dollar price for FSD presented to existing EAP owners I wonder what the take rate is. They haven't shown significant improvement.
My concern long term with Tesla is that they still don't have up to date features for the driver other than "autopilot" and that feature is quickly becoming the norm for many cars. Their blue tooth support is half baked, you cannot select music from your phone through the car's UI, you have to use the phone. Automatic wipers and high beams are both sporadic with the latter being near useless. The promised voice commands never arrived. Their energy monitoring screen is the least useful of all EVs.
They are quickly turning into a two trick pony in a world where everyone else has their own stable.
Not to mention this whole price cut thing pissed off a lot of Model 3 customers who purchased earlier.
I also share your concern about Tesla/Musk's extreme focus on "self-driving features". For now I don't think self-driving is much more than a gimmick. Yes, a gimmick that attracts headlines, but nonethless a gimmick and it's only a matter of time before more people wake up and realize it is one and that full self-driving is nowhere close to being ready.
In the meantime, Tesla adds a significant amount of cost to its cars by making them "self-driving ready" and whatnot, instead of focusing on capturing more EV market share by launching lower-cost EVs.
And no there is no contradiction between what I said about the price cutting above and the lower-cost EVs. The lower-cost EVs don't have to be unprofitable. Tesla just needs to stop adding "useless" features such as falcon wings and "full self-driving hardware" (that doesn't even achieve its objective) and make its EVs both unprofitable but also costing more than they should.
Who knew the cost of EV/Tesla would drop as they increase production? /s
Buyer's remorse on price should be the least of Tesla's concern: they are making their products more affordable to even more consumers.
Don't miss the overall lowering of the AP bar. 2017 EAP: Going to drive you exit to exit on the expressway at twice the safety of a human driver. 2017 FSD: Summon your car from across the country.
2019 EAP: Keeps in the lane and controls the speed while you watch vigilantly, ready to take over at any moment. 2019 FSD: Moves around outside the lanes while you watch vigilantly, ready to take over at any moment.
It's odd because Tesla has always been a luxury/up-scale car, even if their quality has been a bit spotty. I understand the motivations for Tesla to move into the mass market, but they can't also be a luxury car company with a cut rate sales experience. They're neither fish nor fowl at this point. A company with a cheap sales model trying to sell a car with a premium price.
Is there? The Model 3 went from selling 18,000 cars in December to only 6,000 in Jan/Feb. Where is this demand?
Wireless Android Auto/Apple CarPlay almost work now, which may be closer to what you mean. I never looked into it, but I'm surprised Tesla doesn't support either. I understand the arguments Tesla is making about not supporting CarPlay/AA, but still, Hyundai figured it out...
For example, the leaf had a lower price for a long time and sold 400,000 cars.
What everyone else has?
* No battery tech
* Substandard electric drive trains
* No OTA systems
* No charging network
* Crappy entertainment systems (your long term concerns are ridiculous: Bluetooth, USB connections, auto wipers and high beams, voice commands, energy monitoring > this is nothing compared to the issues that the competition has)
* Poor self-driving tech and almost zero data
* No control over the distribution network (the dealerships are a PITA for a manufacturer that tries to sell EV, because dealer can't service cars that don't need service except washer fluid)
I'm not even talking about their conflict of interests (continuing making profit from ICE sales while increasing EV production without cannibalizing their own ICE sales... in a market downturn)
* No battery tech: Daimler currently produces their own batteries  so do many competitors
* Substandard electric drive trains: you mean the drive trains from Tesla that keep breaking? Check this Truedelta report 
* No OTA systems: although many brands are developing similar systems, the OTA systems are causing many problems. . In addition, changes in the behaviour of the autopilot system has been a likely contributor to the much-cited deadly Tesla autopilot crash .
* No charging network. True, mostly due to vendor lock-in. This is likely to change. In the Netherlands, you can charge your EV almost everywhere.
* Crappy entertainment systems. Perhaps... Apple CarPlay could use some improvement. Nevertheless, I'd count this as a very minor point.
* Poor self-driving tech. Compared to which other car? They are all level 2 autonomous: Cadillac CT6, a Mercedes-Benz E-Class, and the Volvo S90.
* No data. Data is important, but not the most important part of autonomous driving. IP related to sensor technology and simulation systems are winners.
* No control over the distribution network. This is only an advantage when you want to gain a short-term monopoly, like Tesla had to do. As it stands, most car-manufacturers already have full vertical integration to the customer. Prices are fixed. Service intervals are fixed. Components are fixed. It's just that the capital investments in a distribution system are immense, and not related to the core structure of car manufacture.
I thought Tesla’s batteries are fairly run of the mill. The competitive advantage is they’re producing them at scale. That’s a moat, but an expensive one to maintain. Cutting prices would seem to remain a mistake.
What's stopping any of the other vehicle manufacturers from entering a joint venture agreement with any of the other large battery manufacturers?
Tesla designed and makes everything else, and that's a lot. The technology that goes into making sure that the battery lasts a long time, works decently in cold and hot, can be charged at high speeds, doesn't explode etc. is very sophisticated and no other car maker has this knowledge in house.
Even at the battery cell level Tesla doesn't just rely on Panasonic. Browse LinkedIn a bit and you'll see that they have in-house R&D for battery cells, they sponsor well-known cell-level academic researchers and they just spent over $200 million on Maxwell Technologies to get their cell-level IP.
The first thing that stops other car makers from making big moves in the battery space is lack of conviction. They still act like they are only half-convinced that EVs are 100% of their future in very short order (speaking relatively in car business years).
And the second thing that stops them is massive investments needed to build their own battery gigafactories.
Third is probably lack of internal expertise (which Tesla was building since the days of roadster).
Even those most committed (like Volksvagen) project for 2025 maybe 1/4th of (projected) Tesla's production.
Fun fact: Volkswagen wants to partner with SK Technologies on battery factories.
Reportedly their current supplier (LG Chem) threatened to cut them off if they proceed.
It's unprecedented for a supplier to threaten their biggest buyer which should tell you the current distribution of power in battery technology.
or think "the individual cells that make up the tesla battery pack".
Apple maintains their edge because it's their proprietary design. Tesla may do the same.
Is Telsa’s battery tech and production advantage a big enough differentor to enable them to lay waste to all the other large auto producers?
I don’t believe so. It’s hard to imagine a future where Tesla is the only car manufacturer.
They're not the only phone/tablet/smartwatch manufacturer though.
Not all consumers care for 'best in $metric' products, and where consumer priorities differ, opportunities for others exist. IE, Tesla can maintain their advantages without the rest of the industry disappearing, it's not a zero-sum game.
This has just been confirmed:
>CATL has been discussing the required specifications for the batteries with Tesla officials, the people said, asking not to be named because the talks are private.
The performance and degradation of the battery packs is absolutely unparalleled at this time and it remains to be seen when any other company will catch up to them.
>Cells used in Model 3 are the highest energy density cells used in any electric vehicle. We have achieved this by significantly reducing cobalt content per battery pack while increasing nickel content and still maintaining superior thermal stability. The cobalt content of our Nickel-Cobalt-Aluminum cathode chemistry is already lower than next-generation cathodes that will be made by other cell producers with a Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt ratio of 8:1:1. As a result, even with its battery, the gross weight of Model 3 is on par with its gasoline-powered counterparts.
I'm sure you have nuanced opinions but you aren't taking the time to read, think about and actually answer what you're replying to, so why should anybody care what you have to say?
Churchill put it best: A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
That's a strong selling point.
> Crappy entertainment systems
are android auto and carplay crappy?
I just want my music controls. I don't need to be entertained beyond that. Massive safety issue.
> Poor self-driving tech and almost zero data
Tesla doesn't have good self driving tech.
Either they have real-time data that supports the rationale of changing the model based on revenue predictions or they financial math is a joke.
I'm inclined to think is the latter, simply because I really doubt they have any early indicators to compare physical floor vs online performance. But if they do, then this means that their early online performance is way way lower than they expected, which is troubling by itself.
They couldn't figure out why. They almost rolled back the change until someone figured out the reason. Millions of users with very slow internet couldn't even open YouTube before the change. Now, they could.
Tesla probably weren't tracking store visits, and test drives in relation to online purchases. And this missing info misled them.
Edit: Changed 20 minutes to 2 minutes. After rereading the article.
Also, thanks for updating your original comment. Your numbers were stuck in my head. After reading the article - I was like - It's not making sense. So, I reread your comment and saw the updated numbers :-)
Consider the following:
* In January, the $7500 Federal Tax Credit became a $3750 Tax Credit for Tesla. The $3750 tax credit will be halved again some time this year.
* The price of the M3 has been in flux: the $35,000 car has been released, there were $2000 price drops (in reaction to the tax credit), and other issues.
* The M3 was a preorder vehicle: many people put down $1000 reservations, but its difficult to measure exactly which vehicle they wanted (a lot of them seemed to be waiting for the $35k version). Attributing the sales to preorders vs sales conversions is clearly a difficult problem.
* The M3 availability fluxuated grossly, based on Tesla's ability to produce it. You may be waiting 6+ weeks for a M3 if you ordered in 2018, but only 2 weeks if you ordered more recently. Simple knowledge of the decreasing wait time would spur many to purchase in of itself.
* Consumer Reports, and other major review magazines, released reviews which almost assuredly changed sales numbers.
The sales are just not stable enough on a month-to-month basis to do what you're suggesting.
Apply a one day rental fee toward the purchase price if they buy within 365 days of renting the car.
Use this to get more people in Tesla’s experiencing them.
The original plan was pretty much a death sentence for them, it's impossible to compete seriously without giving people an opportunity to actually see and drive the product.
Now everybody knows them, so they don't think they need stores.
In a year or two, with EV competition heating up, they'll need real stores again. Test drive a Mercedes EV, test drive a BMW EV, and... oh that Tesla thing? I don't know, I can't drive one, better go with the 'real' manufacturer.
The 'closing stores' stunt is what got my dad to finally pull his Model 3 reservation money. You no longer need to 'wait in line', and he's already got priority as an S owner anyway, to the extent that it matters. He was pissed that they'd just jerk their retail employees around like that.
I'm wondering if I should buy autopilot now that it's down to $2000, before they raise the price again. It definitely wasn't worth $5000 to me. I'm not sure it's worth $2k, but if it's worth buying, it's worth buying at the lowest price!
It's very concerning that they made that call in the first place. It should never have been reversed because they shouldn't have done it. I'm a huge fan of Tesla, but I can't help but say it feels completely chaotic atm.
With how prolific Amazon is, most of the consumer market relies on reviews to discern which products to buy, and is better off for it. I've never had the experience of first-hand interaction with a Tesla product, but I still want one strictly due the feedback I've gotten from actual owners on Youtube.
I can get a much more insightful review of the product from someone who's owned the car for 10 months, than if I were to simply sit in the car and drive it around for 10 minutes.
Amazon doesn't sell a lot of products that people are getting financing for at $30K+ prices and trading in other expensive products as part of the purchase transactions.
Things like cars and homes are not the same, for people of normal financial means, as phone chargers and boxed cereal, or even big-screen TVs.
(Also not convinced that online reviews are much of a benefit beyond partially compensating for problems unique to online retail, like the lack of gatekeeping.)
I don't see how it could be anything but a hassle. Consider:
- The vehicle is financed and you'd have to unwind the financing. That has to be a pain in the ass.
- You traded in your old car.
I can’t afford to have most of 40k sitting in limbo for a while while Tesla figures something out. Can you?
The real answer to this question is: nobody can afford $40k in limbo.
The 30-day US Treasury is at 2.44% this week. This means you get $81 / month MINIMUM if you just leave that in US Treasury Bonds. That's the lowest-risk Treasury available, you make more money with any other investment on the market.
Leading -- almost inevitably -- to a huge market in fake reviews. This doesn't seem to be a solved problem yet.
From their original announcement: "You can now return a car within 7 days or 1,000 miles for a full refund. Quite literally, you could buy a Tesla, drive several hundred miles for a weekend road trip with friends and then return it for free."
This is how buying a car should be, if it was up to me.
> This is how buying a car should be
No it isn't. How realistic and practical would it be to choose between multiple makes, models, and option packages if you had to buy all of them and return the ones you didn't want within 7 days (or be stuck with them)? The only situation where Tesla's model makes any sense is for a customer who's already 99% committed to buying a Tesla, but most buyers aren't like that.
One awesome thing about the traditional dealer model is that you can try cars out at a leisurely pace with absolutely no obligation to buy. Tesla's model is twisted so that you have a Sword of Damocles handing over your head.
Yeah, but that's the only 'pace' available. Last time I leased a car, it took an entire afternoon.
You mean filling out all the paperwork when you've decided to make a deal? That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the experience of walking into a dealership on a Saturday, test driving a car or two, and leaving without even having to sign any contracts or give anyone any payment information.
Yeah, the dealer warranty/coating up-sell song and dance is obnoxious, but it sounds like heaven compared with needing to buy cars just to test drive them.
Yeah I mean, in theory that's great and all but in practice most people are going to have to go through a lot of paperwork and hassle to set up a loan or otherwise get the cash together up front. Even if you can get a full refund, test driving is still a much lower commitment.
That said, maybe supply is so much more of a bottleneck than demand for them that it's not worth the money to keep all the stores open. Or maybe enough consumers have cars now that owners are just giving test drives to their friends and family instead. I don't really know what the right decision for them is here, but the "oh well nobody needs test drives because of our refund policy" argument did feel a little silly to me.
Not now for sure, but especially not when functional and competent companies like BMW, Mercedes, or Audi, who have made incredible cars for decades, will have competitive electric options and will treat me like an adult making a major purchase and let me test drive them.
And for those financing returning a loan is not loan easy as returning the car.
I'm not going to buy 4 cars and return 3 of them to be able to comparison shop.
That might work for a phone or a laptop, but when it comes to a $90K purchase, I wouldn't take my own mother's word on it without sitting my ass in one first.
(And, no, I'm not going to buy it and return it later. We're buying cars, not clothes, here.)
Come on, do you honestly believe returning a Tesla will be the same experience as returning a random trinket on Amazon?
With all the financial pressure on Tesla, they will be doing anything to recognize the revenue of a "sold" car, which they can only do after the return window lapses. If the NYT forces me to call someone if I want to end a $20/mo. subscription, I shudder to think what Tesla will do to protect their $50k+ sale.
Fortunately for Tesla, there is a bit of a cult surrounding their brand so maybe up-and-comer type salesmen might stick around for the "prestige" of working at a Tesla dealer?
There was post about the dealership employee reaction to all this, but it didn't gain much traction:
I wouldn't define it "generous", if I cannot test-drive the car.
Concerning the rest: mmhh, the move seems suspicious after the previous statement, which was very clear => maybe the early in/direct feedbacks/indicators were more negative than expected, and/or the stock market did not react according to the expectations and/or etc..., therefore the mgmt decided to find some middle ground? And/or maybe some conflicts in the board of directors?
Also, electric cars are new, Tesla is new. So, the value of your 5 yr old tesla could (probably will) suffer more competition from newer models than an average ICE car, like the resale hit last year's model 3s just shouldered. ... Even if the companny is doing fine, servicing cars and the cars themselves age well... resale value is riskier than average.
This is just the cost of being an early-ish adopter. You could lease, or buy used to limit risk, but these have implications too.
The low risk, high resale value option is still (eg) an ICE toyota. You can't have everything. :)
A better idea is to reduce private car use, and development of EVs just risks greenwashing it.
Making EVs to replace ICEs helps with global warming a great deal.
>A better idea is to reduce private car use, and development of EVs just risks greenwashing it.
One does not prevent the other.
>A better idea is to reduce private car use
Hot take bud.
Disclaimer: I drive Toyota, but I don't work for any car companies.
We've heard variants on the parent-comments line of thinking ever since the Model S came out in 2012. Yet, fast forward to 2019, and the gap between Tesla and traditional automakers has only widened (to name a few axes: EV sales, EV margins, rate of software improvements/OTA updates, Supercharger network, battery production).
This is what should terrify big automakers: it's not that Tesla's gap is per se insurmountable; it's that the pace at which Tesla is improving and innovating is far greater than the pace at which any other automaker is doing it.
Most comparative analyses between Tesla and other auto companies suffer from a fallacy that relates to this: they compare the Tesla of today to the ___ of tomorrow. Perhaps some day a traditional auto manufacturer will offer an all-electric, self-driving car. But how long is it going to take them to get there? Not to announce something, or to design a concept car, but to actually build them and sell them at scale and with positive margins? And what will Tesla offer by the time they do?
My wager is that by the time Toyota offers a compelling all-electric car (by today's standards), the feature gap between a $x Tesla and a $x Toyota will be so great that the Toyota will no longer be compelling to the market.
Throw in lower margins as companies build their first EVs, the baggage of dealerships, a likely recession some time in the next decade, and it's not at all clear to me how traditional manufacturers like Toyota will survive the transition.
Toyota will do it by being the world's largest car company. Toyota and Volkswagen each delivered over 10 million cars in 2018 alone:
Tesla meanwhile has sold somewhere in the order of 532,000 cars total since 2008:
What portion of Telsa's pace of improvements and innovation would you say is due to Telsa only recently having got started at this, 16 years ago, compared to Toyota 86 year history of automobile manufacturing, or Ford's 116 years.
It's not so great for hardware, because iteration means that newer builds of existing models may not share the same parts or designs, increasing the costs of maintenance. It's even worse for consumer hardware, because consumers will do all sorts of crazy things to/with their hardware.
Tesla couldn't keep up with the demand for repair parts before the Model 3 surge last fall. How will they manage if every part essentially needs to be custom made since they're constantly changing the parts?
That's not what happens in practice. Their revisions still obey interfaces wherever possible and follow the principles of modularity. E.g. when a v1 Model S door handle breaks, they replace it with the v3 version. When a v1 battery fails, they replace it with the v6 version.
Barring some kind of failure, whether mechanical, electrical, or electronic, I know with certainty the cars I own will perform tomorrow fairly well exactly as they did today.
Looking at the Geneva Motor Show, almost every manufacturer is really moving towards EVs (Toyota being one of the slower ones to make this move). Tesla is just going to have to deal with actual competitors very soon.
If you think one company is finally getting serious about actually making EV "en masse", look for their plans to build battery gigafactories: if there's none, then they will not have the production capacity to make the EV they're talking about (but they'll certainly green-wash consumers with big time ads)... unless we start to hear about gargantuan plans from LG, Samsung and the like. But we're still waiting.
I wonder if Tesla/Panasonic will at some point start selling mass produced batteries to the traditional car manufacturers. Once EVs become mainstream, consumers will start expecting choice.
Tesla have much bigger contracts with Panasonic, and already supplies cells from Samsung and LG for stationary storage and is inquiring CATL as the main supplier of the Shanghai factory.
Since Tesla is crushing them in EV volume and should continue to do so for years to come, I don't see how VW can compete in cost and even in tech.
>I wonder if Tesla/Panasonic will at some point start selling mass produced batteries to the traditional car manufacturers. Once EVs become mainstream, consumers will start expecting choice.
I doubt it, at least until Tesla is demand-constrained. By then, they'll keep all the batteries for their car and energy storage business and let the competition fight for the leftover.
Be smart with your money.
So TSLA has made a quarterly profit. They've never made a yearly profit. Some would argue the last two quarters of profit is a turning point for the company.
Q1 2019 looks like they will lose money though. Jury is still out on whether or not 2019 will be a profitable year.
GAAP (and IFRS, the international version of GAAP) is industry-specific, so please none of the arguments about how it doesn't reflect the "true" state of Tesla's financial situation. It works just fine for every other carmaker.
I'm always interested in learning how to read financial sheets better. Its outside my field of computers, but I'd love to learn the skill. I've got a general idea of how GAAP works and other such cash-flow matters, but no official training in the subject.
EDIT: I did some searching... and it appears that Tesla was GAAP profitable in Q3 and Q4 2018, according to their quarterly filings. I'm very curious how and why you don't consider it GAAP. Is there something in the financial statement that is a red flag to you?
The demand is there and as long as it remains, Tesla will thrive.
The company is victim of its own success. It can't produce enough vehicles to supply the demand. At the same time, its trying to make it more accessible. Tesla is reinventing the car industry with their product, sales and service.
Of course this is risky and creates a lot of unknowns.
Tesla has a backlog of multiple years of M3 pre-orders, of course it's going to be selling at capacity. How about we take those numbers, and divide them along the lines of "how long has it been since pre-ordering"?
That would look a lot less impressive (but still a very good effort).
I love Telsa and what their doing but investing/acquiring them is such a risky move imo.
One of the other vehicle manufacturers make be able to buy Telsa's manufacturing facilities and branding for cents in the dollar.
If it goes belly up, it’s no longer a going concern. Moreover, liquidation value of manufacturing facilities is pennies on the dollar. (Before legal fees, creditors’ claims, et cetera.) Supply chains are too tightly integrated; it’s expensive to swap in someone else’s kit.
Could some court or another order the whole server-side kit be sold? IP addresses, encryption keys, protocols, API, etc.
That's actually scarier. Whoever buys them would likely want to monetize the purchase, which likely means pushing out one final software update to put autoplay ads on every Tesla's dashboard and collect maximum tracking information to sell.
In a perfect world some other auto manufacturer or parts supplier with a reputation to maintain, or benevolent society, would acquire it with the intention of making the vehicles maintainable.
I guess what I meant was, is there a future were, say, the Volkswagen Group owns Telsa?
The factories will be closed down, but there's still railroads and other infrastructure that have been built to support the site. A new company will inevitably purchase the old site and recycle the infrastructure.
On a second note, from friends of mine who work there I hear that this kind of 'change of heart' manuevering is common from top to bottom. They'll be working on a project and then a decision will be made, often without warning and often because it's what manager think Elon wants, and they'll spend hours in overtime transitioning to the new regime. In one case I was told about, they refactored their codebase to a different language in a week and a half only to be told to refractor to yet another language half way through. They are always stressed that whatever they're working on is going to be scrapped at any moment. Not sure if anyone else has had this experience where they work but i have not.
I agree he's not a good manager and clearly doesn't have competent and confident operations people to reign him in as he does at spacex.
Reversing their decision hasn't made me worry less.
Normal cars don't decline 20% in resale value in the last year.
If you expand your date selection farther back, it looks like the S price decline really started around July 2018.
I don't think you can do that anymore
If you buy a new or secondhand car from a traditional dealership, and have a problem with it, even if you move, you can be fairly confident that you can go to pretty much any authorised dealership and have a face to face interaction with someone.
Continuity of service. I think this can be a huge motivating factor for some people.
So I go to a larger dealership 45-60 minutes away, get a better deal, have mor e brands and cars to chose from...
So you're wrong, 40+ minutes accounts for a lot of things you should consider before risking a wasted investment.