Uh, wait. They're taking the Model 3 Standard off the menu....so.....that means the $35k version just got stopped?
Sigh. It's a bit sad for me because I have been a bigger fanatic for this company than almost anyone, for maybe 9 years now, and my passion is fading.
I recognize how hard the thing they're doing is, and how they're doing everything they can...but the repeated dishonesty is just very off-putting to me. I don't believe the ends justify the means, and many things could have been done better. Over and over Elon's PR has been profoundly deceitful.
> Uh, wait. They're taking the Model 3 Standard off the menu....so.....that means the $35k version just got stopped?
You can't stop what never began to move in the first place. There has never been a single reported delivery of the $35k model. There have been a LOT of complaints about delayed deliveries however.
If anyone actually bought the base model this is kind of an upgrade for them TBH. Plus now they have the option to software upgrade their car, which they wouldn't really get - especially with the manually adjusting seats.
This is just the 50 kWh Model S, rinse and repeat. Get the positive PR for launching the low cost version, attempt to sell as few as possible, then take it off the menu.
Don't forget that when the mythical $35k Model 3 was announced, Tesla purchasers could get the full federal tax credit. That would have put the price below $30k, perhaps even after destination fees.
But since they opted to only sell the higher-tier Model 3s first, the tax credits only ever went to buyers paying much more than $35k.
You have to call directly or go to a dealer to get access the standard one.
> "Given the popularity of the Standard Plus relative to the Standard, we have made the decision to simplify our production operations to better optimize cost, minimize complexity and streamline operations. As a result, Model 3 Standard will now be a software-limited version of the Standard Plus, and we are taking it off the online ordering menu, which just means that to get it, customers will need to call us or visit any one of the several hundred Tesla stores. "
They will still sell you a model 3 standard if you want it, but it's just a software limited version of the standard plus, where you have to pay to access the full capabilities of the car.
The linked page says "As a result, Model 3 Standard will now be a software-limited version of the Standard Plus, and we are taking it off the online ordering menu, which just means that to get it, customers will need to call us or visit any one of the several hundred Tesla stores."
"This is only available when ordering by phone" sounds like something my dinosaur bank would do, not something an up and coming tech company should be doing.
"we can't actually afford to make a 35000 car, but Elon promised it, so we are going to attempt to prove him right by just software-limiting a more expensive car and than hoping nobody buys it so we don't lose money"
How I imagine some meeting at Tesla went when they decided this was a legitimate solution.
If I were in the market for this, I'd be buying the 35k model with the expectation that the modding community will unlock those extra features in short order. In fact I'd bet that all the features on the car are a set of Boolean flags on every vehicle and as soon as you have a shell on the thing, changing the flags to enable any feature will be simple. Add a simple Cron to keep the flags set as you like even after an update, and another Cron to start a background root SSH session for continued access after updates.
The pedantic view is that Tesla did offer the $35k M3 for awhile and while they haven't delivered any yet they will. (It looks like the ones they will deliver will have the upgraded interior and a software locked battery).
Further more, if you know that magic words, you can still order one though it won't show upon their web site. So according to the letter of the law they will have offered, sold and delivered some M3's for $35k. They never undertook to offer this product/price combo indefinitely.
Though, as a prospective buyer it did seem pretty obvious that the M3 extended range version was a better deal. And apparently so did buyers in the ratio of 6:1.
I wouldn't be surprised if this convulsion in strategy is the result of Congress recently saying they would try to reinstate the subsidy for GM and Tesla electric vehicles. This might sound good, and would be good in the medium term, but think of how many buyers will now be putting their wallets away waiting for this subsidy that might never come. If Tesla saw orders dropping off a cliff on that news they would have to do something drastic.
Right, because the choice was between a delivery of the more expensive one within a matter of weeks or paying a large deposit for the cheaper one with an "expected" delivery in months (which all evidence pointed to being many months rather than several months).
It actually never existed, except as a configuration fee grab. There have been no confirmed sightings of a base $35K Model 3 with fabric interior and manual seat adjusters.
I think the title of this submission should be changed to 'Tesla removes 35k Model 3 option' or similar. Their cheapest option is now a bit under 40k USD because they're including autopilot as standard.
Out of all of the people I know who own tesla, I have yet to meet anyone who bought one without autopilot. I don't understand why would you decide to purchase tesla over other electric cars if it was not for autopilot. If you want electric without autopilot - there are better options than tesla, so maybe the reason why they removed it was because a vast majority of people were purchasing the autopilot model, and offering the lower priced version was slowing down their prodution somehow (adding options is always time consuming).
> If you want electric without autopilot - there are better options than tesla
Please do tell me these better options as I had been considering a Model X but do not want to be forced to buy autopilot. I just looked into Audi eTron after reading this update and it only has 200 miles of range. Everything else about Tesla is the best - range, UI updates, supercharger. What other electric car is a “better option?”
Is 90 miles more range and a second better 0-60 worth 25 grand to you? If so, yeah, Model X is it. Otherwise, Audi has a great UI (wireless Car Play, even) and a quickly expanding fast-charge network.
I have a friend who bought a Model X without autopilot, I was stunned because it is probably the single most important feature of my Model S. In fact I think that features of Teslas like traffic aware cruise control, autosteer, radar controlled emergency braking, could be ported to pretty much any modern drive by wire automatic and would be very beneficial. But Mercedes who have had much of the necessary hardware for decades make it a premium option on cars that are already very expensive so it hasn't happened and VW has emergency braking on some models but I think it is still optional.
Contrary to the standard short story, there must still be significant demand for the 3 if Tesla is raising prices rather than lowering them. Yes, the $35k model 3 is still technically available, but obviously they don't want to sell them.
If there was little demand, they would rather sell a $35k 3 at no profit than idle their factory.
I feel like this is a bit of a strawman. If there's a "standard" short story, it's that the demand for high end Model 3s is too low, and the company can't profitably be run on the margins of SR/SR+ or even MR alone.
I'm not sure I believe it (Sandy Munro for instance seems pretty optimistic that a competent manufacturer could profitably make the $35k M3), but misrepresenting the argument does nobody any favors.
> (Sandy Munro for instance seems pretty optimistic that a competent manufacturer could profitably make the $35k M3)
Its pretty clear what Sandy Munro is doing however. He's trying to sell his consulting services to Tesla. His whole shtick is pointing out issues with their design and trying to demonstrate that he knows how to save them lots of money.
It doesn't seem like Elon is biting however. Munro's video was about unnecessary welds, and how various shapes could have been made more cheaply. Only IF Tesla implements those changes (and probably the other changes Munro was thinking about) could they save money.
Not that I don't trust the guy, but you gotta keep in mind what pays Munro's bills. He's selling his expertise.
I feel like both Tesla and Munro can point to those savings now... It's a real expert who could point to those savings back at the design stage.
Simple things like "these parts could have been combined into one cheaper simpler part" don't take into account the fact that by making them separate parts they are easier to contract out, easier to modify one without the other, and easier to correct issues when yield is poor on one.
>> Please note, customers who choose leasing over owning will not have the option to purchase their car at the end of the lease, because with full autonomy coming in the future via an over-the-air software update, we plan to use those vehicles in the Tesla ride-hailing network.
Reality: it's a price increase. "Model 3 Standard Plus used to cost $37,500, plus $3,000 for the Autopilot option. It now costs $39,500, with Autopilot included." No $35,000 Tesla.
* it's a price increase. "Model 3 Standard Plus used to cost $37,500, plus $3,000 for the Autopilot option. It now costs $39,500, with Autopilot included."*
$37,500 + $3,000 = $40,500. Isn't that a price decrease if the price is now $39,500?
Not if a significant fraction of buyers decided to skip autopilot after seeing Youtube videos of AP driving into stationary objects.
Keep in mind that Tesla just started selling lower priced models in the US. Buyers of the base models are much more cost concious, so I assume that a lot of them would forego the AP option.
There is no way any of these model 3s end up in an autonomous ride share. Especially with only cameras and no LIDAR. I guess it does give them cover for not offering the option to buy at the end of the lease. Wouldn’t be surprised if they reverse this in 2-3 years.
Sometimes I wonder if the much-ballyhooed short-sellers actually work in the Tesla marketing department :-)
I know that companies get a lot of flak for saying hedged things. But Tesla could really benefit from some hedging. This pronouncement in absolute terms that there will be no lease-end buyout is ridiculous. It depends entirely on future factors unknown today (to us or Tesla), whether they will give customers the option of buying out when the lease and actually arrives, and they know it.
So why not just say so? How about: “Tesla leases do not guarantee the right to buy-out at lease end, because we hope to use some of the after-lease cars for a future ride hailing network.”
Sure, it's a few more words to parse. But it would be one less thing for people to complain about. And it would be true and forthright. It is very good to be seen as true and forthright when asking customers to spend tens of thousands of dollars on something.
The buy-out price at the end of the lease is set by the lessor. If they don't want to sell, they could just set the price very high. No need to announce that now - in fact, doing so will simply reduce sales.
Pretty much no other industry uses old hardware for rentals.
Go and try to rent a 10 year old car... Can't find any? Turns out while individuals are perfectly happy to drive a 10 year old car, companies prefer no more than 1-2 year old fleets. As well as being more reliable, the service users don't want to find a cassette player in the car, nor years of grime on every surface.
I don’t understand why they refuse to at least add forward-facing LIDAR. Lane paint sabotage, low-contrast lighting situations and construction are just a few risks that make me nervous to trust autopilot at highway speeds.
I say this as someone that is bullish on autonomous driving and in awe of Tesla in general.
- Tesla launches 35k Standard model along with 37,5k Standard Plus Model
- Tesla raises price of Standard Plus Model to 39,5k
- Tesla discontinues Standard Model
So Tesla just increased the base price of the Model 3 from 35k to 39.5k, but tried to do some marketing tricks to make you feel like it's a great deal.
The Standard isn't discontinued, it's just rejiggered to be a software-limited version of Standard Plus (because logistical simplicity saves more than the reduced bill of materials) and pulled from the online catalog so that you have to go to a showroom (remember when they were going to dump those?) or call on the phone to order one.
There's a fine line between "Loss Leader" and "Bait and Switch". Its pretty clear that Tesla sales-reps are going to be VERY strongly trying to upsell their customers away from the $35k model.
I dunno where the line will exactly be drawn for "Bait and Switch", but Tesla is getting closer and closer to that line.
I love Tesla and Elon Musk for what he's doing for the humanity but paying $21,144 ($3000+36*$504) for 36-month, 10K miles/year lease is insanely costly. I can think of buying a Tesla but can not think to lease it at this price point.
According to the website, it looks like a Model 3 base (i.e., with Standard Plus Rear-Wheel Drive; Solid Black Paint; 18" Aero Wheels; All Black Partial Premium Interior; Autopilot) would have a purchase price of $39,500.
This would have an estimated lease payment of $504/month, with $3,000 down, 36 months, 10,000 miles. And then estimated savings would be added depending on one's respective EV state rebates.
At the end of the page, it says that there's a Destination & doc fee of $1,200, so that may need to be adjusted into the lease price.
In summary, when leasing, put as little down as possible.
When buying(loan) it depends.
Obviously every person has a different financial situation, ( which also determines at which interest rate you are allowed to borrow money), but in general or ceteris paribus , that advice holds in general.
What people are willing to pay for cars amazes me. Esp to rent a car they don't own. $4199 is $1399 more than I paid for (at police surplus) the 2011 car I've had for a few years. It costs me significantly less than $500/mo to operate and repair. The 2007 before, cost less and lasted 5 years before I wrecked it. I have the money, I earn more than $200k/yr, I just the value/cost for new cars is just not worth it.
It is truly amazing, but then again, if you look at the percentage difference, so is paying for a latte at most places etc etc. To each his/her own. I say let the money flow because at the end of the day, it's just paper and numbers, and the joy of toys is priceless, not to mention the economy sort of depends on it!
The only reason “rental” and “lease” aren't the synonyms they usually are in auto land is because “rental” is used when the period is very short term, and “lease” is used for a period, generally, of a few years.
if tesla 3 with all that pricing failed to lure customers, then 3 or 4k will not help them at all. It's very sad but looks like nothing going to save Tesla. With this level of income, their valuation is a bubble.
With no financing partner in place this is a major cash-negative move for Tesla. Some shorts have been predicting Musk would do this to try and clear out inventory and improve demand optics before filing for bankruptcy.
Shorts, who by definition are not dispassionate and have a direct interest in the ability to project and manipulate market expectations. And when the emerging reality doesn't match their short position are (evidently) willing to move down the road to making the conditions they predicted come true.
Longs tend to own things. Shorts tend to destroy value to acquire it cheap. they don't currently hold it, they're seeking profit by securing it under value. Longs seek to profit from its existence and success.
I don't see these as fully symmetric. I see them as oppositional, and indeed a long will do the things which improve their position. But since thats constructive not destructive, there appears to me to be a useful distinction.
Yes they are and information is useful, but do you think all shorts are informative? and do you think these shorts are? I think these shorts are opportunistic and seek an advantage not an informed position. The longs by and large in Tesla believe about an industrial transformation.
I think musk is a very flawed capitalist, but I think Tesla is interesting as a company. Panasonic is huge. Their decision to invest in the battery plant speaks to me more than the shorts do. Likewise the Chinese decision to invest in the gigafactory. These are not short positions, they are major long-term capital investment which is continuing.
Do you include shorts who go out there trashing the name and then wind up wrong? A bunch of tesla shorts have made an industry of being very very vocal. Musk 420'ing on-air has nothing to do with the underlying value of his company or stock in "real" terms, it has a lot to do with temporary risk value, but the shorts played it into ".. see .. evidence tesla is tanking what kind of CEO smokes pot it must be valueless we were right.. " talking.
I don't think all shorts do this. I do think a lot of Musk shorts (relatively speaking) do this.
Lease partners won't give you 100% of the value of the vehicle up front, especially not with vehicles that have uncertain depreciation because the EV space is so new.
So depending on the margin, Tesla could absolutely be in a position where building an SR+ Model 3 and leasing it is cash flow negative (over the first 180 days, so once suppliers are paid).
But it's unlikely to be worse than leaving the factory idle, so if that's the lever they need to pull for the demand to be there, it's a no brainer. And they can always raise more money at their current lofty valuation, so cashflow negative isn't necessarily the end of the world.
Yes, and to not head to into bankruptcy with huge lots full of unsold inventory cars scattered about the country. Although I doubt that this leasing option will do much to move inventory.
Sigh. It's a bit sad for me because I have been a bigger fanatic for this company than almost anyone, for maybe 9 years now, and my passion is fading.
I recognize how hard the thing they're doing is, and how they're doing everything they can...but the repeated dishonesty is just very off-putting to me. I don't believe the ends justify the means, and many things could have been done better. Over and over Elon's PR has been profoundly deceitful.