[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Nah, cost cutting plain and simple.

As I just explained, every manufacturer works within a costs structure. You can identify elements of any product that reveal cost-driven design and content decisions.

Tesla has made compromises with the Model 3 in order to deliver an electric sport sedan at a specific price to the consumer on a timeline that is in significantly ahead of the rest of the industry.

Like I said the Model S could have been designed the exact same way, but wasn't.

The Model S is in an entirely different segment where transaction prices are higher and there is more margin to work with.

Had GM come out with the Bolt in the exact same "total-tablet" dash configuration, you and every other BMW fanboy would be espousing my exact sentiment.

I'll remind you that part of the terms of your return after your recent ban was to be respectful. If you can not engage in discussion without being hostile and baiting other forum members with school-yard style name calling, you will be shown the door.

The Bolt is built to cost just like any other product. It cannot match the Model 3 in performance nor in driving range. The reason for that is that it uses less capable drive components and battery which also cost less than those in the Model 3. That's where your "cost cutting" is for that particular product.

For some reason people think Tesla is a luxury car maker. The Model S stands nowhere near its (S) class rivals in luxury.

The Model S manages to outsell a number of similarly priced vehicles which are categorized as luxury vehicles. Whether or not it meets your standard of luxury does not matter because a significant number of other consumers have decided that the product represents good value to them.

And yup, I am actually am a Tesla target customer.

The data shows that Tesla is building products that appeal to a significant number of people. These people are willing to make compromises that you are not in order to get an EV today. Since you do not identify as a member of that group, you are by definition not the current target.

The fact that Tesla does not build cars to your desired specification means you will have to wait for another manufacture to offer an EV to your liking. The costs of electric vehicle components are projected to decline steadily which will allow for less compromise in other areas of the product. If your interest in EVs is genuine and remains in place, eventually, you will be able to get an EV with all of the features you want.

Perhaps at that point - the point where there is EV competition in the segments in which Tesla competes today - in order to survive, Tesla will be forced to adjust the content of their vehicles to match what competitors are able to deliver. You may then find their products appealing and choose to purchase one, or perhaps you will prefer a competitor's product instead.

[Soterios]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Perhaps a "smart meter" should be required for EV owners so charging can be regulated. If the grid gets overly taxed the power company can shut down vehicle charging. Does that sound like a reasonable compromise?

EVs are not taxing the grid. Most of them are charging during non peak hours anyways. (overnight) Charging a Tesla in general takes about the same kind of power as running an A/C unit.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by Soterios

EVs are not taxing the grid. Most of them are charging during non peak hours anyways. (overnight) Charging a Tesla in general takes about the same kind of power as running an A/C unit.

Please. EVs are taxing the grid as compared to a vehicle with an ICE that puts zero load. There is no escaping this reality.

Plus there isn't any law or requirement that people charge during the evening hours. I'm sure there is plenty of EVs charging during peak load times.

[JohnnyCanuck]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Please. EVs are taxing the grid as compared to a vehicle with an ICE that puts zero load. There is no escaping this reality.

Plus there isn't any law or requirement that people charge during the evening hours. I'm sure there is plenty of EVs charging during peak load times.

Yep, and since 63% of that grid is generated by fossil fuels, guess what ... EVs generate GHGs. And since coal is half of that, it generates the worst type of pollution possible.

As for peak vs non-peak, I see plenty of EVs plugged in for charging in the parkade at my office. That's pretty much peak time. Fortunately, our electricity is hydro and doesn't generate GHGs (but is environmentally damaging in other ways).

There are plenty of reasons to buy EVs and even Tesla's, but anyone who thinks they're saving the world is either deluded, uninformed, or drinking too much of Elon Musk's Kool-Aid.

Plus, I saw a Model 3 in the wild today. Wow, is it ugly. The Model S is an attractive car, but the X and 3 are just complete misses from a style perspective.

[Soterios]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Please. EVs are taxing the grid as compared to a vehicle with an ICE that puts zero load. There is no escaping this reality.

Plus there isn't any law or requirement that people charge during the evening hours. I'm sure there is plenty of EVs charging during peak load times.

Your brown out statement implied that EVs were overloading the grid. Of course a charging car is loading the grid, I was simply implying that it wasn't significant, especially given the low number that are currently out there. Your power company is aware and preparing for that.

The idea of regulating car charging is silly. We don't regulate how people use their power. "Your house is too big." "You're using your A/C too much." "You don't need a 240v supply for your welder."

Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck

Yep, and since 63% of that grid is generated by fossil fuels, guess what ... EVs generate GHGs. And since coal is half of that, it generates the worst type of pollution possible.

As for peak vs non-peak, I see plenty of EVs plugged in for charging in the parkade at my office. That's pretty much peak time. Fortunately, our electricity is hydro and doesn't generate GHGs (but is environmentally damaging in other ways).

There are plenty of reasons to buy EVs and even Tesla's, but anyone who thinks they're saving the world is either deluded, uninformed, or drinking too much of Elon Musk's Kool-Aid.

Plus, I saw a Model 3 in the wild today. Wow, is it ugly. The Model S is an attractive car, but the X and 3 are just complete misses from a style perspective.

Even with our current power generation, EVs are absolutely more 'green'. The obvious upshot is that while gasoline engines are making marginal strides in cleanliness, our grid is rapidly becoming more green, thus EVs are as well.

[eluded]

Is tesla still in business ? There tax credit just ran out so their cars now cost $7500 more

[F80zcp]

Originally Posted by eluded

There tax credit just ran out so their cars now cost $7500 more

Not true

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

As I just explained, every manufacturer works within a costs structure. You can identify elements of any product that reveal cost-driven design and content decisions.

Tesla has made compromises with the Model 3 in order to deliver an electric sport sedan at a specific price to the consumer on a timeline that is in significantly ahead of the rest of the industry.



The Model S is in an entirely different segment where transaction prices are higher and there is more margin to work with.





The Bolt is built to cost just like any other product. It cannot match the Model 3 in performance nor in driving range. The reason for that is that it uses less capable drive components and battery which also cost less than those in the Model 3. That's where your "cost cutting" is for that particular product.



The Model S manages to outsell a number of similarly priced vehicles which are categorized as luxury vehicles. Whether or not it meets your standard of luxury does not matter because a significant number of other consumers have decided that the product represents good value to them.



The data shows that Tesla is building products that appeal to a significant number of people. These people are willing to make compromises that you are not in order to get an EV today. Since you do not identify as a member of that group, you are by definition not the current target.

The fact that Tesla does not build cars to your desired specification means you will have to wait for another manufacture to offer an EV to your liking. The costs of electric vehicle components are projected to decline steadily which will allow for less compromise in other areas of the product. If your interest in EVs is genuine and remains in place, eventually, you will be able to get an EV with all of the features you want.

Perhaps at that point - the point where there is EV competition in the segments in which Tesla competes today - in order to survive, Tesla will be forced to adjust the content of their vehicles to match what competitors are able to deliver. You may then find their products appealing and choose to purchase one, or perhaps you will prefer a competitor's product instead.

Tesla an EVs in general are barely above 1% of the automotive market. That speaks for itself.

I was very clear that I am waiting for another manufacturer to market an EV sport sedan. I believe that the topic of this thread is requesting opinions of other E90 Post members, which is what I offered. The current Model 3 at the trim level that Tesla produces does not beat the Bolt's range performance at the same price point, so that is a false comparison. I've stated in many threads on this topic for the past several years that the $35K price point is not by accident. $35K is where EVs begin to make economic sense as a purchase to the majority of the automotive market (mid point of the Bell curve). The Model 3 at its current offered trim level is $15K higher than that level. My opinion is Tesla never targeted the $35K price point and Chevrolet did with the Bolt.

My opinion is that Tesla performed a bait and switch and never intended to produce a well-equipped Model 3 at a $35K price point. I've also stated over the years in many threads on the topic of the Model 3 that it is near impossible for Tesla to produce an EV at an MSRP of $35K because even with a tripling of scale in manufacturing it will have to get almost 50% of the manufacturing cost out of the car as compared to the Model S. I also stated that would take a complete re-think on the chassis design (as compared to the Model S) and a heavily automated assembly line. All of which costs billions of dollars in investment, while the Tesla car company swims in red ink. Henry Ford was able cut the price in half with the Model T, but it took a decade and Ford Motor Company had nearly 90% of the worldwide automotive market at one point in the early 1900's. Ford also achieved that feat with a massive technological development of the art of the automotive mass assembly process. Tesla is building cars in a very mature manufacturing product-assembly industry, with what one can believe he is using the best mass-assembly techniques of the day, which all other manufacturers use as well. In fact, Musk blamed most of his early Model 3 manufacturing woes on his assembly line suppliers, and based on the reports I read, has to rely on a far greater level of human-assembly process than originally planned, which adds cost to the assembly process.

[jkoral]

Originally Posted by eluded

Is tesla still in business ? There tax credit just ran out so their cars now cost $7500 more

$7500 - Vehicles delivered on or before December 31, 2018
$3750 - Vehicles delivered January 1 to June 30, 2019
$1875 - Vehicles delivered July 1 to December 31, 2019

And Telsa puts the total price in big bold font and only the savings for federal and state tax credits, 5-year gas savings in a smaller grey font:

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Tesla an EVs in general are barely above 1% of the automotive market. That speaks for itself.

It shows exactly what is already very clear and known - the EV market is still in its infancy.

In the segments where Tesla competes with the Model 3 and Model S, their sales are high - higher than some manufacturers who sell ICE vehicles in those same segments. Just like we don’t measure any other manufacturers overall performance against the total market, and then penalize them for low sales in segments where they do not have product, it does not make any sense whatsoever to do that for Tesla either.

The current Model 3 at the trim level that Tesla produces does not beat the Bolt's range performance at the same price point, so that is a false comparison.

No. The Model 3 does not compete against the Bolt any more than a midsize ICE sport sedan competes against an ICE subcompact hatchback. The two start out with different goals and appeal to people with different priorities.

$35K is where EVs begin to make economic sense as a purchase to the majority of the automotive market (mid point of the Bell curve).

Clearly not for everyone. That bell curve simply illustrates that most people felt $35k is a reasonable price to pay for a new vehicle. But plenty of people spend more than that. Many of them frequent this forum. I spent more than that on my vehicle to obtain a practical sedan with suitably high performance for my taste. Others have done the same. If I were to buy a Tesla, it would be for that same reason. It is that simple for me, and that simple for others - namely other Tesla customers.

My opinion is that Tesla performed a bait and switch and never intended to produce a well-equipped Model 3 at a $35K price point.

Time will tell if you are correct.

In the meantime, the vehicles they offer today at the prices they offer them absolutely do, as point of fact by looking at the numbers, appeal to a significant number of people who shop in the segments in which those products fall.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

It shows exactly what is already very clear and known - the EV market is still in its infancy.

In the segments where Tesla competes with the Model 3 and Model S, their sales are high - higher than some manufacturers who sell ICE vehicles in those same segments. Just like we don’t measure any other manufacturers overall performance against the total market, and then penalize them for low sales in segments where they do not have product, it does not make any sense whatsoever to do that for Tesla either.



No. The Model 3 does not compete against the Bolt any more than a midsize ICE sport sedan competes against an ICE subcompact hatchback. The two start out with different goals and appeal to people with different priorities.



Clearly not for everyone. That bell curve simply illustrates that most people felt $35k is a reasonable price to pay for a new vehicle. But plenty of people spend more than that. Many of them frequent this forum. I spent more than that on my vehicle to obtain a practical sedan with suitably high performance for my taste. Others have done the same. If I wer to buy a Tesla, it would be for that same reason. It is that simple for me, and that simple for others - namely other Tesla customers.



Time will tell if you are correct.

In the meantime, the vehicles they offer today at the prices they offer them absolutely do, as point of fact by looking at the numbers, appeal to a significant number of people who shop in the segments in which those products fall.

There are literally thousands of articles on the web in car magazines, financial magazines, and business magazines discussing if the Model 3 was/is going to affect sales of the Chevy Bolt and vice versa, so the two are market competitors in many people's eyes. The argument being they are the first two EVs that offer plus-200-mile range at a $35K price target. The Bolt achieved that mark right out of the gate and the Tesla Model 3 didn't. The Bolt came out as a CUV because that is where the majority of market sales are. Sales for sedans are trailing off like a brick dropped of the transom of a fishing boat.

One of the most considered points of owning an EV is the lower cost of fuel due to lower consumption by a more efficient conversion of stored energy to motion (vs. ICE). The entire automotive market is geared toward and legally-mandated for low fuel consumption and low emissions production. Gasoline and electricity are about the same cost per KW (12 cents per kWh). A review of the current EVs on the market shows that the majority are econoboxes (Bolt included). Lower income wage earners are the target consumer for econoboxes. Economically it makes no sense to buy a $50K car to save $1,000/year in fuel cost. A decent econobox can be well had for under $20K. $30K of gasoline buys hundreds of thousands of miles of travel. Most people, who have concern regarding their commuting costs, and who have to balance their budget allocations between transportation, food, housing, etc. realize this and buy low-price ICE vehicles, and why the EV percentage of the total automotive marketplace remains at 1%.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Economically it makes no sense to buy a $50K car to save $1,000/year in fuel cost. A decent econobox can be well had for under $20K. $30K of gasoline buys hundreds of thousands of miles of travel. Most people, who have concern regarding their commuting costs, and who have to balance their budget allocations between transportation, food, housing, etc. realize this and buy low-price ICE vehicles, and why the EV percentage of the total automotive marketplace remains at 1%.

Agreed, but the fuel savings isn't even that favorable. Tesla themselves assume $720/year...($3600 over 5 years) And their calculations use premium-grade gasoline cost in the comparison.

My personal Model 3 fuel calculations assume best-case 75% efficient charging; and use my June 2018 electric cost of $0.17479 per kWh (delivered). I am also using the .233 kWh per mile consumption rate I've seen Model 3 owners report online.

Result is ~$5.10 per 100 miles of driving.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Agreed, but the fuel savings isn't even that favorable. Tesla themselves assume $720/year...($3600 over 5 years) And their calculations use premium-grade gasoline cost in the comparison.

My personal Model 3 fuel calculations assume best-case 75% efficient charging; and use my June 2018 electric cost of $0.17479 per kWh (delivered). I am also using the .233 kWh per mile consumption rate I've seen Model 3 owners report online.

Result is ~$5.10 per 100 miles of driving.

My calculations were for a Model S in comparison to total ownership costs of my E90 (up to 200,000 miles) at the time I did the math. That's where I figured out $35K was the magic number to make an EV a viable cost alternative to an equivalent market-segment ICE competitor.

If you throw in the cost of charging on the public EV charging network the cost/mile even gets worse. The Model 3 doesn't get free Tesla network charging according to what I've read.

People buy different cars for a myriad of reasons, but for me I throw in total cost of ownership as one of the variables and calculate the cost/mile. Most cars are in the $30 cents to $50 cents range. It then leaves a person with the decision on the quality of the experience they get for the per-mile price they pay.

[Red Bread]

No one is comparing a Model 3 to a Bolt. A Bolt is an overpriced Fit EV, a Model 3 is at least kind of appealing to people cross shopping the Germans.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

There are literally thousands of articles on the web in car magazines, financial magazines, and business magazines discussing if the Model 3 was/is going to affect sales of the Chevy Bolt and vice versa, so the two are market competitors in many people's eyes. The argument being they are the first two EVs that offer plus-200-mile range at a $35K price target.

And if those were the first two ICE vehicles on the market, you’d see the same type of editorial. That fact does not rewrite the book on vehicle segmentation. Competition is exciting and makes for good headlines, and Elon knows how to bring attention to his company with hyperbole and fanfare. So it’s no surprise that this is being played up and is commanding a lot of print.

It is undeniable that some subset of the population is willing, today, to shop outside the vehicle segment they would otherwise in order to get a vehicle with electric propulsion. Yet, it is neither Tesla’s long term intention to, nor does their long term success depend on being able to, woo the entire automotive buying population from its preferred basic transportation into boutique sport sedans and SUVs. Electric vehicles will ultimately come in a wide variety form factors and price points, many of which will be the same as those ICE vehicles come in today. Tesla will not cover all of them (though they may eventually cover the one the Bolt occupies) and neither will Chevrolet (though its parent, GM, essentially will I’d bet).

A $35k Model 3 may or may not materialize. I suspect it will, but that is neither here nor there. I am sure that model appeals to more of the population than does the $49k model that current holds the entry level spot in the lineup. But its lack of availability does not change the fact that the long range, premium models available today represent a good value to someone whose priority is a performance sport sedan and who are prepared to make the switch to electric.

Economically it makes no sense to buy a $50K car to save $1,000/year in fuel cost.

It makes no less sense than buying a $50k car to save no money on fuel at all. Yet a significant number of people do just that.

[Genieman]

Not everything is completely binary, meaning, the two options aren't that people either care abt mileage for $$ reasons or they buy $75k cars. There are people who care abt mileage for reasons other than $. Some people care abt their "footprint" or whatever. There are plenty of wealthy people who drive Prius's who can afford Ferrari's. For people who only care abt $ and not efficiency, they could get a $10k used car that gets 20mpg and their cost of ownership would still be less than either a bolt or Tesla.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

A $35k Model 3 may or may not materialize. I suspect it will, but that is neither here nor there. I am sure that model appeals to more of the population than does the $49k model that current holds the entry level spot in the lineup. But its lack of availability does not change the fact that the long range, premium models available today represent a good value to someone whose priority is a performance sport sedan and who are prepared to make the switch to electric.

Just as much appeal as a Bolt does for a person with a young family looking for a CUV who are prepared to make the switch to electric.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

No one is comparing a Model 3 to a Bolt. A Bolt is an overpriced Fit EV, a Model 3 is at least kind of appealing to people cross shopping the Germans.

I don't believe you can make such a definitive statement like "no one is comparing a Model 3 to a Bolt." You can see this comparison contained in YouTube videos alone.

[JohnnyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Soterios

Even with our current power generation, EVs are absolutely more 'green'. The obvious upshot is that while gasoline engines are making marginal strides in cleanliness, our grid is rapidly becoming more green, thus EVs are as well.

There's not one credible study that says that. As of 2017, your "grid" remains >30% coal fueled and >30% natural gas fueled. More importantly, secondary power in the US is almost entirely fossil fuel so the marginal cost of added EVs to the grid are almost pure GHG generating.

The whole idea that EVs are environmentally friendly is a hoax stirred in a nice big jug of kool-aid. Make no mistake, ICE engines are not environmentally friendly either, but the investment in EVs is not the cure ... not even close.

We're in desperate need of a proper, peer reviewed, academic study on the environmental costs of EV versus ICE. From lithium mining to battery disposal to the environmental impact of charging loads. There are none and it's shocking to see governments buy into this without any idea whether they are making things better or worse.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck

There's not one credible study that says that. As of 2017, your "grid" remains >30% coal fueled and >30% natural gas fueled. More importantly, secondary power in the US is almost entirely fossil fuel so the marginal cost of added EVs to the grid are almost pure GHG generating.

The whole idea that EVs are environmentally friendly is a hoax stirred in a nice big jug of kool-aid. Make no mistake, ICE engines are not environmentally friendly either, but the investment in EVs is not the cure ... not even close.

We're in desperate need of a proper, peer reviewed, academic study on the environmental costs of EV versus ICE. From lithium mining to battery disposal to the environmental impact of charging loads. There are none and it's shocking to see governments buy into this without any idea whether they are making things better or worse.

I'm of the opinion that the political response to the perceived GHG emissions scare is stifling serious advancement in the efficiency of the internal combustion engine/internal combustion process. The energy density of carbon fuel is too great to ignore and leave it in the ground for fear of 2 deg. C rise in global temperature eons from now. Why would any company invest in R&D for a process that is all but legislated out of existence?

Until the ion-engine commercial jet is invented and flight-qualified by the FAA, carbon fuel (i.e. gasoline) is going to be with us for the long-term future. We might as well figure out a way to bump the efficiency of burning it up to 80 - 90% or so. The automotive market is now tolerant of complex and expensive designs to gain fuel efficiency and reduced emissions. Politics will keep it from happening for carbon fuel.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

I don't believe you can make such a definitive statement like "no one is comparing a Model 3 to a Bolt." You can see this comparison contained in YouTube videos alone.

Oh, if we're just counting on YouTube, then yes. And we should also probably throw in Airstream trailers and maybe a nice skid steer.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Oh, if we're just counting on YouTube, then yes. And we should also probably throw in Airstream trailers and maybe a nice skid steer.

Huh?