Model 3 Lease Available(tesla.com) |
Model 3 Lease Available(tesla.com) |
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.
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.
EDIT: Seems I'm getting downvoted. Lemme put up some sources then. https://electrek.co/2019/04/04/tesla-model-3-base-doesnt-exi...
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.
Musk was upfront about this
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/845279423238590464?lang=...
> "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. "
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).
For a car maker, especially one with a reckless autonomous driving strategy, deceit can be homicidal.
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?”
Supercharger network? Safety? Performance? Cargo Space?
If there was little demand, they would rather sell a $35k 3 at no profit than idle their factory.
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.
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.
- 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.
I dunno where the line will exactly be drawn for "Bait and Switch", but Tesla is getting closer and closer to that line.
I preordered a Model 3 on launch day, but I requested a refund when I saw that the car costs 60000€ instead of 35000€ to 40000€ that I had hoped for.
It's unfortunate -- I love the Model 3's minimalist interior design (judging from pictures) -- but this is not a car I can afford to buy right now.
It's just $1000 cheaper now. Good for Tesla as they will get more data.
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.
https://www.edmunds.com/car-leasing/should-you-make-a-down-p...
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 was also interesting is that you forgo your right to buy back the car if you lease it, which is also odd.
Edit: removed my comment about insider information per the link provided in replies.
https://twitter.com/whistlerian1834/status/10965848934824632...
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.
Not saying I buy the argument, but that’s how I understand it.
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.
$37,500 + $3,000 = $40,500. Isn't that a price decrease if the price is now $39,500?
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.
They could retrofit hardware at the end of the lease when they reclaim the vehicles.
OTOH, I'm skeptical about Tesla having an autonomous ride sharing network to use them in when they come off lease.
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.
Do you also worry about these saboteurs surreptitiously removing stop signs so that you drive into traffic?
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.
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.
How can you be so sure?
The hardware is already built and delivered, and the company literally loses nothing by allowing their customers to use it.
It reminds me of Verizon back in the early days of bluetooth when they wanted to charge customers to unlock it.
I will always avoid doing business with these kinds of companies.
How I imagine some meeting at Tesla went when they decided this was a legitimate solution.
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.
What did I get wrong here?
Your assumption that corporate PR is “emerging reality”. Shorts are also capable of revealing reality.
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.
I don't think all shorts do this. I do think a lot of Musk shorts (relatively speaking) do this.
Eg. https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/5o7rhl/how_wou...