Tesla Model 3
06-03-18 | 09:36 PM
#256
it is their job, but at some point the OTA software updates must cease or tremendously slow down. from an engineering management standpoint, as you may know, this is time and money adding to the cash burn. if you take a look at other manufacturers, their firmware/software updates seem quite less than the # of updates Tesla rolls out. i haven't counted the # updates but it seems like quite a bit-who knows, maybe it's just put on blast on the media because it's Tesla. firmware/software sustaining is added cost to the $28,000 bill of materials for the 3 and the test engineers may not have added that to their calculation. if they keep rolling out OTA updates, i'm not sure how long they can sustain all that added cost. the frequency of the updates are okay for phones, as new model phones come out every year, but not for cars. just my opinion.
06-03-18 | 10:24 PM
#257
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 20,894
Likes: 3,116
From: Alberta
You might be right, but unless you can show me some specifics of how much it actually costs Tesla or even a vague cost out of the resources Tesla puts into their software engineers it comes across to me as more piling on. For all we know Tesla is saving money, which would make sense given people don't have to bring their cars in and have a tech do a firmware update which is clumsy and time consuming. Either way OTA updates are undoubtedly the future.
Also AFAIK Telsa is the only car company that gives owners a constantly improving vehicle over the air for free.
Also AFAIK Telsa is the only car company that gives owners a constantly improving vehicle over the air for free.
06-04-18 | 12:26 AM
#258
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,419
Likes: 11
From: California
06-04-18 | 08:25 AM
#259
Lexus Champion
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 19,951
Likes: 171
But no, in fact if we read whole article, it tells that Tesla should sell this vehicle for $50k to make profit like other manufacturers.
So it is not cheap, it is expensive to make if they are to sell it for $35k, hence Musk telling us they need $75k model to survive.
06-04-18 | 09:01 AM
#260
Pole Position
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,478
Likes: 166
From: NY
it is their job, but at some point the OTA software updates must cease or tremendously slow down. from an engineering management standpoint, as you may know, this is time and money adding to the cash burn. if you take a look at other manufacturers, their firmware/software updates seem quite less than the # of updates Tesla rolls out. i haven't counted the # updates but it seems like quite a bit-who knows, maybe it's just put on blast on the media because it's Tesla. firmware/software sustaining is added cost to the $28,000 bill of materials for the 3 and the test engineers may not have added that to their calculation. if they keep rolling out OTA updates, i'm not sure how long they can sustain all that added cost. the frequency of the updates are okay for phones, as new model phones come out every year, but not for cars. just my opinion.
06-04-18 | 09:05 AM
#261
Pole Position
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,478
Likes: 166
From: NY
Yes, but the problem is that after your partial quote, people will always sum it up as Tesla being cheap to make.
But no, in fact if we read whole article, it tells that Tesla should sell this vehicle for $50k to make profit like other manufacturers.
So it is not cheap, it is expensive to make if they are to sell it for $35k, hence Musk telling us they need $75k model to survive.
But no, in fact if we read whole article, it tells that Tesla should sell this vehicle for $50k to make profit like other manufacturers.
So it is not cheap, it is expensive to make if they are to sell it for $35k, hence Musk telling us they need $75k model to survive.
06-04-18 | 09:51 AM
#262
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,419
Likes: 11
From: California
Yes, but the problem is that after your partial quote, people will always sum it up as Tesla being cheap to make.
But no, in fact if we read whole article, it tells that Tesla should sell this vehicle for $50k to make profit like other manufacturers.
So it is not cheap, it is expensive to make if they are to sell it for $35k, hence Musk telling us they need $75k model to survive.
But no, in fact if we read whole article, it tells that Tesla should sell this vehicle for $50k to make profit like other manufacturers.
So it is not cheap, it is expensive to make if they are to sell it for $35k, hence Musk telling us they need $75k model to survive.
Besides - a Tesla costing $28K to make and marketed as a $35K car could make someone think its expensive to make.
06-04-18 | 12:30 PM
#263
Lexus Champion
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 19,951
Likes: 171
Here is the original headline:
The Tesla Model 3 cost $28,000 to build, German engineers say—and it still may not be profitable
06-04-18 | 12:40 PM
#264
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,419
Likes: 11
From: California
lol... your thread title specifically says "only $28k to make". You wrote that assumption yourself without reading or comprehending full article.
Here is the original headline:
Do you not understand the difference between article headline and your own? Why are you being so dense about it.
Here is the original headline:
Do you not understand the difference between article headline and your own? Why are you being so dense about it.
I'm not sure why you are hassling and being so "dense", as you would call it, about this? Its a thread title chill.
06-04-18 | 12:54 PM
#265
Lexus Champion
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,010
Likes: 0
From: CA
How is $28K to make only an assumption. It clearly states on the article title it cost "$28K to build", isn't that the same as "$28K to make"? I wasn't trying to imply anything nor I was trying to specifically say anything about Tesla. There is no bias in my title. I just took the main point of the title I found interesting and used it as a title. I left a partial quote - and if people were interested, they can continue reading with the link. Some people may not want to read the whole thing and some people do - if you do, they can continue reading the rest with the link.
I'm not sure why you are hassling and being so "dense", as you would call it, about this? Its a thread title chill.
I'm not sure why you are hassling and being so "dense", as you would call it, about this? Its a thread title chill.
Let me quote the main point of the article properly for you:
The engineers estimate a total of $28,000 in costs to build the Model 3: $18,000 for materials and $10,000 for labor and production. “If Tesla manages to build the planned 10,000 pieces a week, the Model 3 will deliver a significant positive contribution to earnings,” said one test engineer. For a car eventually supposed to retail for $35,000, that sounds like a pretty profit for Tesla.
But it won’t be, argues Erik Gordon, a professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business. The margins on the Model 3 must still pay for a cost structure that legacy carmakers don’t have, including planned factory expansions, new automation investments, and its own dealership network. While Tesla has its own advantages, like integrated solar and energy storage products and no costly pension liabilities, the company is counting on fat gross margins of 25% to stay in the black. (Ford by contrast has 10% margins.)
The $28,000 estimate for building the Model 3 “shows there’s some possibility of making money at the low end,” said Gordon. “But it actually doesn’t leave very much [money] per car for all the other expenses. If they’re selling it for less than $50,000, I don’t think it’s a good business.”
But it won’t be, argues Erik Gordon, a professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business. The margins on the Model 3 must still pay for a cost structure that legacy carmakers don’t have, including planned factory expansions, new automation investments, and its own dealership network. While Tesla has its own advantages, like integrated solar and energy storage products and no costly pension liabilities, the company is counting on fat gross margins of 25% to stay in the black. (Ford by contrast has 10% margins.)
The $28,000 estimate for building the Model 3 “shows there’s some possibility of making money at the low end,” said Gordon. “But it actually doesn’t leave very much [money] per car for all the other expenses. If they’re selling it for less than $50,000, I don’t think it’s a good business.”
Last edited by ydooby; 06-04-18 at 01:42 PM.
06-04-18 | 01:13 PM
#266
You might be right, but unless you can show me some specifics of how much it actually costs Tesla or even a vague cost out of the resources Tesla puts into their software engineers it comes across to me as more piling on. For all we know Tesla is saving money, which would make sense given people don't have to bring their cars in and have a tech do a firmware update which is clumsy and time consuming. Either way OTA updates are undoubtedly the future.
Also AFAIK Telsa is the only car company that gives owners a constantly improving vehicle over the air for free.
Also AFAIK Telsa is the only car company that gives owners a constantly improving vehicle over the air for free.
there are quite a bit. Although free to the consumer, I don't necessarily agree with it as i do not see how Tesla can sustain it, longterm. Engineers, and managers get paid on average $100K per year and I'm sure these OTA updates cost a good chunk of change to develop, manage, validate, QA & test. Apple provides free updates, given that you have the right iphone hardware to support it, so does Android, but people change up their phones every 1-2 years. Other companies utilize a subscription based service, a yearly premium, i.e. MS Office 365, Altium, Mentor Graphics, Solidworks, IAR etc.. some mandate that you pay the yearly premium of the you cannot use the software, while other software applications just stop the updates.
Last edited by jadu; 06-04-18 at 01:19 PM.
06-04-18 | 01:17 PM
#267
i agree, do not cheap out on safety. it's beyond me why it took CR to uncover the braking issue.
06-04-18 | 02:11 PM
#268
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,419
Likes: 11
From: California
The word "only" in your title clearly shows your biased intent and/or misunderstanding, no matter how you spin it. The main point of the article is FAR from your partial quote, from which you used as your title, if you had only read past the paragraph you quoted. In fact, the actual main point of the article is the direct opposite of your partial quote. The word "only" is not in the original title. You chose to add this word yourself, and you should own up to it and correct it now that you realize how wrong you were.
Let me quote the main point of the article properly for you:In what world can this be summarized with the word "only" $28k as the main point?
Let me quote the main point of the article properly for you:In what world can this be summarized with the word "only" $28k as the main point?
After that being said, why are you two so **** about one word that I clearly had no clue or intention to put? Its an honest mistake but you two are literally going off-topic just to rail me on this. Did I insult you two at any point?
No one else said anything about my grammar issues or my wording. Everyone else just read the article and talked about it. But yet - you two decide to rail on me for a word within a thread title. Jesus christ.
I hope my apology helps.
07-02-18 | 07:20 AM
#269
Pole Position
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,140
Likes: 432
From: fl
Tesla hits Model 3 production volumes
And increases projection to 6,000 per week by end of August.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/07/02/tech...l-3/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/2018/07/02/tech...l-3/index.html
