Not looking like a regular old hatchback. Tesla is selling a brand name and an image, a unique looking car, performance, and other features beyond just range. Also, unlike an eGolf where you actually have to buy it, the Model 3 has so far sold nothing more than a fully refundable deposit.If the e-Golf had the 200-mile range of a Tesla Model 3 at the same price, would there be 250,000+ pre-orders for the e-Golf?
Tesla Model 3 orders surpass $10 billion | VentureBeat | Business | by Blaise Zerega
The Tesla event and pre-order wasn't really about selling cars. They are rapidly burning through cash and this event was more about selling the company to investors so they can raise the funds they need. Big numbers and news stories are more valuable than hard sales right now. Tire kickers are more than welcome!Tesla should have required a $5K deposit, to weed out tire kickers. But even if only 20% of those pre-orders are real, it's still a big deal.
Myself, I'd take a 200-mile e-Golf at the Tesla 3 price.
When a company with a wildly successful brand name and positive public image is burning through over a billion dollars per year more than they bring in, it is perfectly reasonable to question the feasibility of their business model. When their top selling product is still 18+ months away, all deposits are 100% refundable, and there are competitors planning to enter the market, it is only reasonable to question if the market interest will turn into actual sales or not.The hate is strong in this thread.
It seems like a lot of you possibly just scrape headlines and then build unsupported theories about Tesla.
It's ok, in a decade you'll have forgotten how much you hate them, when that technology starts to permeate into the rest of the auto world.
Matter of fact, I bet you'll retell the story about how you where the only forward thinking guy on your block that could see how Tesla was making the right moves!
There is a huge difference between software and cars. With software, the cost to make another copy is darn near nil. The cost to make another model S is over $100,000. Who knows what the Model 3 costs will be. With software it is OK to lose a lot of money while building a user base since you can run at very high profit margins once you are established. With cars, the profit margins, if any, are limited.It is following the Silicon Valley business model. Burn investors cash to get marketshare, then profit 10 or 15 years later. I don't know if this is good or bad for a car company though. With that being said, the financials of traditional automakers are not that healthy either...
Anyone can put 90 kvh worth of batteries into a car. Tesla can't do anything that the other car companies cannot also do if they choose. The problem is the cost of that range is higher than what consumers are willing to pay right now. Tesla is OK with losing a billion here and there, while "all other car makers" would prefer not to.Range from EV cars from all other car makers is a joke when you see what Tesla can do...
You mean the government spent $11.2 billion of taxpayer money on a kickback to the UAW as a thank you for their years of support every campaign season.Ahem - memories are short - U.S. government says it lost $11.2 billion on GM bailout | Reuters
Lithium ion battery tech was developed four decades ago and they have been commercially available for more than 25 years. The "gains" in storage capacity for electric cars can pretty much be summarized by "find more room to put more batteries." Not exactly a world changing technological leap.Electric cars are not new. However the storage capacity that they have and are gaining is. So the question is should something like that be subsidized? I say yes, because historically we all benefit from it.
LOL, uh NO! Set down the Kool Aid and come back to reality for a bit.Drop you off at LAX and then meet you at JFK. Also charge itself at Supercharge stations along the way.