Tesla Shakes Up Model 3 Lineup (opens in new tab)

I have yet speak to any experienced embedded developer who actually thinks "full autonomy" is remotely possible in the near/mid term. The suggestions that it is possible, seems to come mainly from junior developers and snake-oil salesman.

We don't even have "full autonomous" trains, planes, or trucks yet.

Anyone want to lay odds on these cars ending up in a “certified pre-owned” program instead?

This seems like a scheme to both boost future new car sales and effectively “sell” the same car twice.

The idea that Tesla could get fully auto vehicles out of the existing Model 3s their building today is laughable. Even top-tier AV companies, with larger teams and far more advanced sensors, can't. There's a huge difference between working 95% of the time, and working well enough for a full auto fleet, and Tesla won't get there with pure cameras and a single front-facing radar. It's possible they could retrofit the old cars with new hardware, but other AV companies have suggested that retrofits aren't automotive-grade enough to last over time (sensor mounts drift too much, etc).

He’s promised FSD in 2019, just a couple months ago, even though Tesla logged no testing miles in the last 2 years in California: https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-tesla-full-self-drivin...

Tesla’s self-driving promises are reaching Theranos levels of sheer implausibility. The frustrating part is that they don’t need to make these absurd claims about self-driving; they already have a successful electric car business.

It's becoming hard to believe anything that Tesla puts out or Elon says. It is a real shame the $35K 3 turned out to be a lie, the amount of PR that phrase has generated over the years is on par with all of SpaceX.

Leases are rentals. A true lease always has a residual, but nothing forces the lessor to sell it to you.

It's yet another red flag for buying a Tesla, as if you have something happen that is an uninsured liability to the car, or won't be resolved in the timeframe at the lease, you're stuck.

This quote serves three purposes: (1) It emphasizes the value in software, not the car's 'carcass'; (2) It hypes a future marketplace and business model for Tesla's stock purchasers; (3) It tells the customer that they are better off buying the good instead of renting.

I agree that it seems to be a rental. If the business expects to continue to make updates to the car's software assuming that it will be determining factors for its value, it will be difficult to determine the residual value at the end.

Does that mean that leases will cease to exist? That we will find a way to price the software updates? or that older cars will stop being updated the same way cellphones & OS systems are?

This has nothing to do with FSD. Tesla can now set the lease rate with a very artificially low residual value so they can charge more monthly (but is offset somewhat by the capitalized cost deduction of the tax rebate), and then actually sell the car at market value after 3 years.

It's one way to double dip on the same vehicle and get more than 100% in revenue in respect to the original MSRP.

But sure throw that line in to cash in on the hype of ride sharing IPOs and FSD so they can raise a nice equity round in the near future.

Tesla seems to be coy about the terms - for example, how much does it cost to exceed the annual mileage cap? At the end of a lease, would you get a discount on a subsequent lease or purchase?

This is all probably moot, as I imagine Tesla's lease has a clause allowing it to unilaterally change the rules at any time, and it has displayed no reticence in doing so over other issues.

It’s also interesting that they would even give the context that they plan on using these cars as part of a self driving network. Any other company could and would only say that there is no option for buyout and leave it at that.

He didn't promise autonomous cars in 3 years, he promised they won't be ready for at least 3 years. Hence the leasing scheme

The next paragraph is interesting too:

"Its range will be limited by 10%, and several features will be disabled via software (including our onboard music streaming service, navigation with live traffic visualization, and heated seats). Similar to other software-limited vehicles produced in the past, Standard customers will have the option to upgrade to a Standard Plus at any time. Similarly, anyone who has already bought Standard Plus and wants to convert to Standard is welcome to do so, and we will provide a refund for the difference in cost."

It's pretty confident to offer both upgrade and downgrade options between the two.

Sounds familiar: https://techcrunch.com/2013/04/01/tesla-kills-the-entry-leve...

I don't understand. Will they be selling the standard then ? The quote and headline don't seem to match. And no, I haven't read the link.

edit: I did read the link and I still don't understand.

Maybe unrealistic in the end but I think they realized it was cheaper to not change up the assembly line too much and instead just build them all with the same interior options. Removing extra speakers is easy, not installing all the ambient lighting is simple, swapping out a leather interior with cloth isn't as that not only is a large item it means you need to secure supplies for an option that may not have sufficient uptake to get a good discount.

plus the added bonus is that you can yourself choose to buy features you skipped out on earlier. It also would be a boon for resale as well. Letting the buyer decide to add options you passed on.

35k base model should probably been adjusted for inflation but Musk's ego boxed Tesla. Let alone that its one thousand or twelve hundred in delivery plus taxes on top of that 35k price so there never really is a 35k car. In the end I look at it this way, if your budget is so inflexible that less than a five percent change in price is make or break you should not be buying it in the first place.

I believe it was an outright lie, an effort to solicit deposits and lure people into a bait-and-switch of higher priced models. All evidence to date suggests I'm right. Of course, they're never going to come out and say 'we fooled you' but I don't know what level of evidence people need before they reach the conclusion for themselves.

>There also seems a high likelihood of waiting a long time and paying $2,500 deposit for something which never arrives.

Any examples of this? Pretty sure everything has arrived at some point, albeit a delay.

If you were buying a car, would you not judge it by its merits, such as its handling abilities, safety, fuel costs, pollution, and ability to get you from A to B? That is the kind of consistency which most people look for when buying a car.

I don't know if the cost is ~$5K to Tesla, but I for one am sold on their EV business and less so the 'self-driving capabilities'.

I think all these self-driving options are being bundled into it because other car companies already add various forms of adaptive cruise/lane-keep to their base models so Tesla wants to have these things to stay competitive (prob adding the 'advanced functionality' to seem like they have a competitive edge).

I wish that Tesla did have a non-smart car option. On the flip side, that makes me sound like one of the tech late-adopters who didn't "need" a smartphone, where a regular phone could have sufficed. In 5 years time, there may not be non-AI (not necessarily full self-driving) cars.

> Maybe if they hadn't included $5,000+ worth of (fake) "full self-driving" hardware by default into all Model 3s

FSD hardware is known as "HW3" (now known as "FSD Computer") and is not in any Teslas at the moment.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1111788218142216192?ref_...

That hardware is necessary for safety features included in every car, and I seriously doubt it costs anywhere near that much money.

The hardware is like $1-2k, the $5k is just what they charge for the feature.

Many cars in this class have radar adaptive cruise and 360 cameras. I don't think the hardware here is really that expensive compared to other cars.

For me, the base model is all I've considered. Mainly because I want a electric car without any bells and whistles.

Seeing the feature lists of used cars with base trim is just sad. I once had a 2009 car without electric windows or central locking.

>Once again I gotta say the negativity is astounding.

How do you figure what they did should be something that is considered a positive? They are raising the price of the base car that was supposed to be for the masses. Now granted to a degree it was a bait and switch anyway given that most people interested in the car want the bells and whistles that they don't get on the base model anyway. Raising the base price to me seems to be something that should be considered a negative no matter the auto maker.

>astounded to see people constantly saying Autonomy is a decade+ away.

Because in all likelihood it is. What they've done in the last 6 years is impressive but wasn't impossible. Even if 95% of their miles can be done autonomously the other 5% is not to be snuffed at as being just as easy. I look at it as 80/20. They've done the 'easy' 80% of it, but the problem is now you're stuck with all the difficult next steps (ie one off situations, roads with no markers, construction, user driving mistakes, ect) as well as the potentials for legal liabilities if they go fully autonomous.

>They already have cars driving people 95% of their miles, which would've seemed impossible 6 years ago, and yet here we are, and the last 5% is going to take a decade?

"The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time."

>They already have cars driving people 95% of their miles

I'm skeptical. I'd be surprised if more than 40% of my miles were freeway.

Call me when we have fully autonomous trains and then I'll start thinking about losing my skepticism about autonomous cars.

People don’t want them to fail. Some are frustrated by the overpromises and Self Driving vaporware Elon has been pushing for years. I’d be fine with Tesla saying they will be the best electric car company in the world with best in class Driver Assist but I guess that’s what CEOs do.

I plan to buy a Tesla in 2-3 years I just hope they can get their pricing and production streamlined before I do otherwise I’ll buy something German.

>I really don't get it.

Tesla has over-promised and under-delivered for years while maintaining a tremendous amount of hubris throughout.

Regarding the negativity towards Tesla: IIRC the specific author, Edward Niedermeyer, has had this same type of tone before (which is why I remember). So I'd say this is not representative of some general attitude, but of this particular guy.

GM didn't take any money for those cars did they? FSD is scammy vaporware, and they are selling it now. Tesla is a dishonest company run by a narcissist.

Spending 90% of the money or time, on the last 10% of performance, is common in my experience. The ratio may be not that extreme, but that’s the crux of it.

And suddenly the true context of their hacking competitions around their software platform make even more sense...

It already is: https://www.fastcompany.com/90209541/meet-the-renegade-whos-...

And Elon will randomly brick people's cars out of spite. It's a strange future.

The couldn’t be as they haven’t produced a single one.

As someone who owns both an I-PACE and a Model X, I can say that Tesla hasn't quite nailed the "luxury" part yet.

Man. That is Damning!

Baloney. I'm sure lots of people who even wanted to buy the Standard model were put off because they never saw any actual deliveries of the 35k vehicle.