-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Mid range battery available now?
- Thread starter TurnFast
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3 Tesla Inc.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
call or physically visit a tesla store (if your state has em)
timk225
Active Member
Tesla will software lock the LR batteries they have sitting in parking lots now, if it means getting a LR car sold at an MR price. New MR cars will have MR batteries.
Troll statement? Who? Me?
And for anyone who gets an LR car that is locked to MR, about two months after they take delivery, Tesla will call and say "Did you know your car is eligible to be unlocked to full LR status? More range, more speed, better 0-60. All we need is another 5 grand".
And some will then max out their credit card, or realize "You know, college educations are a real scam anyway, better for the kids to learn in the real world".
And THAT is a real win/win for Tesla. Someone who wanted a standard battery was convinced to stretch and get an MR. And now some of them will end up getting the LR at full LR price. Profits for Tesla!!!
Last edited:
Lifeinabox
Member
Wonder if the "off menu" includes ordering the white interior with LR RWD?
Cost of upgrade is included in cost of FSD. Originally it was stated "if needed", now we know it is needed. Pricing might change for adding after delivery, that's besides the point. They're not going to charge you for FSD and also service/labor to upgrade the computer, it's all part of the cost of FSD. So saying you got a free hardware upgrade is misleading. Everyone who buys FSD ever gets a "free" hardware upgrade if they need one, included in the cost, when FSD becomes available.
Obviously Tesla stands to make more money selling FSD upgrades after delivery as they charge more (just as they do for EAP even though that's literally just a software toggle, no potential computer upgrades). Tesla has always charged more for upgrading after delivery (EAP, FSD, software locked batteries), to encourage people to put in more money sooner. They make more money regardless of whether someone needs the computer upgrade for FSD, they are unlikely to discount FSD upgrade for anyone who already has AP 3.
Anyways, my reply was to someone stating that they're saving money by not offering FSD and removing / cheapening hardware to do so - my point was that the cost to build the vehicles hasn't changed at all, because the AP hardware is still needed for safety features and not just for anyone who buys EAP. So right now, they are not saving or gaining anything other than loss of interest on future FSD pre-payments. Not offering FSD doesn't save them anything, until FSD arrives, so it's not a cost saving measure to improve the bottom line right now.
Kermee
It's Not Easy Being Green
Anyone ordering FSD "off-the-menu" should be forced to sign that they are aware it's a "donation" to a for-profit, non-501(c)(3)...
Tesla will software lock the LR batteries they have sitting in parking lots now, if it means getting a LR car sold at an MR price. New MR cars will have MR batteries.
Troll statement? Who? Me?
And for anyone who gets an LR car that is locked to MR, about two months after they take delivery, Tesla will call and say "Did you know your car is eligible to be unlocked to full LR status? More range, more speed, better 0-60. All we need is another 5 grand".
And some will then max out their credit card, or realize "You know, college educations are a real scam anyway, better for the kids to learn in the real world".
And THAT is a real win/win for Tesla. Someone who wanted a standard battery was convinced to stretch and get an MR. And now some of them will end up getting the LR at full LR price. Profits for Tesla!!!
I'm not a huge fan on banking off of high priced unlocks. You can micro-transaction to death someone by a thousand paper cuts. Massive expenses that can be financed is usually a no.
If someone could't swing 10,000 financed into a Model 3 - they likely will not be able to throw 10,000 on a credit card with massive APR. $5,000, $10,000 all too much.
If Tesla wants revenue stream, throw IOS on the TeslaPad. Let people pay $10 bucks to play Angry Birds or download a song that Slacker wouldn't play. Subscription for EAP/FSD model might come but its not as good as getting money upfront.
I honestly would be bearish if we find out they took LR Model 3s and software locked them to MR batteries. If Tesla can't move every single LR by end of 2018 in the USA.. we have a dropping demand curve (In the USA).
Considering tax credits, you are really only stretching $1.5K more or so for the earliest SR. First SR is going to come with Premium trim.
It's an assumption to think Tesla hasn't changed their manufacturing process.
Tesla makes changes all the time without notice. See IR orange tint gate.. or Alcantara gate.. or ventilated seat gate. or active spoiler gate.
Nothing stops Tesla from putting in a minimal 'CPU' to lower the cost of ripping it out later.
I've mentioned many times before, it is against Tesla's interest to sell a $35,000 Model 3. The main issue being a $35,000 Model 3 remains a $35,000 Model 3. Very low uptake chance on EAP/FSD.
If Elon wants to go super simple, have two suites:
1 - Minimum needed for safety.
2 - Full blown compute package for EAP/FSD. $10K. Offered only on high and max level trims.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Meaning cost to Tesla goes up from what they originally thought with every 3k FSD presale they make.
Now that they KNOW it needs one, they're losing more profit per car sold with it.
Hence they save money no longer offering that until there's no longer a HW upgrade needed.
Which, again, is why once they know it needs one it saves them money to stop selling it until they no longer need to do upgrades for people... (which will be in ~6 months when the car just comes from the factory with the upgraded computer)
And your point is factually incorrect.
Here's the math.
Today:
$3000 for FSD. It costs Tesla $X to put the 2.5 computer in the car (X can be any number you like) it costs $Y to put the 3.0 computer in after the fact. Tesla is essentially paying for 2 computers and the labor to swap with every FSD sale at this point. So profit= $3000 minus $X minus $Y per car.
6 months from now:
$3000 for FSD. It costs Tesla $Z to put the 3.0 computer in at the factory. $Z is a smaller number than $Y. Profit= $3000 minus $Z. Which is a larger profit, specifically by $X plus the value of $Y minus $Z.
Therefore they are saving money long term by taking FSD off the table until the 3.0 computer comes from the factory.
For post-sales, they easily resolve that by simply including the difference between $Y and $Z in the post-purchase cost of FSD for 2.0/2.5 owners.
It’s gonna be something like 60k euros in France best case scenario. It’s a lot of money for most people. He’s used to spending 30k.
Except EAP is now apparently using most of the current AP2/AP2.5 computing power. So they can't really downsize the non-FSD compute power, unless they want to have THREE types of hardware to support (safety features only, EAP capable, FSD capable). That would be a terrible idea. And if anyone wants to upgrade from safety features to EAP, Tesla then has to arrange to upgrade the computer. And they can't use trial periods to hook people into upgrading.
That doesn't affect the current bottom line though, it will only come into play next year (or later). The cost to build the car has not changed only the amount of potential profit to be made when FSD is finally available. So it affects future revenue, but doesn't affect build costs and current margins (since all the AP hardware is the same for all Model 3s regardless of whether they opted for EAP or FSD).
They didn't decide to remove / downgrade the AP hardware because they stopped pre-selling FSD, so the cars still cost the same to make and have the same margins.
Well, this is the USA. Lawsuits will fly either way...
It won't affect current cash flows, but cash flows are no the same as revenue, margins, and profit. For every FSD they sell, they will need to account for it as a "customer prepayment" which is a liability and not counted in revenue, as "unearned revenue", or as some other liability.
The known need to deliver 3.0 hardware to every FSD sold today will need to appear on their books this quarter since they know about it now, even if the cash cost isn't paid until next quarter or later. That is how accounting works.
You are right that it would help their current cashflows, but that is a different point.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
MXWing said:
If you mean against Tesla's interest as being less profitable you don't know what Tesla's goal is.
Tesla's interest is advancing sustainable transportation. There is no way they will avoid that market even if it is less profitable.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Qzic covered pretty well why this is incorrect... cash flow != revenue in accounting terms.
We had to cover this same thing when people kept thinking those $2500 deposits on cars were an attempt by tesla to increase revenue- despite them actually being liabilities on Teslas books.
Actually... THERE is a great additional reason they're not taking FSD orders anymore.
If they want to appear profitable in Q4 then adding liabilities to the books for revenue they can't recognize until they deliver FSD (and they surely won't be doing that in Q4) is a terrible idea... and stopping doing that a great one.
TT97
Active Member
Taking FSD deposits have no effect on revenue or expenses. The deposit is a debit to Cash and a credit to Customer Deposits. It affects their balance sheet but not their i&e.
Similar threads
