[Agni]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The purpose of an auto manufacturer is to make a profit on the cars it sells. At some point Tesla needs to make a corporate profit by selling cars at a profit. Even selling carbon credits to other manufacturers has not brought corporate profits nor any stock dividends. It is going to be extremely hard for Tesla to fulfill the promises it has set for the Model 3 (delivery date, MSRP price, and performance).

It is not a question if Tesla makes a profit on the production of the Model S (Price vs. actual production cost of the vehicle). The actual cost of producing a car is not just the materials and production labor, it is the entire cost of operating the business, all of it eventually needs to come from the sales of cars at a profit. Tesla has yet proven it can do that. I hope it does.

Elon Musk has been saying from the start that the Model 3 will the car that will make the company profitable.You must realize that they had huge R&D expenses until this point. Also to the point about cost of labor, Tesla factory is almost all automated, its the most automated car factory in the world.

And you are right there are headwinds for Tesla, but the headwinds where much MUCH stronger a few years ago and they have successfully navigated them. So lets see what happens but im definitely impressed so far.

[cblandin]

Almost 4 years ago I sold my E39 M5 to lease a Chevy Volt. i drove it for 3 years. During that time I ASSUMED other manufacturers would introduce cars with similar tech (I am not an EV purist and actually think the Volt's model is pretty dang good). Indeed, I often posted on the Volt forum that what I really wanted was a 3 series with the Volt's tech.

Flash forward to today and GM has introduced the SECOND gen Volt with a full 53 miles of EV range (making 90% of owner driving likely pure electric), Tesla still has the Model S as the only game in town for big, fast EV sedans and...well...

BMW gave us a "regular hybrid" with the Active Hybrid series, and is JUST NOW introducing the 330e with...wait for it...14 miles of EV range. 5 years after CHEVY introduced a car with 35 miles of range we get less than half that in the 3 series. This is AFTER the i3 is introduced with tech that was supposed to trickle down to the rest of the BMW lineup. Heck, even Audi's A3 gets 16 miles of range, and let's not discount the Ford Energi twins with 20 miles of range. Even the ugly Prius Prime will have decent enough EV range for many. Surely, the next 3 series will be designed for a much larger battery pack...it better be. BMW is FOLLOWING here instead of leading.

Yes, BMW has the i3, but its not all it is cracked up to be with the functionally compromised suicide doors, tiny gas tank, short wheelbase with a choppy ride, skinny tires that compromise handling, etc. and no better EV range than many cheaper alternatives (this car could have been a game changer with a handful of different design decisions from BMW). Now sales are in the toilet for the i3, Tesla is the "cool kid" and BMW is challenged trying to determine where they should funnel their cash...tough spot for them for sure.

As an aside, I've test driven the new Volt, Model S, BMW i3, and Audi A3 E-tron as candidates for my next ride. The 330e is also on the list to test, however, the EV range on the 330e and A3 is so low there is sort of a "what's the point" factor witht those two...a shame as the A3 definitely had that classic German solid feel and ride/drive quality (as I suspect the 330e will). C'mon BMW!

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Agni

Elon Musk has been saying from the start that the Model 3 will the car that will make the company profitable.You must realize that they had huge R&D expenses until this point. Also to the point about cost of labor, Tesla factory is almost all automated, its the most automated car factory in the world.

And you are right there are headwinds for Tesla, but the headwinds where much MUCH stronger a few years ago and they have successfully navigated them. So lets see what happens but im definitely impressed so far.

It's true Musk said the Model 3 will be the car that will make the company profitable, saying it and making it happen are different things. While it is true the UAW has slowed some level of automation for the domestic US auto industry most of those fights have been won at this point and most plants have a high level of automation (meaning other manufacturers are not left in Tesla's apparent efficient EV production wake), but the NUMMI plant where Tesla builds can have only a certain level of efficiency regardless of automation. As I said before, getting nearly 50% of the production cost out of the Model S is going to be a feat. Understanding some of the tooling is amortized over three model lines and the engineering costs are also amortized over the Models S X and now 3, it still will be a feat to see happen; I hope it does.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by cblandin

Almost 4 years ago I sold my E39 M5 to lease a Chevy Volt. i drove it for 3 years. During that time I ASSUMED other manufacturers would introduce cars with similar tech (I am not an EV purist and actually think the Volt's model is pretty dang good). Indeed, I often posted on the Volt forum that what I really wanted was a 3 series with the Volt's tech.

Flash forward to today and GM has introduced the SECOND gen Volt with a full 53 miles of EV range (making 90% of owner driving likely pure electric), Tesla still has the Model S as the only game in town for big, fast EV sedans and...well...

BMW gave us a "regular hybrid" with the Active Hybrid series, and is JUST NOW introducing the 330e with...wait for it...14 miles of EV range. 5 years after CHEVY introduced a car with 35 miles of range we get less than half that in the 3 series. This is AFTER the i3 is introduced with tech that was supposed to trickle down to the rest of the BMW lineup. Heck, even Audi's A3 gets 16 miles of range, and let's not discount the Ford Energi twins with 20 miles of range. Even the ugly Prius Prime will have decent enough EV range for many. Surely, the next 3 series will be designed for a much larger battery pack...it better be. BMW is FOLLOWING here instead of leading.

Yes, BMW has the i3, but its not all it is cracked up to be with the functionally compromised suicide doors, tiny gas tank, short wheelbase with a choppy ride, skinny tires that compromise handling, etc. and no better EV range than many cheaper alternatives (this car could have been a game changer with a handful of different design decisions from BMW). Now sales are in the toilet for the i3, Tesla is the "cool kid" and BMW is challenged trying to determine where they should funnel their cash...tough spot for them for sure.

As an aside, I've test driven the new Volt, Model S, BMW i3, and Audi A3 E-tron as candidates for my next ride. The 330e is also on the list to test, however, the EV range on the 330e and A3 is so low there is sort of a "what's the point" factor witht those two...a shame as the A3 definitely had that classic German solid feel and ride/drive quality (as I suspect the 330e will). C'mon BMW!

How'd you like the Gen 2 Volt?

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

It will be interesting to see what the accounting treatment of the $400 million of reservation Agreements will be.

As expected, tesla classifies them as liabilities (there are articles which confirm this). Despite the fact, many news outlets want to cite the 10 billion in future guaranteed sales

[SCOTT26]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

So instead of focusing on product, you (as the face of BMW on these forums) instead implicitly complain how unfair it is to compete in the US and laugh that US residents will pay the price of better competition through hypothetical bailouts? Talk about biting the hand that fed BMW for all these years, which admittedly was won fair and square in the US with superior BMW product that excited and inspired entire generations. Now that the product no longer excites and seems to be straying from its core values, now BMW seeks to use diversionary tactics and excuse-fests, including some pathetically ineffective jabs at CUSTOMERS on the forums!?

Seems like a bunch of petty "schadenfreude" to me (despite the irony that it is the US manufacturers are making a leap), and is the perfect parallel to Kruger's awkward and embarrassing dissing of the the model X. Ford just paid $55,000 over sticker to get their hands on an early model X and LEARN from it, whereas the CEO of BMW takes the "ignorance is bliss" approach to dealing with the competition.

Looks like BMW's culture is pretty consistent up and down the ranks and as such, will probably get it into trouble.

You mis read my intentions. I have concern just as I did in regards to Fisker who also promised the world and showed a volume model. Which again is something that is being paid for whilst they decide the next course of action.

At Auto shows a BMW Entourage of managers,marketers and engineers descend on to the floor to check out various manufacturers and multiple models which we will also do here in Beijing later. The booth staff know who we are and give a run down of the car and we were advised it is a European model prototype so some features are not respondent of the actual production model.

When you say Ford has taken delivery and we know VAG have one also because there was a media report showing an engineering team unable to charge it because it is a US model.

But that's the problem. They are lacking imagination to start from scratch and develop their own model that they have to learn from them.
BMW i3 and BMW i8 where concepts that started with a fresh perspective. There was no MegaCity vehicles and no hybrid sports car so they were conceived from the ground up. The same is actually true for the next phase of BMWi. We have again started from a new page and will use the many facilities available to the BMWi program. Sure we will evaluate but will not assimilate or follow the same ideas as our competitors are planning to do that is what is unique about BMWi.
They maybe familiar concepts in a similar segment but that is where the similarities end. But also we have to look at what option the customer wants in terms of drivetrain assistance.
The expected option is not always what the customer wants especially from the established manufacturers. That is why there is reluctance to dive right in,for an established manufacture it is far too great a risk to take.

[lemetier]

Originally Posted by antzcrashing

As expected, tesla classifies them as liabilities (there are articles which confirm this). Despite the fact, many news outlets want to cite the 10 billion in future guaranteed sales

There isn't any doubt as to the reservation deposits being reported as liabilities. What is very interesting, and raises some questions is the clear nature of this reservation mechanism, terms and obligations of the agreement, and where that money is actually going to. The SEC raising the red flag again is probably the least of their concerns, though I noticed something hidden in the agreement that does re-open a concern the SEC did raise due to the ambiguity and unusual point at which this accounting entry occurred. Beyond that, this is nothing more than a way for Tesla to fund an unheard of initial production rate that will greatly impact operating losses and without a creative propping mechanism, destabilize the cash/cash equivalents on hand. This is solely to structure the pre-sale inventory production allocation and distribution map to manipulate the trigger of delivery units against a limit imposed on them by the Federal Government and impact on realized sales. This to me is where the DOJ might have some questions which won't be satisfied by a 5 page response.

Tesla certainly will sell 500k or more Model 3's. This reservation deposit explosion though, does not in any way indicate that market demands and conversions to deliveries will be realized from them within the next 5-7 years.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by gtron

I haven't seen this posted anywhere on here yet. If it hasn't been, I'm surprised. If it has, sorry for the duplicate post.

Reference:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/bmw-lose...ine-1461086049

Awesome!!!!

[evanevery]

Originally Posted by zer0cool

Moreover, for all manufacturers other than Tesla, without a supercharging network, EVs aren't really mobile...

I disagree with this completely! I don't know why Telsa themself seems to think the Superchargers are a big deal...

I've owned an electric car since 2012 (Chevy Volt). We run it almost exclusively on the battery. In the 4 years we have owned the car, I have put 4 tanks of gas in the car and that is only because it requires you to burn off a tank once a year. We use it for daily driving which for us is typically less than 40 miles a day.

We have several cars (most of them BMW's). We have other choices for longer trips but the the Volt is our daily driver. We simply run it around town during the day and then plug it in overnight (just like a cell phone). I've NEVER used a charger other than the one in our garage. I think that's just not convenient. If I was at a mall or going to a movie or something time consuming I would plug it in while I was doing other things. However, I'm simply not going to be driving it point-to-point stopping at chargers along the way for 20 mins at a time (even with much longer range). In my opinion, home charging is the model which works. One car for long trips and another for around town. You just have to find an electric car with the required range for your daily driving. I've never cared about where the charging stations are. We love the electric vehicle and I can't see my future without one.

BMW missed the point when it made the i3 because it doesn't have the range it should for most people (and no gas backup for infinite extension like the volt). BMW should have the tech to make cars with daily range to match Tesla - so I don't know why they didn't. The i3 is a nice car but it simply wasn't an upgrade from the Chevy. GM did a nice job on the Volt. The car is comfortable, drives like a real car, and has an ICE for backup. The i3 has good tech but only marginal range and not much else. It isn't even as comfortable as the Volt. So, if your looking for a daily grocery getter, there are better, cheaper, more flexible options available than the i3 (IMHO). BMW missed the mark...

The i8 is a different animal altogether. But again, not a replacement as a daily driver. I simply can't see the wife getting groceries in an i8. Its also not a compelling sale against a more functional, faster, longer range, Tesla Model S P90D.

So, BMW never achieved market position simply because they are not offering an electric car model which is well positioned for any popular market segment. Sure the i8 is a fun toy but that's not really gonna gain them any market share. ...and the i3 was just a late arrival "me too" in a market of low range electric vehicles. The i3 should have been what the new Tesla model 3 is going to be.

I am anxiously awaiting delivery of our new Tesla Model X P90DL in a couple of weeks. Its a much more functional electric car than anything BMW offers (and I truly am a BMW fan). It has AWD for the winter, 250 mi range, great tech, and lots of room for groceries and people. It is also "ludicrously" fast! It will effectively be replacing our BMW X6M (AWD winter car) and Chevy Volt (electric car) at the same time. And, personally, I don't care where any of the Superchargers are... I never have... For longer trips (more than 250 miles), We have other options (inc an M6 and M4).

Similarly I think most families have more than 1 car and the "second car/daily driver/around town" is where the market is I expect...

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by evanevery

I disagree with this completely! I don't know why Telsa themself seems to think the Superchargers are a big deal...

I've owned an electric car since 2012 (Chevy Volt). We run it almost exclusively on the battery. In the 4 years we have owned the car, I have put 4 tanks of gas in the car and that is only because it requires you to burn off a tank once a year. We use it for daily driving which for us is typically less than 40 miles a day.

We have several cars (most of them BMW's). We have other choices for longer trips but the the Volt is our daily driver. We simply run it around town during the day and then plug it in overnight (just like a cell phone). I've NEVER used a charger other than the one in our garage. I think that's just not convenient. If I was at a mall or going to a movie or something time consuming I would plug it in while I was doing other things. However, I'm simply not going to be driving it point-to-point stopping at chargers along the way for 20 mins at a time (even with much longer range). In my opinion, home charging is the model which works. One car for long trips and another for around town. You just have to find an electric car with the required range for your daily driving. I've never cared about where the charging stations are. We love the electric vehicle and I can't see my future without one.

BMW missed the point when it made the i3 because it doesn't have the range it should for most people (and no gas backup for infinite extension like the volt). BMW should have the tech to make cars with daily range to match Tesla - so I don't know why they didn't. The i3 is a nice car but it simply wasn't an upgrade from the Chevy. GM did a nice job on the Volt. The car is comfortable, drives like a real car, and has an ICE for backup. The i3 has good tech but only marginal range and not much else. It isn't even as comfortable as the Volt. So, if your looking for a daily grocery getter, there are better, cheaper, more flexible options available than the i3 (IMHO). BMW missed the mark...

The i8 is a different animal altogether. But again, not a replacement as a daily driver. I simply can't see the wife getting groceries in an i8. Its also not a compelling sale against a more functional, faster, longer range, Tesla Model S P90D.

So, BMW never achieved market position simply because they are not offering an electric car model which is well positioned for any popular market segment. Sure the i8 is a fun toy but that's not really gonna gain them any market share. ...and the i3 was just a late arrival "me too" in a market of low range electric vehicles. The i3 should have been what the new Tesla model 3 is going to be.

I am anxiously awaiting delivery of our new Tesla Model X P90DL in a couple of weeks. Its a much more functional electric car than anything BMW offers (and I truly am a BMW fan). It has AWD for the winter, 250 mi range, great tech, and lots of room for groceries and people. It is also "ludicrously" fast! It will effectively be replacing our BMW X6M (AWD winter car) and Chevy Volt (electric car) at the same time. And, personally, I don't care where any of the Superchargers are... I never have... For longer trips (more than 250 miles), We have other options (inc an M6 and M4).

Similarly I think most families have more than 1 car and the "second car/daily driver/around town" is where the market is I expect...

Your missing the point, 95 percent of people dont have multiple cars and can choose can choose their non electric when they want to drive far. So yes, supercharging is necessary for an automaker that wants more than 5 percent mkt share

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

You mis read my intentions. I have concern just as I did in regards to Fisker who also promised the world and showed a volume model. Which again is something that is being paid for whilst they decide the next course of action.

At Auto shows a BMW Entourage of managers,marketers and engineers descend on to the floor to check out various manufacturers and multiple models which we will also do here in Beijing later. The booth staff know who we are and give a run down of the car and we were advised it is a European model prototype so some features are not respondent of the actual production model.

When you say Ford has taken delivery and we know VAG have one also because there was a media report showing an engineering team unable to charge it because it is a US model.

But that's the problem. They are lacking imagination to start from scratch and develop their own model that they have to learn from them.
BMW i3 and BMW i8 where concepts that started with a fresh perspective. There was no MegaCity vehicles and no hybrid sports car so they were conceived from the ground up. The same is actually true for the next phase of BMWi. We have again started from a new page and will use the many facilities available to the BMWi program. Sure we will evaluate but will not assimilate or follow the same ideas as our competitors are planning to do that is what is unique about BMWi.
They maybe familiar concepts in a similar segment but that is where the similarities end. But also we have to look at what option the customer wants in terms of drivetrain assistance.
The expected option is not always what the customer wants especially from the established manufacturers. That is why there is reluctance to dive right in,for an established manufacture it is far too great a risk to take.

So the Ford Fusion Hybrid which has been in production for 7 model years (debuted March 2009) and based on Ford's homegrown hybrid design (500+ patents) shows no imagination? 7 Years ago BMW was paying off EPA fines for not meeting CAFE requirements. GM built and went to production with its first EV over 20 years ago. The Volt extended-range EV is very imaginative and has a drivetrain far more complex than either the i3 or i8. With the Volt Gen 2, GM dropped the total vehicle weight by 500 pounds, made the car slightly bigger, increase EV range, increase fuel MPG performance, and dropped the MSRP by about $6K from the Volt Gen 1, but the American car manufacturers don't have imagination.

For the e330, BMW has finally copied Honda's IMA which debuted 17 years ago in the original Insight of 1999.

[Fundguy1]

Cool. They removed another one of my anti electric car posts with no explanation of why. All I said is they aren't going anywhere. Sales show that they account for 0.66% of US car sales. So it's a failure and BMW should drop it. Any ideas why? Anyone?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Cool. They removed another one of my anti electric car posts with no explanation of why. All I said is they aren't going anywhere. Sales show that they account for 0.66% of US car sales. So it's a failure and BMW should drop it. Any ideas why? Anyone?

You watch Fox News... that usually does it

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So the Ford Fusion Hybrid which has been in production for 7 model years (debuted March 2009) and based on Ford's homegrown hybrid design (500+ patents) shows no imagination? 7 Years ago BMW was paying off EPA fines for not meeting CAFE requirements. GM built and went to production with its first EV over 20 years ago. The Volt extended-range EV is very imaginative and has a drivetrain far more complex than either the i3 or i8. BMW has finally copied Honda's IMA which debuted 17 years ago in the original Insight of 1999.

So 20 yrs of this stuff and still not even a 1% market share. Looks like a good business plan.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

So 20 yrs of this stuff and still not even a 1% market share. Looks like a good business plan.

Agreed, EVs don't work for everyone, but for some people they do. Ferraris don't work for everyone either. But it's the argument I make about Tesla... without carbon credit sales, it'd have died a while ago. We'll see if Elon can make a go of it once the $7,500 offset by Uncle Sam dries up.

[Imola.ZHP]

Originally Posted by antzcrashing

If the price of the model 3 is the same or less than the i3, tesla will have a hard time keeping up w demand, the i3 on the other hand bmw can hardly give away. I am not discounting your purchase, but from a desirability standpoint, sexiness (tesla 3) is beating functional (bmw i3) right now

No offense taken, the car is not for everyone, but I love it, and unlike the 3, it is available now. I went with Laurel Grey to minimize the obnoxiousness of the 2-tone paint, after lowering springs, spacers, tint and a few other mods the car looks and handles much better. It has only been into service twice in a year (just after purchase the tint shop scratched the club door windows and paid the dealer to replace them; and then just recently for the 1-year service) and each time I get crazy compliments at the dealer about how great looking the car is when compared to most i3's. I actually don't mind the obnoxious white or orange but my better half said Laurel Grey or find something else, since I liked all 3 colors equally it was an easy choice.

The comparison with the 3 will be a tough one, some Tesla owners will be the first to admit that fit and finish is not perfect on Tesla cars, the i3, however, is top notch BMW quality fit and finish throughout IMO. The 3 will be a 5-seater sedan, it is still odd to me that it is not a hatch like the S and X. The i3 is a small 4 seater hatch, I've only ever had one person in the back and he didn't care for it. Luckily we don't really need a back-seat, no kids, more than enough room for a couple of mutts. All of that said, I have a reservation on a 3, so we'll see where it goes. It could easily shift into a reservation for a Y to replace our CRV, if we don't get a X1/X2/X3/X4 PHEV first, it won't be my car so its not really my final choice. Inside I hope the i5 turns out to be a SUV and we can go that route, or that the Y will be an amazing vehicle, but a PHEV would work too, both of our commutes are very short so even in a 20-40 AER PHEV it would only have to be charged maybe once per week and could be driven in EV mode too and from work without using a drop of fuel.

Here is my i3, I think its sexy, but I don't expect everyone to agree with my tastes, and thats ok

[evanevery]

Originally Posted by antzcrashing

Your missing the point, 95 percent of people dont have multiple cars ...

I think I would have to challenge that statistic. ...and we're talking about families here - not people. With multiple cars for a family, very often an EV can easily meet the daily demands of at least one of the drivers...

[SCOTT26]

Originally Posted by Imola.ZHP

No offense taken, the car is not for everyone, but I love it, and unlike the 3, it is available now. I went with Laurel Grey to minimize the obnoxiousness of the 2-tone paint, after lowering springs, spacers, tint and a few other mods the car looks and handles much better. It has only been into service twice in a year (just after purchase the tint shop scratched the club door windows and paid the dealer to replace them; and then just recently for the 1-year service) and each time I get crazy compliments at the dealer about how great looking the car is when compared to most i3's. I actually don't mind the obnoxious white or orange but my better half said Laurel Grey or find something else, since I liked all 3 colors equally it was an easy choice.

The comparison with the 3 will be a tough one, some Tesla owners will be the first to admit that fit and finish is not perfect on Tesla cars, the i3, however, is top notch BMW quality fit and finish throughout IMO. The 3 will be a 5-seater sedan, it is still odd to me that it is not a hatch like the S and X. The i3 is a small 4 seater hatch, I've only ever had one person in the back and he didn't care for it. Luckily we don't really need a back-seat, no kids, more than enough room for a couple of mutts. All of that said, I have a reservation on a 3, so we'll see where it goes. It could easily shift into a reservation for a Y to replace our CRV, if we don't get a X1/X2/X3/X4 PHEV first, it won't be my car so its not really my final choice. Inside I hope the i5 turns out to be a SUV and we can go that route, or that the Y will be an amazing vehicle, but a PHEV would work too, both of our commutes are very short so even in a 20-40 AER PHEV it would only have to be charged maybe once per week and could be driven in EV mode too and from work without using a drop of fuel.

Here is my i3, I think its sexy, but I don't expect everyone to agree with my tastes, and thats ok

I think your i3 looks great.
I have one in Ionic Silver which I keep at my residence in Munich and use about town as intended as it is a Mega city vehicle,
It is not a Tesla rival. Its simply a way of getting from A-B its a vehicle conceived to be used in the city and when it does it does its job amicably.

Have you seen the Tesla Chinese rival?
It was launched in Beijing and it certainly looks interesting.

[lemetier]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Agreed, EVs don't work for everyone, but for some people they do. Ferraris don't work for everyone either. But it's the argument I make about Tesla... without carbon credit sales, it'd have died a while ago. We'll see if Elon can make a go of it once the $7,500 offset by Uncle Sam dries up.

There is something to your interpretation that is more in-line with what Elon envisioned from the beginning. It's also part of why they're actually struggling internally and appear to be successful externally. As much as some want to question the why and the significance of BMW i losing these particular individuals, Tesla has had and continues to have a much greater loss rate when it comes to core component/division leaders and engineers.

Tesla as a whole was envisioned to be foremost a component supplier. The "car company" was intended as a way display the capabilities these components provide and create a new consumer segment to displace the expenses. Carbon credit sales were to be a method of incentivizing the component supply sales and partnership agreements rather than a direct revenue source. The concept, while ingenious in its intent, doesn't translate well to results. It is this point where Tesla's car venture has been forced to adapt at significant expense, the incursion of component development on its own, while disguising the risk. Simultaneously, it's forcing them to hedge these short term methods on extremely risky long term programs, with a product renewal plan focused on updates to the systems while leaving the wrapper mostly untouched, with the hope the component supply aspect will eventually be realized. This doesn't work for any other well established automakers though. Tesla has a market; a growing one at that. But it's too soon to call it successful because it relies far too much on the existing engrained consumer habits and expectations. Unlike most other consumer goods, automobiles are still very much in their first generation.

This latest round of adaptations by Tesla comes with the highest risk. It's at a price point to grab the attention of wealthier early adopters and their offspring, while opening up the product to a demographic that tends to be reliant on subsidies to follow through on financial commitments. This latter subset is also more attracted by the wow factor and less cautious with finances. Any car company who offered a non-commitment reservation offer, to secure another reservation position for a new product would have even greater results.

The WTO, while truly being more of a nuisance rather than an effective regulatory entity, is a big white elephant. They have the potential to inflict significant damage to complete alternative vehicle powertrain implementation. So far, there has only been one infrastructure investigation simply because it was the only one that exists. Tesla has taken on the risk that it can beat out independent exposure to WTO member agreements and how the public/privatization mechanism becomes regulated.

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by Imola.ZHP

No offense taken, the car is not for everyone, but I love it, and unlike the 3, it is available now. I went with Laurel Grey to minimize the obnoxiousness of the 2-tone paint, after lowering springs, spacers, tint and a few other mods the car looks and handles much better. It has only been into service twice in a year (just after purchase the tint shop scratched the club door windows and paid the dealer to replace them; and then just recently for the 1-year service) and each time I get crazy compliments at the dealer about how great looking the car is when compared to most i3's. I actually don't mind the obnoxious white or orange but my better half said Laurel Grey or find something else, since I liked all 3 colors equally it was an easy choice.

The comparison with the 3 will be a tough one, some Tesla owners will be the first to admit that fit and finish is not perfect on Tesla cars, the i3, however, is top notch BMW quality fit and finish throughout IMO. The 3 will be a 5-seater sedan, it is still odd to me that it is not a hatch like the S and X. The i3 is a small 4 seater hatch, I've only ever had one person in the back and he didn't care for it. Luckily we don't really need a back-seat, no kids, more than enough room for a couple of mutts. All of that said, I have a reservation on a 3, so we'll see where it goes. It could easily shift into a reservation for a Y to replace our CRV, if we don't get a X1/X2/X3/X4 PHEV first, it won't be my car so its not really my final choice. Inside I hope the i5 turns out to be a SUV and we can go that route, or that the Y will be an amazing vehicle, but a PHEV would work too, both of our commutes are very short so even in a 20-40 AER PHEV it would only have to be charged maybe once per week and could be driven in EV mode too and from work without using a drop of fuel.

Here is my i3, I think its sexy, but I don't expect everyone to agree with my tastes, and thats ok

Your i3 looks great, and my comments weren't about the styling appeals of the i3, more about the functional appeals, but again no disrespect to anyone who bought the i3

[sq86]

Interesting thread... It amuses me that this turned from a story that BMWi lost some of it's important execs to how BMWi is superior to Tesla due to it being a "fledgling" company with productions woes, that the American taxpayer will support.

There will be no bailout should Tesla fail. If they do their stock will tank and it will be sold off to the highest bidder, GM or Ford I'd imagine. The US government has clearly shown, via the financial sector, that it will not be put in a place to give out bankruptcy prevention loans in the future. The level of ostentatious and nature of political comments from a BMW rep on a forum confounds me. Tell me what else do you know about our future?

P.S. kudos for the Bern on the socialist comments for President... pun intended

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by miamiten

There is something to your interpretation that is more in-line with what Elon envisioned from the beginning. It's also part of why they're actually struggling internally and appear to be successful externally. As much as some want to question the why and the significance of BMW i losing these particular individuals, Tesla has had and continues to have a much greater loss rate when it comes to core component/division leaders and engineers.

Tesla as a whole was envisioned to be foremost a component supplier. The "car company" was intended as a way display the capabilities these components provide and create a new consumer segment to displace the expenses. Carbon credit sales were to be a method of incentivizing the component supply sales and partnership agreements rather than a direct revenue source. The concept, while ingenious in its intent, doesn't translate well to results. It is this point where Tesla's car venture has been forced to adapt at significant expense, the incursion of component development on its own, while disguising the risk. Simultaneously, it's forcing them to hedge these short term methods on extremely risky long term programs, with a product renewal plan focused on updates to the systems while leaving the wrapper mostly untouched, with the hope the component supply aspect will eventually be realized. This doesn't work for any other well established automakers though. Tesla has a market; a growing one at that. But it's too soon to call it successful because it relies far too much on the existing engrained consumer habits and expectations. Unlike most other consumer goods, automobiles are still very much in their first generation.

This latest round of adaptations by Tesla comes with the highest risk. It's at a price point to grab the attention of wealthier early adopters and their offspring, while opening up the product to a demographic that tends to be reliant on subsidies to follow through on financial commitments. This latter subset is also more attracted by the wow factor and less cautious with finances. Any car company who offered a non-commitment reservation offer, to secure another reservation position for a new product would have even greater results.

The WTO, while truly being more of a nuisance rather than an effective regulatory entity, is a big white elephant. They have the potential to inflict significant damage to complete alternative vehicle powertrain implementation. So far, there has only been one infrastructure investigation simply because it was the only one that exists. Tesla has taken on the risk that it can beat out independent exposure to WTO member agreements and how the public/privatization mechanism becomes regulated.

I'll admit I don't know much about the battery design that will be produced at the Gigafactory, but I do know the current Tesla battery is a simple C-cell design that is a common EV battery component. Tesla and other manufacturers design the cell array and cooling configurations to best suit the vehicle battery form factor and charging/discharging capability. GM on the other hand with design of the Volt's battery, working with battery partner LG, has implemented a "prism" cell design what allows for excellent charge/discharge (current flow) along with cooling efficiency and battery compactness. The GM/LG cell design seems more advanced than the current Tesla design, but again I don't know all the details. The point is that I don't think Tesla "owns" the engineering of EV design as much as everyone thinks.

What I've not heard of lately is Tesla's statements that it will not enforce its patent rights and basically threw its patents to "open source" status. This move was in line to what you said above, which was to enhance Tesla as a component manufacturer basis. Tesla has stated that the Gigafactory is mainly to supply the EV and solar industries with batteries. To me the open source business model didn't make much sense.

Then there is the issue that lithium is a conflict mineral...