Tesla Analyst: “We Do Not Believe The Model 3 To Be Launched In 2017”



Tesla Model 3

Tesla Model 3

Jonas took a lot of heat for that statement and in a new note sent to investors, he seems to have dialed back his wording…just a bit.

model-3-3Just a couple of weeks ago, Morgan Stanley’s top Tesla analyst, Adam Jonas, stated that he expected the first Tesla Model 3 deliveries to begin “at the very end of 2018.”

The new note, titled “Tesla’s Mission 2017: Funding the Model 3,” states the following:

“We do not expect the Model 3 to be launched in 2017. While we cannot rule it out, we do not adopt as our base case a scenario in which Model 3 deliveries begin in 2017.

We recognize that Tesla management has targeted a 2H launch date and that they will make every effort to satisfy high levels of preliminary demand and fill orders for the product as soon as possible. However, our base case is for a launch in late 2018. We have taken this conservative approach to allow for the probability that Tesla will choose to prioritize the quality, cost, performance and lifesaving technology of the vehicle.

While Tesla still adopts a high level of vertical integration, we expect the Model 3 to rely even more extensively on 3rd party suppliers than the Model S, potentially increasing the scope of supply-related factors outside of the company’s control.”

Why the anticipated delay? Well, Jonas opened the note with some questions that remain unanswered, and it’s from these questions that Jonas casts his doubts:

“2017 is the year of the Model 3. What’s the content? Where are the prototypes? When do we get to drive it?”

We at InsideEVs do expect Model 3 deliveries to begin as promised in 2017, but we expect the volume of the deliveries to be miniscule, basically echoing similar concerns as Jonas, and considering Tesla’s historical track record, and progress to date on the Model 3 in mind.

“Real” production and volume deliveries may indeed not begin until Jonas’ “late 2018” target, but at the end of the day, it is coming – and that’s still the main thing to remember.

Category: Tesla

Tags: ,

165 responses to "Tesla Analyst: “We Do Not Believe The Model 3 To Be Launched In 2017”"
  1. Mike I. says:

    If Mr. Jonas had added some qualifications like “in significant volume” or “to unaffiliated retail customers” I would be more inclined to believe him. We know Tesla will front-load deliveries to employees, so there will be production cars on the road and there will definitely be some teething pains, but if they don’t deliver ANY Model 3 cars in 2017 it will be a massive fail.

    1. WadeTyhon says:

      Yeah, I think this is most likely. It will be similar to the Model X, Model S and ELR – very small numbers for the first few months.

      Early 2018 may be a safe bet though. If it is only a couple months delay it would not necessarily be a massive fail.

      But late 2018 for the *first* deliveries would be.

      1. philip d says:

        This also not unusual for other EVs and PHEVs from the other automakers.

        I don’t live in a CARB state and I had to wait until mid-March for a 2017 Volt after GM announced the year before that the Gen 2 2016 Volt would be rolled out nationwide in the fall.

        And this was after I had order number 1 on the wait list from the largest GM Volt dealer in the Atlanta area.

        Even in the CARB states very few 2016 Volts were delivered in the first few months.

        The same is showing to be true with the Bolt as well. Here we are in December 2016 and we are just now seeing them on delivery trucks but no customers have received them yet even though they had originally announced nationwide rollout for fall 2016.

        I’m guess nationwide deliveries at volume will probably happen in March like the Volt.

        1. WadeTyhon says:

          Oh yes, I live in Texas so I am in the same position as you. Going to have to wait until next spring or summer for a Bolt. The Model 3 deliveries will start first on the west coast as well which is not at all unusual.

          I think this analyst is being overly cautious. Tesla will want to start deliveries in 2017 or very early 2018 and I think they can do that even if it is under 50 a month for the first couple months.

          But even if there was an unlikely 6-12 month delay in Model 3, I don’t think many people would be deterred. 😀

          1. Steven says:

            And I live in Pennsylvania.
            Trust me, you’ll see them on the road, long before I will.

        2. Anti-Lord Kelvin says:

          Some one could say that Fall only ended in the 21th of this month..:-)
          Otherwise, I’m with you for the comment.

    2. Terawatt says:

      And your analysis is based on…?

  2. bro1999 says:

    A few dozen hand-built, fully loaded units delivered in Dec 2017 meets Tesla’s promise. Anyone expecting to land a $35k Model 3 next year is fooling themselves.

    1. Mike says:

      A base model is actually easier to deliver because there are fewer suppliers to rely on and fewer components that could have quality issues. Send the loads ones out for review as “pre-production” for the media buzz and focus on getting the basic car running down the production line.

      We will never knows how much of the Model X scaling troubles were for falcon door actuator, but that is a good example of one novel part really fouling things up.

      I also have think the Bolt comparisons are potentially misleading. The Bolt is GM’s first true EV and LG’s first serious foray into full drivetrains. The only real novel part of the Model 3 (that we know of) is that it will be Tesla’s first steel body. No big mistery to making one of those!

      1. Bacardi says:

        Would be nice but…
        “Tesla Model 3 Debuts March 31st, Higher Optioned Cars Made First”


      2. Nix says:


        The higher profit margins on highly optioned cars overrides the complexity issue. Tesla doesn’t have the luxury of hiding the costs of launching a new line of cars in among earnings from a dozen or two other cars they also sell (like most ICE car makers).

        Since their releases and quarterly reports are under a microscope, they have to show profit right out the gate. That means prioritizing higher profit units.

        Besides, Elon has already announced that the plan is to start production of cars with more options first. So there is that….

      3. Bill Howland says:

        I disagree MIKE for the simple reason that LG (the old ‘GOLDSTAR’ in the States) is one super-SERIOUS Korean company. They are already quite familiar with this technology from their wholesale swallowing of the entire front loader washing machine market for years until Whirlpool caught up.

        Any inverter, gearbox, or charger issues that their engineering teams do not feel comfortable with designing for these power levels could easily be subcontracted out to any number of suppliers to provide the critical assembly, gears or power module (HEXFETS, etc).

        And there’s no questioning LG’s impressive expertise in designing super-durable, cost-effective battery pouches. The VOlt has the best battery around and LG can take most of the credit (GM gets some from having a good initial design, plus pampering the battery temperature-wise, plus doing realistic extended life testing).

      4. Bill Howland says:

        I disagree MIKE for the simple reason that LG (the old ‘GOLDSTAR’ in the States) is one super-SERIOUS Korean company. They are already quite familiar with this technology from their wholesale swallowing of the entire front loader washing machine market for years until Whirlpool caught up.

        Any inverter, gearbox, or charger issues that their engineering teams do not feel comfortable with designing for these power levels could easily be subcontracted out to any number of suppliers to provide the critical assembly, gears or power module (HEXFETS, etc).

        And there’s no questioning LG’s impressive expertise in designing super-durable, cost-effective battery pouches. The VOlt has the best battery around and LG can take most of the credit (GM gets some from having a good initial design, plus pampering the battery temperature-wise, plus doing realistic extended life testing).

        AS far as meeting the future production schedule – the ‘3’ looks to me to be designed for easy, quick manufacture – some of the interior space some might describe as SPARTAN, but the minimalistic interior and exterior may become an ‘in-vogue’ style anyway.

        The old Chevy -Toyota plant they are in was designed for LARGE production numbers, and therefore, Musk might surprise everyone and actually make many boatloads of ‘3’s.

    2. Jonathan B says:

      When this may technically fit the definition of launching in 2017, it’s not gonna fly for investors and for consumers. They can play that game with the Model X, which they did by launching the founders editions, but for a mass market car, no way. They can’t push a large scale launch much further than March 2018 or they will really run the risk of losing a lot of reservation holders.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Like bro1999, my guess at this point is that Tesla will manage to get a very few Model ≡’s out at the very end of 2017, so they can say that the car did debut in 2017.

        There is no cliff, no tipping point, at which people are suddenly going to start jumping off, like a mythical lemming migration, in canceling M≡ reservations. Years ago it was reported that about 25% of Model S reservations were cancelled before becoming orders, and of course a certain percentage of M≡ orders will also be cancelled. But let us remember that while some old reservations are being cancelled, new ones are being made. What is important, of course, is the net gain (or loss, if that were to happen) of reservations.

        Frankly, it doesn’t matter how many customers Tesla “loses” so long as it can sell every single car it makes. Given the astonishingly high demand shown for the Model ≡, Tesla would have to screw up the car pretty badly indeed to not sell every single M≡ they can possibly make, at least until they ramp up production to respectable numbers, by which I mean several times as many per year as the Model S is selling.

        That said, there is a much greater urgency for Tesla to get the M≡ into production ASAP than any previous car. Tesla is spending billions of dollars to build a battery Gigafactory, and it needs to start supplying the M≡ with a high volume of battery packs as soon as possible. Any delay in getting the Model ≡ into production means the Gigafactory is just sitting there, generating expenses but not generating much income. Of course, Tesla has tried to create secondary markets for Gigafactory batteries, with the PowerWall and PowerPack, but I don’t know that the volume of those sales will be enough to generate a significant amount of income for Tesla over the short term… by which I mean the next five years. Eventually, of course, the stationary storage market should be huge, but Tesla’s plans to grow rapidly means money now is much more important than money later.

        1. Anti-Lord Kelvin says:

          Was it not at the last April shareholders meeting that someone have said that there were already more than 100.000 powerwall/packs reservations (paying?). Now, we know that Tesla is taking orders for Powerwall-2 at $500 each, so 100.000 could be $50 millions, and 1 million of pre-orders at the end of 2017 would give $500 millions!

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Fair warning: Everything below is from memory, with no fact checking on my part. I hope it’s accurate, but if I’ve made any errors of fact, then I hope someone will post a correction.

            As I recall, the rather high number of initial so-called “reservations” or “orders” for the PowerPack and/or PowerWall turned out to be just the number of website clicks by people indicating interest in the initial wholesale price cited by Tesla. Once the very much higher actual installed retail price was announced, interest dropped off sharply. That said, the upgrade in PowerWall 2.0 does look like a much better deal. But I think the initial numbers cited were very inflated indeed, and my impression is that demand has not gone back up that much.

            According to my understanding, the consensus is that the current PowerWall price cost is too high to make sense for most or nearly all home owners. Hopefully that will change when the reduced cost of Gigafactory cells allows Tesla to drop the price of the PowerWall.

        2. Terawatt says:

          There may be a tipping point. If Tesla looks like it’s going under, that will itself make it much more likely to go under. A lot of folks for whom a thousand bucks is not pocket change have made the reservation; I’m one of them. While I would never do that if losing the deposit would land me in trouble, if I came to believe Tesla was most likely going down, I’d ask for my deposit back. After all, if Tesla goes under I’m not getting the car anyway, and then it’s only a question of whether my money is lost as well.

          Unlike a lot of people here I don’t imagine I know when the Model 3 will arrive or in what volume. But I personally interpret the relative lack of stunts and fluff from Tesla in the last couple of months as a good sign. Of course it’s impossible to know what’s going on from where I sit, but my hope is that Tesla is finally focusing on Model 3.

          I’m actually glad when I see analysts make predictions like this. It has zero bearing on Tesla’s actual progress, and it lowers expectations a bit. That reduces the risk of meltdown in the likely event of not being able to execute the official plan in a timely manner.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Thanks for your input here, Terawatt. I hadn’t thought about it from that direction.

            Yeah, lowering expectations a bit could, in the long run, be a good thing for Tesla… and its fans.

    3. ffbj says:

      That is certainly true, maybe not even in all of 2018 for a bare bones model, though only around 8% are configured that way.

  3. speculawyer says:

    Maybe, maybe not.

    I’d rather have it late than be not fully ready for prime time. If it has some serious faults in it, that could sink the entire company with bad reputation, warranty claims, recalls, repair costs, lemon law returns, etc.

    Make sure it is bulletproof before you ship it.

    1. JMollard says:

      Very well stated. Considering what Tesla has already achieved though, I’m certain the company has intelligent enough leaders to learn from their mistakes. Remember Elon’s “hubris” comment on the Model X. The simple challenge of scaling service centers 10 times (ie supporting 50 thousand in sales last year to 500 thousand the year after next), forces them to design the most reliable vehicle they can. Also, If I knew my product had 100s of thousands of reservations just days after the initial reveal, I would know there’s no need to pack it full of complex extras. Tesla will keep it simple on the initial release, and would rather deliver a more conservative and reliable product. All said, I expect they’ll deliver 100 thousand+ M3s in 2017. Mostly they’ll go to staff and existing Tesla owners though. New customers of Tesla won’t see theirs until 2018, and few will get the full federal rebate unfortunately.

    2. Terawatt says:

      Yes. But there are obviously limits to how late this can arrive and still be a revolutionary or even a relevant product. If deliveries don’t start until late 2018, I can probably not expect mine (as one of the first 200 reservation holders in Norway by my guesstimate) until late 2019 or early 2020.

      I’m not sure I want to hang on to my LEAF that long. Ampera-e is sold out for 2017 already, but the 2018 Ioniq may tempt and will arrive in ten months or so. Even the VW ID will be on sale in autumn 2019, as a 2020 model. And at least five, maybe twenty, new EVs will enter the market in the interim, all of them likely with vastly more range than my 2012 LEAF.

      Since I don’t really have any good options at the moment I may as well keep my reservation while I wait. Maybe Tesla manages to deliver before someone else makes me an offer I can’t refuse. But frankly I considered it very unlikely I’d cancel when I first reserved, but now reckon it’s at least a 50% chance that I will.

      I’m hearing from other Norwegians that the Ampera-e has awful seats. But if I can sit well enough in it and used prices aren’t too ridiculous, and Tesla looks no more sure to deliver my Model 3 in early 2018, it’s going to be extremely tempting to ditch Nissan. (The new LEAF will arrive in the interim, I guess, but has to be incredible to win me over. I want the Ampera-e power nearly as much as I want the range.)

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Terawatt said:

        “I’m hearing from other Norwegians that the Ampera-e has awful seats.”

        According to reports, GM saved weight by ditching the usual padded seat found in cars, for fabric stretched on a frame, like a lawn chair.

        If I was seriously considering buying a Bolt, I’d look into aftermarket replacement seats before making a buying decisions. I’ve been told that some modern cars have air bags built into the seats, which would make replacement basically impossible (unless you’re willing to live without side impact airbags). But if the seats are just fabric stretched on a frame, then hopefully they don’t contain any airbags.

  4. JyBicycleOrTesla says:

    Does anyone actually believe in 2017?

    1. instant tq says:

      All of those so-called religious cult members, they do

      1. Tim says:

        And the employees at Tesla. We are making a lot of progress early on.

        1. Josh Bryant says:

          Every guy at Tesla named Tim is going to get a nastygram from “management” about public disclosures on Monday.

          1. Terawatt says:

            Tesla employees are hopefully smart enough to type in a different display name than their real name. And I’m smart enough to know that neither of us knows whether “Tim” is actually a Tesla employee.

            Maybe Elon should send an email to all employees reminding them never to disclose anything, and another to the rest of the world telling us never to pose as Tesla employees.

            Or maybe Elon should focus on the Model 3.

            1. Nix says:

              Terawatt — Interesting. We get a potential individual with inside information, and your instant response is to cast doubt on his authenticity, and suggest he should be silenced.

              I’ve had discussions with confirmed C-level executives of companies on green sites before, so it is not at all out of the question that he is who he is.

              But you seem determined to make sure he feels threatened and unsafe if he posts here. Why is that? What are you afraid of?

              1. Tim is indeed an employee of Tesla, but he’s full of it. Don’t believe what he says. He’s a pathological liar.

                Worse yet, Tim will take the last of the coffee and never make a fresh pot. How are we at Tesla supposed to burn the midnight oil and make progress on the Model 3 when there’s no damn coffee when we need it?

        2. instant tq says:

          Tim, aren’t employees of Tesla like a religious leaders in this regard?

          1. Rick Danger says:

            The buzzer went off. Time for your meds.

            1. instant tq says:

              It’s never too late to deliver the meds, Rick, let’s pray and wait.

    2. pjwood1 says:

      Eric said it, “miniscule” volume. So, yes, 2017, just like the handful of Model Xs.

      I don’t understand why they don’t correct people’s expectations to a normal car, powered by electricity? The field is practically there’s to lose.

      1. pjwood1 says:


      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Tesla isn’t promoting the image of a “normal” car. They’re promoting the image of a more desirable “sexy” car.

        Tesla doesn’t want its cars seen as “just as good as a gasmobile”. They want them seen as better!

  5. David Murray says:

    I guess it is kind of important to remember that 2017 starts in like 3 weeks. So Anyone expecting any volume production in 2017 is out of their mind. However, “late 2018” sounds a bit unreasonable. I would have expected early 2018.

    1. Michael Will says:

      I expect mid-2017 for the first trickle and volume production towards the end of 2017.

    2. DonC says:

      Late 2018 seems about right. That would be two and a half years after showing the prototype and just over two years after completing the design. GM took two years from concept to production with the Bolt EV, but the Bolt EV concept seemed considerably further along than the Model 3 concept.

    3. Terawatt says:

      What information do you have to make such judgements? Or are you one of those idiots who think you can divine the right answer without having any information, nor any insight into the matter?

      I have no idea if Tesla could make, say, 30 000 Model 3 during 2017. Nor do you, I suspect. We have a ton of speculation and guesses about the current state of the production line, tooling and suppliers readiness. We know they are expanding and there’s plenty of plausible speculation about how this fits into the Model 3 plans. But to jump from a few facts that in themselves tell us little plus a ton of assumptions, some likely and some guesswork, to firm conclusions is simply silly.

      What I think isn’t in doubt is this: Tesla is already late to the party. GM stole their thunder by offering plentiful range at nearly mainstream price. If Tesla can deliver in volume in 2018 this won’t necessarily be much of a problem, if GMs projections for Bolt production aren’t simply a decoy. But if Model 3 isn’t coming to Europe until 2020 it seems to me there’s a real problem. Ampera-e should be cheaper and better next year compared to this. And the year after. And loads of other models will become available in the interim. They’ll have over the air software updates just like Tesla and perhaps be cheaper as well.

      Based on this I can say that I think it’s important Tesla manages to more or less stick to the timeline, and that I hope they can. But it tells me nothing about the probability that they will.

      I’m tired of waiting. And it seems very likely I’ll have several good options to choose between before Tesla can deliver on my Model 3 reservation. The reveal part 2 was the worst flop ever and still no word on when we’ll get to see the finished car (to the extent any Tesla is ever finished).

  6. ffbj says:

    It will similar be to the 2016 Bolt roll-out.

    1. Gary says:

      If it is similar to the Bolt roll-out, they have about 3 months to get the assembly line up and running, then produce a few hundred cars for long term testing before starting actual production in late 2017.

      1. DonC says:

        First you have the mule stage. Then you have the IVER or Integration Vehicle Engineer Integration cars which are hand built on a prototype production line that might combine 5-10 stations on the final production line into 1 station. This is where the car looks like the final but with mismatched bumpers and so forth. Then you have the PPV or Production Process Validation phase where cars are built on the expected assembly line in order to test the assembly process. After that you have MVB or Manufacturing Validation Build phase, which is broken into two stages, MVBns, where you can still tweak the car and production, and MVBs, which produces final test vehicles.

        From IVER to production is usually at least a year and a half. So IVERs would have needed to be on the roads at about the time the design was finalized.

        However, I think he was talking about the roll out after production starts. I doubt that will happen because Tesla has the the capability to turn out that many cars initially.

        1. Another Euro point of view says:

          OK, then forget about end of 2017.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            DonC is a serial anti-Tesla basher. There’s no good reason to pay attention to his FUD.

            1. realistic says:

              “DonC is a serial anti-Tesla basher. There’s no good reason to pay attention to his FUD.”

              Oddly, his description for a typical auto development process fits nicely with this view from GMInsider published in 2010, and like my own experience in the industry.


              P-P, this may look like “FUD” if “FUD” is using known industrial standards to measure the progress of someone in the industry. To me it looks “normal”, and the Keystone version of the Model X program — the most recent development project from Fremont — was a Keystone Kops effort that can best be described with a word that rhymes with “fustercluck”.

              If you’re a depositor, you’d better hope that Don’s “FUD” is reality, and that the adult supervision brought in from Audi really has a say in all this to create the car that Tesla adherents expect.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                The best lies or FUD, the most convincing, are those that mix in some truth with the lies. And the more truth a FUDster can mix in, the more likely his lies are to be believed.

                If I agreed that Tesla will use the same lackadaisical approach for getting the Model ≡ into production that they did for the Model X, then I would certainly agree that the M≡ would be delayed until end of 2018, or even later.

                But anyone who actually thinks that, is woefully uninformed about what’s going on at Tesla. Getting the Model X into production was not important to Tesla’s bottom line, or at least wasn’t until rather recently. In fact, there were perfectly sound economic reasons for Tesla to purposefully delay putting the MX into production.

                The opposite is true with the Model ≡. That is a “all hands on deck” effort to get the car into production ASAP. Those really are two very different cases. And anyone who doesn’t realize that, does not have an informed opinion on the subject.

                1. Terawatt says:

                  I think you are now the last person in the world to still not have absorbed the fact that the car’s name is Model 3. Not Model ≡. That Unicode code point has literally NOTHING to do with either the number three, nor Tesla, nor the car in question.


                  I am aware that you have a disdain for facts and constantly accuse anyone who says things you don’t like of having ulterior motives. It is of course much easier to just put out some unsubstantiated accusations about the speaker than it is to grapple with what was being said, but it doesn’t make you look intelligent or decent. Nor does consistently writing “Model (identically equal to)” because the LOGO (not the same thing as a name) indicate that you’re a clear thinker who cares about being accurate and fair, given that I’ve pointed out to you these facts several times already.

                  It really annoys me. You are on the right side, in terms of your intentions. You skulls be an ally. But your actions only damage the cause. Try to be fair and accurate. You’re all to clearly guilty of exactly the kind of dishonesty you accuse others of.

                  1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                    “It really annoys me.”

                    That’s called freedom of speech. The same freedom that lets you annoy others with your bloviating comments and your repeated whining about utter trivialities.

        2. realistic says:

          DonC, this is the nomenclature used by GM, and you could see it happening with the progress on the Bolt. The Bolt program had about 80 cars on the road with production-intent compenents built with planned production processes (although mostly with “soft” tooling, most likely). By March they had a fully-tooled production line at the Orion facility and were building to production processes for what GM calls PPV, and conducting the final stages of PPAP for all components.

          At the end of June point probably 200 Bolts had been built. That’s 6 months before the first deliveries of a few hundred production autos.

          Run that same schedule for the Model 3 (and remember it’s for a line that must build over 100,000 in its first full year). The Model 3 needs to have several dozen cars running in varied on-the-road environments and test tracks NOW. [BTW, pics anyone? No? That’s because there aren’t any.] It needs to have a fully-tooled line in place NOW, ready to receive parts built on production tooling to build cars with the real production methods when the new year rings in. By March, April at the latest, it needs to have the Validation basically complete and all the suppliers having finished their PPAP.

          Does even the most faithful think that’s remotely possible?

          You could also see picture very differently on the Model X, which was a terrible product introduction. Right now, Tesla is further behind in the progress on the Model 3 than they were on the Model X at the end of 2014. Regardless of ex-Audi guys and acquisitions of German electronics production equipment, the Model 3 situation is really not any different by the looks of things. And you can’t ship 100,000 to 200,000 cars beginning about 7 months from now with that sort of execution.

          I can’t understand why anyone thinks mid-late ’18 is so off the mark.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Mid-2018 is certainly a reasonable estimate. I would not be surprised if that is when it happens, altho I do hope Tesla manages to do better, to squeak out a handful at the end of 2017.

            There is no question that Tesla has a very aggressive schedule of getting the Model ≡ into production and ramping that up quickly. But the target date is July 1, 2017. The end of 2017 would be 6 months late, so I’m hoping they can achieve that. Admittedly that would be quite an improvement for a company which had its first car, the Roadster (with most of the car made for them by Lotus), 9 months late, and its other two models about 2 years late.

            But in my opinion, the delays on the Model X are a very poor analogy indeed. It’s just not the same situation at all. Tesla was production restrained for years by limited battery supply. Their constant attempts to strong-arm Panasonic into ramping up production faster were clearly not all that successful. It has been only rather recently that Tesla has shown the ability to build more cars than it can sell… hence the noticeably low initial selling price of the new S60 and even the briefly offered X60.

            Tesla keeps claiming that the delay in getting the Model X into production was entirely due to engineering problems, most notably the falcon wing doors and the “captain’s chair” second row seats. But the truth is more complex. Jay Cole commented that Tesla didn’t even get around to requesting bids for the FW door actuators until just a few months before production was supposedly scheduled to start, and that delay of course contributed greatly to the problems with those complex doors.

            The reality seems to be that Tesla didn’t really care all that much if it got the MX into production in a timely manner or not. So long as it wasn’t getting as many batteries from Panasonic as it wanted, why bother to even put the MX into production? A new car, with all the problems and unforeseen expenses that entails, wouldn’t earn Tesla as much profit on each car as selling more Model S’s, which by now have had most of the problems worked out, and the cost for making those has come down considerably since it debuted.

            Contrariwise, Tesla’s entire business model depends on getting the Model ≡ into production soon, and ramping up production ASAP. That was never true of the Model X.

            So it’s not merely that the M≡ will be a simpler car, and should have fewer tooling-up problems. It’s also that Tesla is much more strongly motivated to get the M≡ into production as soon as they possibly can.

          2. Nix says:

            [BTW, pics anyone? No? That’s because there aren’t any.]

            So these pictures don’t exist? How do you explain them? Mass delusion?



            “Tesla Model 3 mules have apparently been strolling around the streets of Cali quite a bit, as there are a number of spy shots out there getting shared on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook.”

            Oh, and Tesla owns their own test track. Two of them actually (that I know of). What is your evidence that Tesla has never run the Model 3 on their test track? Even though they have had running prototypes for most of this year?

            Oh, and if Tesla has been driving around Model S cars equipped with Model 3 pre-production drivetrains and battery packs, nobody would ever be able to tell. This is actually how Tesla tested the Model X AWD drivetrain. (again, documented right here on insideev’s, so not speculation, but actual fact based statement backed by evidence).

            1. realistic says:

              Same two mules in every one of these pics, Nix. There should be DOZENS, and there aren’t.

              1. Nix says:

                realistic — You could simply say “sorry, my bad. When I said there weren’t ANY pictures of mules, I was wrong. Clearly there are pictures. My mistake. I retract that comment”.

                But I guess that would be expecting too much….

            2. Terawatt says:

              Can you prove there aren’t any unicorns? Asking your opponent to prove that Tesla hasn’t run Model 3 on their own track is obviously completely unreasonable. Don’t be completely unreasonable.

              1. Nix says:

                Terawatt, you’ve got the burden of proof backwards.

                If he wants to imply something by the LACK of public photographs, the burden is on him.

                We don’t have public pictures of you being born. That does not allow me to imply you were never born, because we don’t have pictures. My burden would be to actually prove you were never born.

                Calls of “Pics or it didn’t happen” isn’t actual proof something didn’t happen.

          3. DonC says:

            I used GM nomenclature because the initial claim was that the roll out of the Model 3 would be the same as the Bolt EV, which lead to the question of what was the roll out of the Bolt EV. I don’t know but from comments made by Mark Reuss I think we can assume the Bolt EV went through the same processes as all other GM vehicles, which I tried to outline.

        3. georgeS says:

          Yes DonC. GM has a rigorous testing of vehicles to insure that the vehicle is totally reliable from the git go. That’s why our Volts and now your ELR are totally reliable vehicles.

          Most here really are not familiar with those details but GM’s way of doing it is the right way…….and it takes time.

          One can note that Tesla is only at the first stage of this development plan. One would also note that Tesla doesn’t follow that development plan. They use the same plan we called:

          Test it in the field.

          I’m not sure if that is a wise idea in Model 3’s case. So if you add up their lateness in development testing and validation onto the fact they need to do more of it this time and add onto that sub contractors not meeting targets there’s no way Tesla will be chunking out anything more than “Field Test units loaded to the gills” next year at this time.

          I don’t really agree with Tesla’s approach. In the gas turbine industry we called it: “Shipping sh*t”…and I think our good friend MarkZ who has owned both first production S and X’s would agree.

        4. Nix says:

          Don — Tesla did not use that sequence for the Roadster, the Model S, the Model S AWD, or the Model X. What evidence do you have that Tesla would suddenly adopt GM’s sequence for the Model 3? Please provide a source.

          1. georgeS says:

            Please Nix,
            Go research it yourself. GM has a rigorous development and pre production testing just as DonC outlined. I know I went thru all of it with the Volt.

            As I said earlier Tesla does not follow the same approach. They rely more on testing in the field….ie the customers do the testing.

            It resulted in a lot of unhappy Model X initial owners.

            1. Nix says:

              george – I have researched it myself. There is absolutely no evidence that Tesla will be adopting GM’s manufacturing stages.

              In fact, Tesla hired Audi’s production manager to run the ramp-up of Model 3 production. Peter Hochholdinger has a VERY strong history at Audi of ramping up Audi’s highest volume vehicles, such as the A4, and their A5 launch when that was launched.


              Tesla shows absolutely zero sign of adopting GM’s process that Don posted.

              I have evidence that Tesla isn’t going to adopt GM’s production launch process, as they hired an Audi exec to do that job, not a GM exec. I’m still waiting for you or Don to provide any evidence that Tesla will magically adopt GM’s manufacturing process when they just hired an Audi exec to put in charge of that exact process.

              1. georgeS says:

                Tesla does very much of it’s testing in the field. Sure it’s different than GM but that’s what they do. OTA updates help but that’s what they do….and their reliability records show it.

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  I don’t think that any informed person would claim that Tesla’s “use early customers as beta testers” approach is best for Tesla’s image. Nix’s point, and it’s correct, is that this is how Tesla does things, and it’s most definitely not how GM does things. Using GM’s development schedule for a model is pointless. DonC’s remarks on the subject of GM’s development of a new model may be entirely correct, but they are also at best mostly or entirely irrelevant to this discussion, and at worst they’re very misleading.

                  1. georgeS says:

                    PMPU, I don’t care how you do it it takes time. My point is Tesla does not seem to have much development time so far not to mention pre production time and therefore the best they can do is get out some early signature models by this time next year….if they are lucky

                    1. Nix says:

                      georgeS — Please provide your source that “Tesla does not seem to have much development time” into the Model 3.

                      Because the actual evidence is completely to the contrary. In fact Tesla announced the END of development months ago in July. Your claims simply don’t line up with the publicly available record.

                      M3 development began in 2014, and is now done. Development is done.

                      Done. Done. Done.


                      You can’t simply make stuff up that can be proven wrong by public record. It simply isn’t credible.

                    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                      georgeS said:

                      “My point is Tesla does not seem to have much development time so far not to mention pre production time…”

                      Seriously? Just when do you think Tesla started work on developing the Model ≡?

                      Here are a couple of hints:

                      (1) The “BlueStar”, the original code name for what has become the Model 3 (or “Model ≡”), was part of Tesla’s original business plan, in 2007.

                      (2) The Wikipedia page for the Model 3 cites design chief Franz von Holzhausen talking specifics about the car in 2013.

                      BTW — If you argue with Nix, you need to be very sure of your facts. He’s demonstrated that he knows considerably more about the auto industry in general, and Tesla Motors specifically, than anybody else regularly posting comments to InsideEVs, with the possible exception of InsideEVs’ chief editor Jay Cole.

                    3. Kdawg says:

                      Nix, Don was replying to the comment “It will similar be to the 2016 Bolt roll-out.” That’s why he described the process GM uses to develop and rollout a vehicle.

                    4. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:


                      Stop fawning over Nix. Just buy Nix some roses and ask him out on a date already. If opposites attract, and he’s so knowledgeable about the automotive industry and Tesla, then it’s a match made in heaven. 😉

                    5. Nix says:

                      Sven — It is so cute how jelly you get when other people show me attention! That jealousy explains all the graphic sexual comments you’ve made towards me. Sorry, you will never get to have me.

                      Oh, and of course *smiley face*, so I don’t have to be held accountable for anything I post, because everybody knows you can say anything you want if it is a joke, so it doesn’t count, right Sven?

                    6. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                      IIRC, you’re the one who started the graphical sexual comments and they were directed at me. Don’t play the victim to gain sympathy from fellow cult members.


                      Show proof that I directed graphical sexual comments at you prior to what you started in the comment linked above. Put up or shut up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

                    7. Nix says:

                      Sven, I absolutely did not make any sexual reference. Apparently you are the only person in the world who doesn’t know what the colloquial meaning of what “stick (pole) up your backside” means.


                      Now pull your damn stick out of you backside, and stop acting like a damn fool.

                      PS — Nobody confuses that with sexually explicit talk, like what you posted.

                    8. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                      Don’t play dumb with me Nix. You said “pole up [my] backside.” Apparently, you’re the only person in the world who doesn’t know what the colloquial meaning of “pole.” Since you like Urban Dictionary so much, lets see what they have to say.


                      Top Definition
                      1. Cylindrical object that is often long and used as a support for a structure
                      2. A person from Poland
                      3. An extreme end of an axis
                      4. Slang for a penis

                      1. That’s a big pole!
                      2. That’s a big pole!
                      3. That’s a big pole!
                      4. That’s a big pole!


                      See also: pole climber, pole biter, pole warmer, pole wrecker, pole 2 hole, pole walker, pole cleaner, pole vaulter, pole carnie, pole call, pole action, etc. . .

                    9. Nix says:

                      Sven, wow, you really are projecting like crazy!!

                      Because I was clearly using “pole” as a replacement for “stick” as word play on the word “poll” from your earlier post. And not the meaning you are projecting onto my post.

                      Everybody here understands the reference is to you having a stick up your backside, and not literally a phallus.

                      Your projection of that meaning a phallus literally up your backside, instead of referring to the common phrase “stick up your backside”, which has no literal meaning must be a projection of your wants, not mine.

                      But why so serious, eh lover? Didn’t you see all the smiley faces I put in my posts, clearly indicating I was just joking? You do it so often, what’s the problem?

                    10. Nix says:

                      ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ What’s the ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ problem?

                      You can dish it? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ You go after Pushy with insults ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

                      But you can’t take it?


                      Why so serious?

                    11. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                      That was a real pathetic attempt at deflection Nix. I’ll take that as an admission that you knew you were making a sexual reference when you said “pole up your backside,” and that you knew that the colloquial meaning of pole is slang for a penis. Let’s call a spade a spade.

                      I don’t know what backwater town you’re from, but “stick/pole up your backside” is not now, and never was, a common phrase in virtually the entire United States of America or the rest of the world for that matter. Perhaps you’re subconsciously manifesting deep-seated homoerotic fantasies and projecting them on me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Regardless, I think you have some serious psychological issues, and should seek professional help. Seriously, no smiley face.

                      Despite what you claim, “stick/pole up your backside” does have a literal meaning. Do I need to draw you a picture? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

                      Nix, isn’t it time for you to get out of the bitter barn, and turn that frown upside down. 😀

                    12. Nix says:

                      Sven, sweetie-pie, I though you were being jelly, when it turns out your problem is you are illiterate.

                      The phrase dates back to The Catcher in the Rye. “She had some Navy officer with her that looked like he had a poker up his @$$”

                      Try picking up a book that has more than pictures inside. Like The Participant Observer “The way that guy acts, you would think he had a stick up his @$$. ”

                      So many pieces of literature, try Barney. No not the cartoon Dino you are familiar with, but the book. “What’d they think, Dumpke would get them a promotion for standing around looking like they had a stick up their @$$?”

                      You’ve thoroughly embarrassed yourself on this topic, so lets get back to the business of thoroughly embarrassing you on the topic of EV’s too.

                      Your source you posted from 2013 said “Gen III volume ramp in 2017” right on page 1. So will you now admit you were wrong, or is your illiteracy so severe that you can’t even string half a dozen words together and read them for comprehension.

                      Based on your own source, was M3 volume production planned for 2017, yes or no.

                      Easy question. Yes or no.

                      No more bull. Yes or no.

          2. DonC says:

            Nix, I never said that Tesla would adopt the GM process. You might want to go back and read what I wrote. The claim was that the Model 3 would have the same roll out process as the Bolt EV, which lead to the question of what the Bolt EV process was. AFAIK I outlined that process.

            The problem isn’t that Tesla isn’t following the GM process. Or the Ford or the Toyota process, though all of these companies do it more or less the same way. The problem is that Tesla isn’t in control of its own process, and, because it’s not in control, it’s always wildly off on the estimates of when it will release a new vehicle. How late was the Roadster? The Model S? The Model X? A month or two is one thing but we’re talking years.

            1. Nix says:

              As I documented earlier, they have hired the former Production Manager for Audi’s A4 and A5 lines.

              He is now in charge of the M3 Production launch, and they are now following HIS procedures.

              Stop the FUD. Sorry, but GM simply doesn’t have a lock on production procedures.

              I’ve documented the direction they have chosen with their hiring choices, and it is NOT the GM process you posted.

              1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                Most OEMs follow a very similar process to GM’s when developing and rolling out their vehicles.

                What exactly is Audi’s process for developing and rolling out a vehicle? Do you have any sources to show what Audi’s process isn’t the same as GM’s process? How are they different? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

                1. Nix says:

                  Interesting. You don’t see there being any burden to prove that Tesla DOES follow GM’s exact detailed process as posted. But now I’ve got to prove they DON’T?

                  Your brain is scrambled.

                  Interestingly, I CAN actually met that burden. But YOU first. Once you post detailed proof that Tesla follows the same development cycle as GM, I’ll tear your claims apart and prove you wrong. Just like happens over and over.

                  Go ahead, meet that burden if you can. I dare you. I can’t wait.

  7. Murrysville EV says:

    Tesla will need to produce several hundred cars for customer test drives, also.

    I don’t know about the other 400,000 reservists, but I will not take delivery of my Model 3 until I can test drive one first.

    1. David Cary says:

      How many Model S’s got purchased without a test drive? Even today, on the forums, people are purchasing without testdrives. My neighbor ordered an X for delivery in 2 weeks without a test drive.

      Tesla buyers aren’t overly risk averse, generally. That being said, I did take a few test drives first myself.

      But if in November 17, I am asked to finalize and a test drive hasn’t happened – Hakuna Matata.

      At least 200,000 reservationists will be happy to be an earlier part of automotive history. By then, there will be a few cars for test drives….

  8. Chris O says:

    Another round of baseless speculation, both in the article and in the comment section. I’m still waiting for the analyst that has concrete info about Model 3 progress that could credibly underpin a prognosis on the release date.

    1. realistic says:

      Chris, it’s not baseless. You’ve just seen two very public and closely-watched examples of automobile development and production in the Model X and the Bolt. The Model X was just about as bad as it gets. The Bolt, while seemingly pedestrian to the “fail fast and fail often” Silicon Valley approach that many espouse, is more-or-less a normal pace in the industry taken by organizations that, for better or worse, build cars in large numbers across many different technologies and model types around the world.

      You may say what you wish about what Musk has said will happen and what the expectant depositiors want to happen, but the judgment of people familiar with any automobile production process will be hard-pressed to honestly stand by 2000-per-week production any sooner than about 18 months, based on every possible visible indicator.

      I don’t understand why on the one hand the enthusiast community regularly accepts completely unsupported projections about technologies only just leaving the laboratory but scolds rational industrial analyses as “unsupported speculation”.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Chris is 100% right, it’s a baseless so-called “analysis”. Even in the very unlikely event it’s an honest analysis, rather than an attempt to manipulate stock price, it’s not based on insider info. It’s just a guess, and frankly not even a well-informed guess.

        Using the Model X and the Bolt as examples only shows that the person making the comparison has little understanding of Tesla’s business. Anyone who thinks the timeline for getting the Model ≡ into production will be similar to GM putting the Bolt into production, or similar to Tesla’s decidedly lackadaisical approach to getting the Model X into production, is almost certainly going to be surprised.

    2. realistic says:

      From Jonas’ remarks (a sampling from the LA Times)

      “1: Major auto launches are typically late
      2. Only a few prototypes have been seen on the road. The early versions of a new model typically get some road time before the vehicle goes into commercial production.
      3. Finally, Tesla wants to make sure [it] is a hit, and that could cause delays.”


      “Tesla has the benefit of substantially superior financial, technical resources and supplier partnerships to do things with [the car] it was not capable of doing with the Model S. For example, we believe the active safety/autonomous driving capability suite can be significantly better than even the most advanced, updated [version] recently unveiled.”

      Sound like somebody who’s trying to waylay the share price? Not at all.
      And is he right?
      Well, I tricked you here: the quote above is what he said in October ’14 when he correctly predicted additional delays to the Model X, saying it would slide to late Q3 ’15.

      The first key fob went to a customer on September 28th.

      Yeah, Jonas don’t understand Tesla fer nuthin.

  9. tosho says:

    Just to remind everyone that the original timeline was 2019. Most people made their reservation when this was the stated number. Elon promised the 2017 only after the 400K reservations. So what’s the big deal if they don’t manage to launch it in 2017?

    1. realistic says:

      “So what’s the big deal if they don’t manage to launch it in 2017?”

      Because there was some Tesla guy at the May 4 conference call to discuss the Q1 Shareholder Letter who said this (verbatim — read the transcript):
      “I would say we would aim to produce 100,000 to 200,000 Model 3s in the second half of next year. That’s my expectation right now. Yeah, so that’s the thing.”

      The guy was named Must or something like that. Had an Afrikaaner accent (very elegant, but mutters sometimes). I’ll try to find out who he was.

      Anyhow, I hear they call this sort of thing “guidance”. Same dude also said in the Q3 Shareholder Conference that the company would need to spend $1B in CapEx in Q4 to make it happen.

      So there’s that.

      Otherwise I can’t figure out the big deal, either.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        So what happens if Tesla misses its guidance on that by a quarter or two? Will people set their hair on fire and sell their Tesla stock at fire sale prices?

        Well, the serial Tesla bashers — who are mostly TSLA short-sellers — certainly want people to do that!

        Even Elon said that the date of July 1, 2017 was “basically impossible” because it’s very unlikely that all 100% of Tesla’s suppliers will be able to meet the accelerated schedule.

        You want to call that “guidance”? *shrug* Okay, call it what you like. Like Humpty Dumpty, you can also call it “glory”. What it actually is, is the nominal goal that Tesla’s leaders want everyone to aim for, everyone including Tesla’s suppliers and its won employees, even while knowing that at least a few will fall behind. Tesla is trying to light a fire under everyone to maximize efforts to get this car into production ASAP, so they can capitalize on the astonishingly high demand demonstrated for the Model ≡. Capture as much of that market as possible before other 200+ mile, “semi-affordable” PEVs from other auto makers “steal” those potential sales.

    2. Nix says:

      tosho — “Just to remind everyone that the original timeline was 2019.”

      Please provide your source, or retract your statement. Because contrary to your post, Elon has been saying 2017 all the way back since Sept 2, 2015. Long before anybody put a single reservation down.

      Multiple sources reported one it at the time, and nothing from Tesla has EVER stated a 2019 date that I know of. If you have it, post it.


  10. Another Euro point of view says:

    2018 is OK. You need to use Tesla calendar of course (the one where JC was born in year 1).

  11. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    “We Do Not Believe The Model 3 To Be Launched In 2017”

    Translation: PANIC! Sell your Tesla stock at a fire sale price now, so we can pick up some shares cheap!

    Seriously, no real stock analyst gives away his advice on the Internet for free. Professional analysts get paid for confidential advise, which is tailored to the specific needs and investment strategies of his clients.

    Any so-called “analyst” giving away free advise is just somebody trying to manipulate stock price.

    So in my opinion, the only subject here truly worthy of discussion is this: Why would any rational person pay attention to a naked attempt to manipulate stock price?

    1. goodbyegascar says:


    2. DJ says:

      You do realize this guy isn’t Cramer right???

      It is this guys job to tell us this.

      Maybe you need to get out of your little world where all things said either mean someone is a paid troll trying to short Tesla stock or a paid shill trying to buy stock for less.

      It is really a wonderful world out and about…

      1. realistic says:

        “It is this guys job to tell us this.”

        That’s true, and while Adam Jonas is all over the map about Tesla (and TSLA), with wild speculation and grosly incorrect financial projections, he hasn’t budged from a $240s price target. Ergo he’s still pumping the hell out of TSLA’s “long term value”.

        What every analyst wants to do is be shockingly prescient with his/her predictions about the company’s performance and, more importantly, about price action. That’s how they sell “advice” or analysis to clients: being publicly awesome.

        Jonas, Kallo and the other supportive sell-siders from the Majors do get some inside dope whther we reatil slobs want to admit it or not. NOTE: I am NOT saying a Tesla person in a true Insider position (and these people are clearly aware of such status) gave Jonas any super-secret schedule change info. But it’s possible (likely) that Jonas heard enough song-and-dance or poorly answered queries at a lunch or analyst presentation that made him nervous about looking ill-informed.

        Jonas advertises himself as having significant automotive industry understanding. He can’t get this one wrong and not be bruised.

        BTW, while we’re on a conspiracy kick here, getting the bad news out to the public through brokerages sharing the same name as your biggest and most faithful underwriters can actually give the Tesla management team some cover. Not long after this soaks in a bit, Ben Kallo from Baird and David Tamberrino from Goldman and others start to say, “yeah, it’s lookin’ a little slower than we thought, but Price Traget = $1000”. Then the company oozes the schedule along a few months and then six or eight and then a year or more, everyone will say “well of course that’s exactly what Elon’s been saying.”

        1. Another Euro point of view says:

          “Getting the bad news out to the public through brokerages sharing the same name as your biggest and most faithful underwriters can actually give the Tesla management team some cover”.

          Spot on.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        DJ said:

        “It is this guys job to tell us this.”

        That’s right. But clearly you have not thought that through. Is it his job to tell us this because it’s what he honestly believes? Or is it his job to tell us this because that is the position his company is promoting?

        The guy is selling something. Just like all salesmen, what he says isn’t necessarily his actual opinions about what he’s selling; it’s just what he thinks is most likely to get you to buy what he’s selling.

        “Maybe you need to get out of your little world where all things said either mean someone is a paid troll trying to short Tesla stock or a paid shill trying to buy stock for less.”

        Maybe you need to quit being so insulting and anti-social for no good reason, and maybe you need to observe that not all of my posts on InsideEVs are about Tesla Motors. In fact, if you were really observant, you might notice that sometimes I post complaints about people making off-topic comments about Tesla in comments on an article having nothing whatsoever to do with the company or its cars.

        Maybe you also need to do what I’ve done, which is spend some time reading Seeking Alpha posts on the subject of Tesla, so you can identify the B.S. shoveled out by both “short” and “long” investors in Tesla stock. If you do, then perhaps you might learn enough to have an informed opinion on the subject. You might start noticing, as I do, when the same B.S. appears elsewhere. Clearly, at the moment, you don’t and you can’t.

        1. DJ says:

          I am confused why you think I would do what you suggest…

          Maybe you need to stop assuming what I am thinking. Where did I ever say ALL you post about is Tesla? Is it that you can’t read or comprehend? Clearly it is one of those.

          Like I said you live in your own conspiracy world PuP. No need for any of us to join you.

          This site needs an ignore feature. I am sure you would be on a lot of people’s lists…

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            If you can’t take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen.

            1. DJ says:

              Are you writing that out to remind yourself or something? You repeatedly tell people that they are full of lies, FUD, are paid trolls, etc.. All anyone has to do is read through your posts in this thread even to see that. If anything you actually seem to be a paid Tesla shill if anyone is actually paid for their remarks here which I strongly doubt they are.

              Seems that you are the anti-social one. Maybe your parents didn’t give you enough attention. Maybe the fat chick dumped you on prom night. Maybe the cool kids gave you too many wedgies or something. I and others I am sure don’t care. Truth hurts doesn’t it…

              Since it is now time to bring up the “snazzy one liners” why don’t you go play in the street.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                Project your own faults onto others much, dude? 🙄

                1. Terawatt says:

                  He’s right as far as I’m concerned. Much of what you “contribute” is pure ad hominem, and I’ve yet to see you even attempt to substantiate any of your accusations.

                  Even if someone did have the wrong motivation for posting something, what bearing does that have on what they are saying? Deal with what’s being claimed, or stay out if it. Nobody is enlightened by your ideas about WHY people are saying what they are saying, and nobody should care. We should care about whether it is true, whether it’s relevant, and accept that a lot of assumptions have to be made to speculate about the future. Therefore nobody knows the answer and it’s perfectly possible for reasonable people to reach quite different conclusions. Someone saying they believe Model 3 won’t get into production before late 2018 isn’t proof of their intentions, and even if it was baseless, show us why. The reasons for the estimate are laid out. Don’t waste my time telling me basically nothing more than “don’t believe them, believe me”. You write eloquently but it’s devoid of any real content!

                  1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                    What really bothers both you and DJ is that neither one of you can stand it when someone shows your assertions to be logically invalid or factually correct.

                    When someone points out an error of logic or fact in one of your posts, instead of using that as a learning experience, you both react as if it’s a personal attack on you.

                    Both of you need to grow up. But I’ll say this for DJ: At least he isn’t trying to suppress my freedom of speech the way you are.

    3. Nix says:

      Luckily Wall Street has never done anything to mislead their own investors, and then try to deny it even when caught red-handed.

      Oh wait…

      “How much of that shitty deal did you sell to your clients?” Goldman Sachs Hearing

    4. nix says:

      “Translation: PANIC! Sell your Tesla stock at a fire sale price now, so we can pick up some shares cheap!

      Seriously, no real stock analyst gives away his advice on the Internet for free.”

      Yes, financial advice for free==sales pitch. The trick is trying to figure out exactly what they are selling. Because like the saying goes, if you look around the room and can’t spot the mark, it is you.

      Here is one theory. His company makes money lending out their shares to shorters. In fact, roughly one of every 4 outstanding TSLA shares was loaned out to shorters earlier this year. Shorters are paying percentage fee “Borrow Rate” in order to short. The more demand to short, the higher the borrow rate goes.

      Back when this analyst’s first comments came out, this was what was happening:

      “When a stock is heavily shorted, there is a limited supply of shares available to loan out to other short-sellers. Stocks like this are considered “hard to borrow,” and interested short-sellers must pay an interest rate to borrow shares. The annualized rate to borrow Tesla had recently soared to 20%.”

      20%!!! 20%!!!! Wow!!

      No wonder they wanted to give shorters stories that would make them want to borrow their stocks for short sales!!

      Over the summer there was a real danger of a short squeeze like 2013, but the Tesla-Solar City merger went through and the pressure dropped. So did the borrow rate, back to single digits. Now this analyst is saying maybe it isn’t so bad as he had said before, maybe they will build the M3 sooner…

      So we’ve established one possible profit motive: Make money lending out shares of TSLA stocks while the borrow rate was through the roof.

      Now we have to look around the room and see who is the mark: That’s all those shorters that they need to keep shorting TSLA in order to keep the lending premium up. The more people short TSLA, the higher the borrow rate goes.

      Now finally identify the sales pitch from the company: That’s this guy. He is providing EXACTLY the sales pitch that you would expect would trigger more shorters. It is tailor-made to convince shorters that they have inside information that will make them money shorting TSLA.

  12. Texas FFE says:

    The Tesla zealots believe Tesla could perform miracles and hammered us heretics for believing otherwise. Now we have analysts stating the Bolt could be in full production a good two years before the Model 3 starts rolling off the assembly line in numbers. It almost makes you feel sorry for the true believers, almost.

    1. DJ says:

      Mind you these analysts have a hell of a lot more insight to a company that anybody here does.

      Are they wrong? Hell ya, but they are more right than someone speaking about nothing they have any actual knowledge on.

      I hope Tesla can pull it off but with Elons constant lies and pushes I have serious doubts. To me though it doesn’t really make much of a difference. Whether it be 2017 or 2018 isn’t a huge difference. It will come sooner or later and that is a good thing.

      1. Nix says:

        DJ — Actually, these analysts live in a wall street bubble where they have to answer to bosses and fellow wall street pundits, and nobody else.

        We’ve seen the effects of this inside wall street bubble mentality over and over.

      2. Nix says:

        DJ — “Elons constant lies”

        Really? Constant? Lies?

        What number would you consider “constant”, drama queen?

        Name 10 lies Elon has made this year, and document them as actual intentional knowning fabrications at the time he stated these so-called lies, and not just changes in circumstance that happened after he made whatever statement you consider a lie.

        Go for it, drama queen. Put actual facts behind your accusations.

        1. Nix says:

          Or you can retract your accusation if you cannot provide foundation.

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        DJ said:

        “Mind you these analysts have a hell of a lot more insight to a company that anybody here does.”

        Ah, no, I think it’s quite safe to say that quite a few people regularly posting to InsideEVs have considerably more insight into Tesla Motors’ business than Mr. Adam Jonas. I know -I- certainly do.

        As Nix has already pointed out, apparently Mr. Jonas thinks that Tesla has yet to show a prototype for the Model ≡, and that no member of the public has yet been able to give it a test drive.

        Frankly, I think Mr. Jonas should give up his pretense at being a market analyst, and go into something like basket weaving, which would be more suited to someone of his limited talents.

        1. Terawatt says:

          Since you have privileged insight into Tesla, could you please write your own analysis and post it for the benefit of us all to see? How is your track record btw? When did you accurately predict the Model X delays?

          Come on, put yourself out there. Tell us when the Model 3 will go into production and show us the volumes on a quarterly basis from production start until the end of 2018, or longer if you feel like showing off.

          I’d also love to know when it will come to Norway.

          Write a short summary of what assumptions you’ve made and what your analysis is actually based on.

          But above all we need the concrete numbers. This is your chance to demonstrate for us all your greater insight into Tesla than this stupid FUDster. Surely you won’t let it go to waste.

          I cannot wait to read the PuPu analysis and watch how close or not it is to the facts as they unfold.

          1. Nix says:

            Terawatt, that is pretty funny, because that’s the standard we’re trying to hold this analyst to.

            If HE has evidence to support his claims, he should show his work and provide those supporting documents.

            Because the one thing we know is that this analyst simply cannot be in possession of any inside non-public information. His company is required by law to maintain a Chinese Wall to make sure that never happens.

            So all of his claims about Tesla must be based upon public information. If he has public information to support his suppositions, he should provide support for his claims.

            Because I’ve repeatedly done that here. I’ve provided a whole host of public information that directly contradicts his claims.

            But it is very telling that you only hold Pushy to this standard.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Terawatt whined:

            “Since you have privileged insight into Tesla, could you please write your own analysis and post it for the benefit of us all to see?”

            I already did so, in this very comment thread. If you weren’t so busy trying to score points, and enraging yourself over my using the “Model ≡” designation instead of “Model 3”, then you might have noticed that.

            “How is your track record btw? When did you accurately predict the Model X delays?”

            One reason my predictions are much more often right than wrong is that I’m not often foolish enough to stick my neck out and make overly specific predictions.

            I have been rather noticeably wrong in predicting that the Bolt would have an EPA rated range closer to 150 miles than 200 miles; and I was also notably wrong in predicting the Model ≡ would have a battery capacity of only about 45-50 kWh.

            Otherwise, I think I’ve done pretty well. I certainly did correctly predict that Tesla wouldn’t be in any hurry to get the Model X into production, because unlike Mr. Adam Jonas, I have a reasonably good grasp (for an outside observer) of what constraints there are on Tesla’s production.

            “I cannot wait to read the PuPu analysis and watch how close or not it is to the facts as they unfold.”

            Sarcastic humor only works when there is an actual point to the sarcasm, Terawatt. Sadly, on that score you fail rather miserably.

  13. mg says:

    I think just as with Model X – for PR reasons Tesla will deliver several, kind of hand-made, cars just to achieve “2017-lunch”. But then I suppose there are several reasons to not only have difficulties with starting real mass production but also to actually slow it down:
    1. if the car are actually to be robot-built then there is much less space for any glitches Human can bend some plastic part a little,or try some oher profile instead of this one(that is say half a millimiter off) and so on. Robots are less flexible.
    2. Tesla lacks resurces to do recall of significant number of cars(say 100k), so they have to be 100% sure that all initial bugs are shaken out, before real ramp up. So they need – as they do some 2-3k owners of early production but not more.
    3. There is tax incentives problem – they need to have those glitches fixed before they pass 200k mark, because once it is hit, they need to produce and deliver as fast as possible. By the end of this year there will be some 115k S’s and X’s sold in US. Remaining 85k is equivalent of 6-8Q of previous models sales, although there is some space for adjustment(US vs abroad delivery, stalling some deliveries).

    Wild guess:
    4Q17~10(hand-made, for selected people, just token deliveries);
    1Q18~200(mostly in march);
    2Q18-3Q18~3-5k made(probably with fast ramping up production at the 3Q-end but postponing deliveries – perhaps even testing high speed production(100k/Q) for several hours, with 199k Tesla US cumulative sales by the end of 3Q18, and with traditional Q3 retooling, new production lines and so on);
    4Q18-25k – passing 200k mark
    1Q19-50k – last customers with full $7,5k incentive.
    And so on. Indeed it would be nice should Tesla realy hit this 100k/Q(400k/Y) production target somewhere around then.

    Just my 3 cents(3 grosze actually)

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      mg said:

      “if the car are actually to be robot-built then there is much less space for any glitches”

      That might well be one of the things Musk has been talking about when he has given his rather cryptic remarks about redesigning factories to significantly increase production speed. If I recall correctly, Randy Carlson also talked about redesigning cars to be specifically built by robots rather than by humans, in his highly speculative but well informed “Tesla: A Big Hole in Model 3 Design” blog post.

      Not that I believe that Randy has any sort of “inside track” into Tesla’s near-term goals, but even though it’s a “long” investor’s blog post (and thus shows a pro-Tesla bias), I still found it interesting reading, and certainly better informed than this so-called “analysis” from Adam Jonas:


  14. CopperRoad says:

    Chevy had 50 Bolt EV mules on the road in early June of 2015 for testing. 19-months later they’re delivering their first car. The first Model 3 was seen on the road testing in June of 2016. One could speculatively extrapolate that a late 2017 launch is doable for a Model 3 delivery. Variables abound, of course.

  15. zzzzzzzzzz says:

    The original plan was 2020 or so for volume production. Low volume pre-production doesn’t matter really.

    This ludicrous alternate reality acceleration to 2017 came up just recently. Maybe it was typical Musk management style to push for unrealistic goals to get some extra achievements, maybe it was just share pumping round.

    But Jonas is permabull with astronomical Tesla stock price targets, his job is to pump Tesla shares so his bank would get underwriting commission selling at secondaries. If he is saying end of 2018, it is very optimistic scenario without extra big funding rounds. More realistic would be 2020 as originally planned and it would not be bad. A bear would say you will never get to it at all before company restructuring.

    1. Nix says:

      “The original plan was 2020 or so for volume production”

      Please provide a source for your claim or retract your statement.

      At least three different sources have already been provided here from two different commenters showing your claim to be wrong.

      1. WadeTyhon says:


        I vaguely remembered reading this… I don’t know the source for zzzzzzzzz and The rest of what he said is speculation.

        However in this article above from Tesla Mondo on inside evs does mention volume production was originally supposed to be 2020.

        What exactly that means or the articles original source I dont know. Im on my phone so any further research Ill leave to someone else lol.

        The article does clearly state that the timeline was accelerated though.

      2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        It is amazing that people have so selective memory about their own Church ;)))
        Just few months ago at the beginning of May it was all over the news that Tesla advances Model 3 plans:
        “As a result of the high demand for Model 3, in May 2016 Tesla Motors announced its decision to advance its 500,000 total unit build plan (combined for Model S, Model X, and Model 3) to 2018, two years earlier than previously planned, in order to accelerate its target for Model 3 output.[8][9] ”
        From shareholder letter:
        “Additionally, given the demand for Model 3, we have decided to
        advance our 500,000 total unit build plan (combined for Model S, Model X, and Model 3) to 2018, two years earlier than previously planned.”
        Sure it was just coincidence that secondary share offering was announced couple of weeks later :/

        As for the volume, I have written very clearly that I mean volume production, not some few hundreds or few thousand cars. Model 3 was always intended as more mass market car that would be a path to mass market and profitability at some 0.5 mln/year. Producing it at the same low volume as Model S isn’t something interesting or making difference.

        1. Nix says:

          zzzzzzzzzzz — READ YOUR OWN SOURCE!!!!

          “We are on track to achieve volume Model 3 production and deliveries in late 2017. ”

          Volume deliveries. late 2017.

          No, you don’t get to redefine “Volume deliveries” to ONLY mean reaching 500K volume targets.

          Get out of here, fool. Stop trying to move the goal-posts. What part of “We are on track to achieve volume Model 3 production and deliveries in late 2017.” don’t you understand????

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      zzzzzzzzzz said:

      “The original plan was 2020 or so for volume production.”

      Hard to say what the actual original plan was, but the immediately preceding plan was to ramp up to a goal of ~400,000 Model ≡’s per year by 2020. It’s just not true to say that Tesla didn’t aim to achieve volume production in an earlier year.

      It’s not hard to spot the serial Tesla bashers posting here; they’re the ones asserting Tesla’s “original” plan was to put the Model ≡ into production as late as 2019 or 2020.

      In reality, I think anyone researching the question would have a hard time pinpointing any single year as Tesla’s “original” planned date for start of production of the Tesla BlueStar, or Model E, or Model 3, or Model ≡. Different comments from Elon and other Tesla leaders at different times, in previous years, have suggested 2016, 2017, or 2018; see article linked below. What really irritates me, as someone who pursues the Truth, is that such dates are often mischaracterized in citations as definite; as if Tesla made a “promise” that the car would be delivered in a certain year. Clearly such early statements were about Tesla’s goal at the time. No promise made or implied until much more recently.

      Source: In the article linked below, please note that despite the headline date of Feb 2016, this article was originally published in June 2013, but later updated:


      1. Terawatt says:

        > It’s not hard to spot the serial Tesla bashers posting here; they’re the ones asserting Tesla’s “original” plan was to put the Model ≡ into production as late as 2019 or 2020.

        It’s called Model 3. Not the Model “identically equal to” as you keep writing.

        That said, i can’t find anyone here who claimed what you say, “to put into production”. It seems what you actually mean to say is

        It’s not hard to spot the serial Tesla bashers posting here; they’re the ones CORRECTLY asserting Tesla’s “original” plan was to put the Model 3 into VOLUME production as late as 2019 or 2020.

        1. Nix says:

          Terawatt —

          “they’re the ones CORRECTLY asserting Tesla’s “original” plan was to put the Model 3 into VOLUME production as late as 2019 or 2020.”

          That is false. They are wrongly conflating two completely different sets of volume production targets, and in doing so perpetuating yet another falsehood about Tesla. Here are the two different goals:

          1) VOLUME production of the Model 3 beginning by the end of 2017.

          2) A combined half million volume production target for the Model S, Model X, and Model 3.

          These are two different targets for volume production.

          It is a lie, a falsehood, to claim that Tesla NEVER planned to put the Model 3 into volume production until their original target date for hitting half a million units.

          This is how Fake News happens. Take something out of context, spin it to mean something completely opposite of reality, and then trust that your audience with never fact check for themselves and catch the lie. Or even worse, that even when handed a fact check on a silver platter, simply refuse to ever admit that the facts prove the story wrong.

          Multiple sources proving this false claim wrong have been posted on this thread already. Read them, and stop simply parroting falsehoods.

        2. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

          Terawatt said:
          “It’s not hard to spot the serial Tesla bashers posting here; they’re the ones CORRECTLY asserting Tesla’s “original” plan was to put the Model 3 into VOLUME production as late as 2019 or 2020.”

          My photogenic memory seems to recall a Tesla Gigafactory Timeline graph and other Tesla graphs that show Tesla “originally planned” to achieve 500,000 vehicle per year production in 2020. After getting vastly more Model 3 reservations than expected, Elon moved this goal forward 2 years to 2018, and stated that Tesla will achieve 1,000,000 vehicle per year production in 2020.

          From Tesla.com archives: graphs 1, 3, & 5:

          1. Nix says:

            Sven, stop repeating the exact same false conflation between the 2017 start of Volume production of the Model 3, and the 500,000 unit target for Model S, X, and 3 combined. Those are two completely different goals.

            But READ YOUR OWN DAMN SOURCE!!!!

            “Battery pack cost/kWh reduced
            30% by Gen III volume ramp in 2017”

            That is in your own 2013 source you posted. Before they even named it the Model 3, and were still calling it the Gen III, they were planning for VOLUME RAMP in 2017!!!!

            This is now the 5th source posted on this page that all refer to the 2017 date for the Model S.

            End the willful blindness and lies NOW.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Give it up, Nix. Sven has turned into a hardcore anti-Tesla FUDster, and is no longer interested in actual facts or truth. He’s only interested in trying to spread a misinformation campaign in an attempt to manipulate Tesla’s stock price.

              We can be sure he’ll keep repeating this false assertion no matter how many times the error is pointed out.

              1. Nix says:

                Pushy — yea, you are right.

                Instead of simply saying “sorry, my bad, I confused the half million Model S/X/3 sales goal date with the 2017 goal for volume production of the Model 3”, he will just keep attacking Tesla with false accusations of supposedly moving forward the volume production of the Model 3 by years.

                The funny thing is that in his desire to deny the 2017 planned mass production target date, he is unwittingly proving exactly how good Tesla is actually doing. Because demand for the Model 3 is so much higher than expected, that Tesla has been able to move forward their 500K combined S/X/3 sales target by years!!!

                Poor Sven. He even loses when he thinks he is winning.

                1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                  You and Pu-Pu should just get a room and take your budding bromance to the next level. 😉

                  1. Nix says:

                    Oh baby, Sven, you just can’t stop thinking of me in bed. You flatter me! You are like a schoolboy with a crush. Now I know why you keep winking at me! You’ve been winking like crazy at me and I never expected. You coy little minx…

                    I’m sure you will keep coming back to your homoerotic talk over and over about Pushy and I, because you think it offends me, but it actually just cracks me up. Keep it up big boy, I’m all the man you can repeatedly fantasize about being in bed with another man and more. But back to business.

                    Your source you posted from 2013 said “Gen III volume ramp in 2017” right on page 1. So will you now admit you were wrong?

                    Based on your own source, was M3 volume production planned for 2017, yes or no.

                    Easy question. Yes or no.

                    No more bull. Yes or no.

  16. Texas FFE says:

    The Model 3 market keeps getting smaller with each passing month. With the new Leaf, Ioniq, Focus and eGolf, the sub 200 mile range EV market is filling up high quality models with fast charging capabilities. And for those consumers that want longer range, the Bolt is going to have the low cost 200+ mile range EV market saturated before the Model 3 even goes into production.

    The Model 3 is going to have no choice but to compete in the higher end low volume market with the likes of the i3. That doesn’t mean I believe the Model 3 will fail. But I don’t think it’s going to be near the earth shaker that the Tesla zealots think it’s going to be.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Texas FFE said:

      “…the Bolt is going to have the low cost 200+ mile range EV market saturated before the Model 3 even goes into production.”

      Seriously? The Bolt, with the first year’s production aiming at only a bit over 30,000, is going to “saturate” the market for the Model S, which is aiming for a production of ~400,000 a year… or even more?

      Ummm… ummm… No.

      GM almost certainly doesn’t even want to make that many of what is very probably, for them, a rather low-profit model, and couldn’t even if they wanted to. Their battery supply is much, much more limited than Tesla’s is going to be.

    2. Terawatt says:

      To the extent we can credit the Bolt, next-gen LEAF and cars coming onto the market over the next several years to the existence of Tesla and the Model 3, it has made a huge impact. But I totally agree the product itself looks unlikely to be particularly relevant, because it’ll be too little too late. That is however a good thing. It means things are finally moving.

      One thing that could change this picture is if Tesla has a very important lead in autonomy and regulation is ready when the Model 3 is. I very much doubt the latter, as the industry will be able to stall it if needed. But Tesla’s networked cars do provide a real advantage in fleet learning, and that may be important to develop the technology.

      In short, Model 3 could perhaps be revolutionary as the first self-driving car. It won’t be as the first affordable long range EV – Bolt already took that title. And yet the Model 3 was likely instrumental in making the Bolt happen!

  17. Nix says:

    “2017 is the year of the Model 3. What’s the content? Where are the prototypes? When do we get to drive it?”

    The first prototypes were released to the public at the March 31st 2016 reveal party. There are video after video of test drive on youtube. You can watch them for hours. Not knowing about this event, these prototypes, and all the test drives is a huge red flag.

    I have a hard time taking Anybody seriously who doesn’t know about Tesla’s prototypes released more than 8 month ago, and didn’t even bother finding out about all of the tons of test drives that have already been done.

    If he wants to be taken seriously, he should show his work on how he came to his conclusions. Because all I’m seeing are conclusion without any underlying factual support.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Yeah. As someone who follows the “story” of Tesla Motors pretty closely, I am often shocked at how shallow the knowledge is among so-called “analysts” who purport to have a better idea than the average person of now well Tesla Motors, the company, is doing.

      If most of these “analysts” had a real job, they’d be fired for poor performance.

  18. koz says:

    It’s not Tesla’s first rodeo anymore. Agreed that 2017 deliveries will be much less than Musk has signaled but no way it takes a year to ring out qty production for Model 3. If Tesla is able to deliver some in 2017, real production will begin end 1st or beginning of 2nd quarter latest.

  19. William says:

    I hope St. Elon puts the steel spikes into Moron Stain-lies FUD shill slinging analist, A-dumb Jonas Priest. Put him on display at the Nevada Giga factory altar. They should spread and sprinkle his ashes at the end of the Fremont assembly line, when the first pre orders, of retail customers Model 3s, are rolling out of the back door. Talk about tire tracks across your back!

  20. Nix says:

    “we expect the Model 3 to rely even more extensively on 3rd party suppliers than the Model S, potentially increasing the scope of supply-related factors outside of the company’s control.”

    If he has proof of this, he should provide a source. Because in reality the Gigafactory represents a massive shift towards Tesla building MUCH MORE of their own content. In fact, that shift represents approx a 35% change in content.

    The 35% of content that makes up battery cells made by Panasonic overseas will be replaced by battery cells made here in the US at the Tesla Gigafactory, putting much more content under Tesla’s control.


    Even other parts, like their glass, they are bringing in-house.


    Tesla already builds their own electric motors. (anybody can watch that on youtube). Now they will be making their own batteries, glass, etc.

    The well documented trend is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of his un-sourced claims.

    At what point are we going to hold these people to basic journalistic standards of showing their sources of their claims? Especially in the face of evidence in direct contradiction of their un-sourced claims?

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Is it actually likely that Tesla will use the glass manufacturer to make windshields and windows for its cars?

      I think it’s likely that Tesla’s new glass maker will be making the glass solar tiles it recently advertised. But making auto glass? That’s a pretty specialized industry, isn’t it? Making flat glass tiles is pretty low-tech (altho making them as solar cells isn’t). Making large pieces of complexly curved, optically uniform safety glass for automobile windshields and rear windows… that’s a lot harder.

      I could be wrong, but my understanding is that most automotive safety glass is made by just a few companies. I think the idea that Tesla’s glass manufacturer will make automotive safety glass, is just uninformed speculation.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Oops! Well, I’m the one with egg on my face on this point. 😳 Shoulda read the article Nix linked to before making my post.

        Okay… so Tesla will be making its own automotive glass. My bad.

        1. Nix says:

          Et tu, PPute? It hurts, the dagger in my back, your hand heavy on the pommel! *laugh*

          Yup, not only glass, but lots of other stuff too. I only stopped at two examples because posts sometimes get delayed if they include too many links.

          Not only are they building more of their own cars, with the acquisition of world leading German robotics firm Grohmann Engineering, they are even building their own robot assembly lines:


          They are also designing their own autopilot hardware, and contracting directly with chip makers for production, instead of going through another company like Mobileye:

          Another example of reducing supply line dependency is simply eliminating the traditional instrument panel, ending their need to get them from Inteva Products.

          They are even taking their inverters they already build themselves for their cars, and is going to use that tech to build their own solar power inverters that they will install on their own Gigafactory:



          Even more to the point, Elon is fundamentally re-structuring supplier relationships compared to the Model S and X, even going to so far as bypassing supplier executives to validate production capacity right on factory floors:

          “For the Model 3, those snazzy features are being stripped away, and the feedback loop with the suppliers is being tightened. Tesla engineers are already talking to suppliers about the building process. “This is fundamentally different from the S and X,” he said. “The Model 3 is the first car that Tesla is creating to be easy to make.”

          That doesn’t mean it will be a cake walk. Musk said he isn’t relying on the word of supplier company executives and is personally meeting with teams at those companies that will be making parts for the Model 3. Musk said he wants the supplier employees to, “work harder than they ever have,” and if they’re not willing to do that, then Tesla won’t work with that team.”


          Elon is very serious about bringing things in-house, and everywhere else greatly tightening down supply line reliability.

          So when this guy starts talking about supply line problems, it is like he simply has no idea what Tesla is actually doing in reality.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Nix said:

            “I only stopped at two examples because posts sometimes get delayed if they include too many links.”

            Yeah, I’ve noticed that too. If I include more than two links, the comment gets held up for moderation. Makes it hard to give lots of citations.

            There is a work-around: Include just two links, then reply to your own comment to add more links.

  21. cmina says:


    At the end of the day, not one person writing the opinion pieces or commenting on them has any important, actual facts.
    It’s all guess work.

    Other than that, I can understand how people familiar with the “old ways” of doing things are a bit confused .. but it doesn’t mean they’re spreading FUD.

    If you think it’s worth your time, here’s the whole playlist (and keep in mind, this is aero, not freaking automotive ..)


    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      It’s true that our opinions on this subject are all guesswork, but there is often a decidedly non-trivial difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed one.

      I have been following the “story” of Tesla Motors for about 9 years now, since before the Tesla Roadster went into production. In general I am no longer surprised, altho I am always disappointed, when self-described “financial analysts”, in Internet articles and blog posts, make basic errors of fact when they write about Tesla Motors. If I couldn’t do any better than that at my job, then I’d find something else to do.

      But I think Mr. Jonas sets a new low in cluelessness when he makes it clear that he thinks Tesla hasn’t even produced any prototype for the Model ≡!

      Well, he’s entirely wrong about that. And since his estimate that the Model ≡ won’t enter production until late 2018 is apparently based on that glaring error, then why would any rational person pay attention to what Mr. Clueless is saying?

      To rephrase my concluding remark in my first comment to this article, that is the only thing worthy of discussion in response to what is, absurdly, presented by Morgan Stanley as a “financial analysis” of Tesla Motors.

    2. Nix says:

      Yes, there is speculation, even wild speculation on all sides. That is normal and expected.

      I didn’t watch your linked videos, so if they are key to your comment, I may be missing your point (if so, I apologize in advance.)

      However, if you look at my posts on this story, all of my comments I’ve backed up with supporting sources. So I take exception to your comment that

      “not one person writing the opinion pieces or commenting on them has any important, actual facts.
      It’s all guess work.”

      Speaking for myself, it is more than guess work. It is well researched, documented and referenced source material. Others have also posted sources to support their comments too. I’m sorry if you disagree.


      1. cmina says:

        No Nix, it’s not what I meant .. anyway

        “we expect the Model 3 to rely even more extensively on 3rd party suppliers than the Model S, potentially increasing the scope of supply-related factors outside of the company’s control.”

        More suppliers could mean more sources for the same part, for obvious reasons. You can’t rely on only one company per part when it’s clear you won’t be able to finish your product without the said part. They can’t afford any sorts of bottlenecks.
        That’s how I take it anyway.

        As for the number of parts, it’s a waste of time to go into it. The Model 3 is clearly simpler, easier to manufacture. You don’t need Tesla Motors’ or Elon’s input on that one.

        1. Nix says:

          No worries.

          As for supply line issues, I’ve got a long post with lots of sources awaiting moderation in response to Pushi’s post above. Once it is moderated, it will go into more details on what Tesla is doing with vertical integration and in-housing everything from building more of their own car parts, to building their own robot assembly line, to even building their own inverters for the solar panels on their own factories.

          While I respect the added complexity of multiple suppliers, Musk is taking extraordinary measures to completely revamp supply line relationships so that it is nothing like their experiences with the Model S and X. You will see the links backing all this up when the post is moderated.

          This analyst seems to show no signs of knowing about any of this. And provides absolutely no sources to back up his claims.

          1. cmina says:

            I think you do get the whole story if you’re a client.
            The guy can’t be THAT out of touch with reality .. maybe at times, but on purpose, if it serves his employer.

            BTW, I think the comments system auto moderates posts with more than 3 links.
            Next time try shorter posts including only 2 links at once. It should post instantly that way.

            1. Nix says:

              cmina — This analyst CANNOT have any inside information about Tesla that other divisions within his company may have learned from their inside transactions with Tesla.

              The SEC rules are very clear about this. His company must maintain a very strict “Chinese Wall” between divisions that publish public stock analysis, and divisions who are exposed to inside information through servicing clients.

              So any claim that Tesla does business with his company, so he has inside information is actually an accusation that he is violating the laws.

              Now I don’t agree with the guy, but I don’t think we should slander the guy with veiled accusations the he is violating the law by illegally using inside information.

  22. Agzand says:

    The problem is that the car needs to be extensively tested before tooling is ordered. Once tooling is ordered major modifications are very expensive. I live a couple of miles from Tesla factory and haven’t seen a Model 3 yet. For a late 2017 launch prototypes should be on the road now. I think they can build some hand made prototypes by the end of 2017 but volume production on assembly line is more likely in late 2018.

    1. Nix says:

      Let me get this straight, you haven’t seen them, so they don’t exist.

      Even though pictures of Model 3’s live in the wild dating back half a year or more are easy to find on the internet in seconds on any search engine.

      I guess my lying eyes must be doing me wrong. Wait a minute, I actually know what is going on. You’ve never seen me in the wild either, so therefore I must not exist either. Therefore I could have never seen those pictures of prototypes out in the wild.

      Well, thanks for helping us get to the bottom of that little mystery. Clearly that means the Model 3 won’t be delivered until 2045, and then only 1 a year.



      Concern Troll is Concerned.

    2. agzand says:

      These are the prototypes that they showed in the unveiling event. They are not production models. If they want to produce the car with no air vents, no proper switch gear etc. then yes, they can do it. But a production car is not yet tested on the road.

      1. Nix says:

        Agzand — you said

        “For a late 2017 launch __PROTOTYPES__ should be on the road now. I think they can build some hand made __PROTOTYPES__ by the end of 2017”

        Then you said:

        “These are the __PROTOTYPES__ that they showed in the unveiling event. They are not production models.”

        So when you say prototypes, you didn’t actually mean prototypes? My bad I guess for actually thinking you meant protoypes?

        But no worries. Starting last spring Tesla started acquiring the parts to build 300 M3’s, and they installed the assembly line tooling and started testing it 2 months ago.

        Tooling has not only been ordered, it is already installed on the factory floor. Using your own logic, that would indicate according to your standards that testing is complete.

        Since they own the tooling company, I’m pretty sure they aren’t going to be hand building prototypes a year from now. (I have provided links for all of these facts elsewhere on this page)

        As far as “no air vents, no proper switch gear etc”, pencil down on design on stuff like that was half a year ago. And it is easy to swap out small stuff like switches and air vent covers if they find problems. That’s not going to hold them back from tooling the factory for assembly line manufactured rolling chassis in their California factor, and drive module manufacturing over at their factory in Nevada.

        I’m just not seeing support for your estimates in the factual record. The only way they would be hand building cars a year from now would be if they completely abandoned their already installed factory tooling that they have already started testing. I can’t see any factual support for that, anywhere.

  23. jim stack says:

    Elon said=QUOTE=“We still plan to begin Model 3 deliveries in late 2017.” But, this is only for the earliest reservation holders. Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted that, “the first 12 months of production are sold out.”

  24. Stan1 says:

    Tesla has legal requirements to inform investors of major change. Tesla’s most recent public statements show them to be completely on target for the mid-Summer 2017 first delivery stretch goal they set. Those deliveries will go to employees but volume ramp in Fall 2017 means most early reservation holders will be called throughout Fall 2017. Later reservation holders should all be getting calls by early Summer 2018. That time line means the earliest date for: “new reservations is mid-2018 or later.”

    Many people on the tail end of the reservation list are going to be surprised when they get a call in late Spring 2018. Tesla corporate officials would be in the same hot water as VW’s leadership if they kept quiet about a major change such as suggested by Jonas.

    1. Stan1 says:

      Just in case people miss it, the CNBC storyline in my link is also misleading regarding Tesla “quietly pushing back delivery estimate”. Tesla did no such thing. It merely informed potential new customers when they could reasonably expect to take delivery.

  25. Phr≡d says:

    To newer readers that have made it this far: congratulations! (or start saving for that new mouse, if you’ve already concluded that scrolling is your only defense).

    Just a FYI, any OP choosing NOT to respond to a voluminous poster here -is- a reasonable choice. When there is so little point in rebuttal, most people with any history here must ignore them, as ‘interaction’ leads to comment sections like these when one does attempt dialogue.
    It -could- chase away good readers like you.

    If you Are willing, reading through a small sampling of the 12 Thousand pages here, the trend will become immediately apparent.

    Those that choose to question Any poster’s intelligence -or worse, accuse of ulterior motives- get what they deserve: contempt. They are already used to it in (one presumes they have one) Real life anyway, it stands to reason that their social skills will Not improve in an anonymous setting.

    2016 word of the year shoulda’ been
    Anti-empathy: the struggle to resist any humanity that one has ever learned when in a web-environment, and further, to use Other’s behavior to justify bad behavior.
    (see also: value of “he did it fir-rrst” and the value of this statement to Adults)

    to long-timers: anyone foresee a Name-Change on the horizon? You heard it here first, lol

    Peace on Earth, Goodwill to (ahem) men.

    1. Nix says:

      Phr3d — If you think you can do a better job than other posters here of cutting through the bull and falsehoods, you do it.

      Take up the reigns if you can be more effective under the Lord of Flies system that exists here, I know I certainly would love to see you do it.

      Personally I’m going to do my best to make sure facts based on sources rule over false groupthink and fake news, because the last thing we need is to become yet another facebook style fake news propagator:

      FYI — You go out of your way to be intentionally vague about who you are targeting with you comments, but just in case there is any question, I’m keeping my name and staying right here.

    2. Stan1 says:

      There are plenty of reasons to always question the motives of anybody providing information.