Tesla’s JB Straubel: Most People At Tesla Now Working On Model 3 – Video

OCT 17 2015 BY JAY COLE 93

With the Tesla Model X just out the door, all hands are now on deck for Tesla working on the ‘next big thing’ – the Tesla Model 3, according to the company’s Chief Technology Officer JB Straubel, while making a very detailed presentation on Tesla at the University of Nevada, Reno.  (watch full video below)

“So this vehicle (the Model 3) is what we are developing today. Most of the people inside of Tesla are no longer working on the S and the X, but they are hard at working designing and inventing all the technologies to go into the Model 3.”

Tesla Product Roadmap (via Tesla Motors)

Tesla Product Roadmap (via Tesla Motors)

The Model 3 is billed as the first affordable vehicle for Tesla, and a big piece of the company’s mission to bring a compelling mass market electric car to market quickly.   Mr. Straubel re-iterated his company’s position on building cars like the Model 3 during the talk:

“Tesla was not founded to make expensive cars, or to make luxury or high performance cars – this is a misconception that comes up all the time.  And it is perhaps understandable based on the cars we built today – but it is not our mission.   Our mission is make cars that everyone can afford, and to change the electric mobility equation, so that essentially every vehicle can have the opportunity to be electric.

The CTO also stresses during the presentation that the Model 3 is unlike the Model X which shares a lot of its design with the Model S.

“…it (Model 3) is a completely new platform. Different technology base, and aimed at building hundreds of thousands per year instead of tens of thousands per year.”

During a question period after the seminar, Mr. Straubel is asked to expand further on the Model 3, and details the challenges a little further.

Question: The next generation Model 3 will be a bit of a new frontier for Tesla, given its expected market and price. How much of the car in terms of shared or new parts are expected to be new or different from the existing Model S and X?

“For better or worse, most of Model 3 has to be new.  (On) X we were able to build on a lot of common components with S, but with Model 3 we can’t do that.   So we are inventing a whole new platform for Model 3.  It’s a new battery architecture, it’s a new motor technology.  Brand new vehicle structure…so it is a lot of work.”

Tesla Illustrated Battery Volume Needed In 2020 For Model 3 If Everything Goes As Planned

Tesla Illustrated Battery Volume Needed In 2020 For Model 3 If Everything Goes As Planned (via Tesla Motors)

Straubel goes on say that Tesla’s Fremont factory itself is more than capable of building the high volume of Model 3 cars planned by the company, as the ‘how-to’ behind volume automotive production is no mystery, but the problem is in sourcing the batteries to feed the assembly line for those cars.

A handy chart (above) shown by company aptly shows that Tesla will need more battery production in 2020 than was produced in all the world in 2013.  Hence the need for the Gigafactory.

On the Model 3 Rollout:

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has previously said/tweeted the ~$35,000, 200+ mile EV will be revealed in March ,and the company will begin taking deposits at the time.  Production is anticipated to get underway before the end of 2017.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk Tweets Pricing And Reveal Timeline This Past September (via @elonmusk)

Tesla CEO Elon Musk Tweets Pricing And Reveal Timeline This Past September (via @elonmusk)

Video (below): Check out the whole talk by JB Straubel.  The CTO takes the stage at the 10:00 mark, and begins talking Model 3 and Gigafactory from 26:45, Q&A begins from 55:30

Via: Fool.com

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

93 Comments on "Tesla’s JB Straubel: Most People At Tesla Now Working On Model 3 – Video"

newest oldest most voted

First Tesla always delivered later than promised. Second the first Model S (i don’t know about X) was not the best quality… Now after 2-3 years in market they are much more better.
So i think until a good Model 3 we must wait until 2020, i don’t want to be alpha Tester.

When first Model S was delivered Tesla had fewer than 1k employees now it has over 13k employees.

When first Model S was delivered most big name automotive suppliers would not deal with Tesla or would send the C team to co-engineer parts with Tesla. Now most big name suppliers are beating a trail to Tesla’s door.

BTW No one is forcing you to buy any car.

Elon Musk is famous promise impossible timeframe, in a Interview Elon granted and the Tesla ingenieurs must work 6 days a week. Something must suffer under this mentality, Tesla want to bring Model 3 as soon as possible. I am sure the first buyers will buy a new Model 3 after 2-3 years, i have not the money for two shots like most of Model S drivers did.

Did you not read what he said? Tesla has MORE EMPLOYEES since then. More people to work on the MIII.

Yes, that’s the funny part. With so many employees, Tesla revealed a worse than alpha Model X on Sep 29th. Did you not see the “ghetto” videos of someone having to close the falcon doors from outside? It happened on stage too.

Model x out the door? I don’t think so. Time to bring back in, and redesign and debug the issue. I won’t pay a dime for that. Heck, it even looks terrible.

“See Through” said:

“Did you not see the ‘ghetto’ videos of someone having to close the falcon doors from outside?”

I presume you’re talking about the video of the driver of a pre-production Model X mule having to finish closing the falcon-wing door by hand. Looked like that was in an office park, not a “ghetto”. Maybe your troll eyes need glasses?

You see, See Through — or I guess, you don’t see — that this is why auto makers build test vehicles; to work out such problems before the car enters production.

If you were brought up to be a troll, it’s understandable that your education is lacking in many areas… like this one. 😉

“It happened on stage too.”

Now you’re just lying.

He’s referring to the person in the video describing closing the door by hand as “ghetto”.

Alex- Elon Musk not ingenious? Elon make schedule production for most models ten years before then make quality auto when most OEMs build pimp ride crappy!

So true…

I would take the first model S produced over the best ICE any day. In fact I suspect that the price of the used model S will drop because of people like you. But when you look at the value for money I think that even the Model S of Bjoern in Norway that has most miles, is a very good value for money (that is if he sells it)

the model s is currently available for purchase so you have the opportunity to make your actions match your rhetoric. have you actually *bought* a model s?

One of the challenges of the three is that teething pains will be much more expensive to correct since even 100k cars with a problem will be much harder than 10-20k.

On the other hand Tesla has to embrace robots if they hope to achieve 500k per year. Fit and finish are likely going to near perfect when robots are involved.

You probably should watch the videos of Tesla’s manufacturing lines. Robots are already heavily used.

Alex, to wait until 2020 for Model 3, it will cost for Tesla more than 5 billion dollars in forever lost revenue. Do you seriously think that it would make economic sense to throw that amount of money into well? And let the expensive manufacturing equipment idling?

It makes more sense that Tesla invests one billion dollars extra to ensure that Model 3 comes in time rather than let the car be delayed.

Often what people do not realize, that if company X chooses to delay product Y, it means that company X has calculated that they gain in profitability if they choose to delay the product rather than invest more on R&D to ensure early market entry.

It made a lot of economic sense to delay Model X, because introducing X early would have cannibalized the sales of S. But it does not make sense to delay Model 3, because it enters to different market segment.

Actually, as JB hinted, Model 3 may come even early as the construction work at Gigafactory has gone smoother than Tesla anticipated. Therefore Gigafactory is still well in schedule, even ahead!

Tesla has never delivered on time.

The Gigafactory is on schedule only because Tesla has nothing to do with it yet: efforts are focused on the building itself, a large rectangular shell built by contractors. It turns out you can build a box pretty quickly on flat land with no inclement weather if you’ve done it a hundred times before.

Tesla has everything to do with it; not only are they paying for the construction but they are the project managers. They did not subcontract that out. They want to build expertise in this field and may build Gigafactories for others.

They have not delivered on time 3 cars as a much smaller company. Now they have over 13k employees with the experience of launching 3 vehicles.

If Tesla’s executives kept changing their plans for how the Gigafactory was to be built, as they did with the Roadster (and apparently the Model X, too), then it wouldn’t matter that they have outside construction companies doing the building. Changing plans means delays, no matter where those originate.

The good news is that Gigafactory construction is ahead of schedule. This shows that, for once, Tesla is sticking to the original plan. This is a good sign. Doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t mess it up later, during installation of the production lines, but so far so good.

tesla changed the goalposts that define the schedule. the last i read, the objective now is to be able to do assembly in the gigafactory by spring of 2016 with full production occurring at a later date.

i think the gigafactory schedule was very aggressive, so i think that they are making pretty good progress.

You also have to consider the the Model 3 is likely to be simpler than both the Model S and the Model X.

They want to take all of their core technology and put it in an affordable package, not push the boundaries of a particular class of vehicle.

Ideally, yes. Unfortunately, Elon already says he wants to put falcon-wing doors on the Model ≡.

I regard this as very bad; as a sign of unnecessary complexity creeping back into the design, despite Tesla’s frequently stated intent of keeping the design simple to make it faster to get the Model ≡ into production.

what musk actually stated was that there would be another car in addition to the model 3 and that at least one of them would have falcon wing doors. as a practical matter, though, don’t count on seeing falcon wing doors on the model 3.

Thank you for the correction, and that’s a bit of a relief. Looks like my memory played me false on that point.

As I recall (there I go, relying on memory again…), Elon said they plan on a crossover version of the Model ≡. Perhaps that’s to be the Model Y? Or maybe plans that far ahead are too nebulous for any decision to have been made.

musk did mention the model y as being the other car but i don’t remember if it was to be a crossover but that sounds right to me.

I’ll be glad to pay cash up front for the first model 3. Even Tesla lower quaility is better than any gas car in the world with a 20% or less efficient engine making heat and friction along with deadly exhaust.

if you actually mean that, tesla would be glad to take your money for a deposit.

+1 Jim

I would like it if Tesla even drops the model X now or produce very few of it and concentrate on the 3. The earlier they can come up with the 3 the safe the world will be.

The schedule of Model 3 depends on how well the gigafactory stays on schedule. It does not make sense for Tesla to introduce Model 3 before they can also supply the necessary batteries for the car.

The point of gigafactory was to control almost entire production chain of battery. This way Tesla can ensure rapid battery production ramp up. Therefore, the key point of gigafactory is not the massive scale up of production, but rather that it can make complete battery packs from raw materials. This allows rapid production scale up, because the production chain is as simple as possible.

Controlling entire production chain is not necessarily a good thing. GM probably will be out with Bolt long before 3 while costing similar, getting batteries from dedicated battery company LG Chem.

Given how Tesla is new to battery making business, I suspect they will have issues at least for few years after giga factory opens. Then the question becomes, will the competition eat them alive?

Looking around today’s EV, GM is about the only real competitor, and their non-EV are bunch of morons. It’s hard to say if their smarter minority will steer the company in the right direction. If history is any indication, Tesla has nothing to worry about.

You’re confused. Panasonic will be making cells and Tesla making packs, same as now except operations scaled up and inside Gigafactory. There will be priming of production as with any new facility but they are not reinventing the wheel or taking on new roles.

Tesla is building the gigafactory together with Panasonic so they have a lot of knowledge to get from there.

GM the only real competitor for EVs?

Umm, Nissan? Can’t really leave them out.

The Bolt has nice sounding specs but I don’t expect it to be nearly as a good a car as the Model 3.

Correct. The Bolt is built on a converted SONIC platform. It’s not a ground up optimized EV design, which is unfortunate.

I find it both exciting and disheartening to hear that M3 gets an even NEWER motor technology than what is being used in Model X’s AWD. I thought I had read the newer front motor was actually going to be used for M3– so hearing something different from JB, was kind of shocking.

So many questions now… What’s being developed for M3’s drivetrain? What are the design goals for it? What problems are they trying to solve with the newer design (torque ripple, etc.)?

That’s outright misinformation. The Bolt EV was built on a new platform that incorporated EV from the start. It’s no ICE conversion.

Really. If it’s not built on GM’s updated Gamma Platform (G2SC) for the SONIC, then what exactly is it being built on?



Please Anon,

The word platform does not mean frame. The Volt is built on the same “platform” as the Cruze. However the body/ undercarriage stampings are completely different. The Volt has an elaborate stamped under carriage to take the “T” pack. It is totally different than the Cruze.

The Bolt will be the same way. The undercarriage/floor stamping will be unique and not like the Sonic. The Batteries will be built into the floor.

However the car itself will be approximately the same SIZE as the Sonic.

The Volt 1.0 shared the same front end with the Cruze, but I don’t know that it was described as being the same “platform”. Do you have a citation for that?

Taser54 said:

“The Bolt EV was built on a new platform that incorporated EV from the start. It’s no ICE conversion.”

Do you know something the rest of us don’t?

So far as I know, the Bolt will be sharing the same platform with the very cheap Sonic, as has been widely reported. For instance, here’s an article from eight months ago:

“More Production Details Leak Out On Chevrolet Bolt – Will Share Platform With Sonic”

SparkEV said: “GM probably will be out with Bolt long before 3 while costing similar, getting batteries from dedicated battery company LG Chem.” So what? Tesla’s goal isn’t to steal customers away from the piffling number of Bolts that GM plans to make. I expect the Bolt to sell in substantially lower numbers than the Volt. Tesla’s goal is to steal the 99% of customers who buy gasmobiles, or at least as much of that market as they can get before other auto makers finally get serious about making compelling EVs and selling them in large numbers. The Bolt is almost entirely irrelevant to Tesla’s plans. And as for LG Chem’s battery cells vs. Gigafactory cells… we’ll have to wait and see which is more competitive, not to mention which is able to supply as many cells as the auto makers really want. GM has to compete with a growing number of other customers for LG Chem’s new, cheaper cells. Contrariwise, Tesla will get as much of the Gigafactory’s output as they can use. Contrary to popular belief, the primary purpose of Tesla building the Gigafactory is not to lower prices for batteries. It’s to ensure the very large supply… Read more »

I’m not sure the Gigafactory will end up having been necessary to guarantee supply. Tesla is starting very small and expanding the GF slowly over time. If demand is there, LG can surely do the same.

To me, the GF has more to do with Elon fetish for vertical integration. Apple is quite vertically integrated and it works for them. Wisely, though, Apple has stayed away from factories. This is because VI only works well when a component doesn’t need large volumes to be competitive. For chip design or software, that’s true–integration is more important. For tires and other commodities, making them yourself means your economies of scale are worse and your costs higher. I think the same will be true for batteries, in which case Tesla’s bet pays off if they can sell more cars than all other manufacturers combined.

Three Electrics said: “Tesla is starting very small and expanding the GF slowly over time.” I doubt many people would agree with your characterization of “very small” for the pilot Gigafactory. The completed Gigafactory is supposed to produce as many kWh of li-ion batteries as the entire world’s output in 2013. That makes even the initial, approx. 20% portion of the Gigafactory a big factory, with a very significant output. “If demand is there, LG can surely do the same.” The question isn’t whether or not it’s possible for LG Chem to ramp up production capacity. Many, many more things are possible than ever happen. If battery supply were not an issue, then Tesla would already have grown a lot faster and bigger than it is. Nissan is another EV maker which, like Tesla, had a production bottleneck due to limited battery supply. Nissan wound up building two more battery factories, in Tennessee and the UK, before it was finally able to build sufficient Leafs to satisfy global demand. I think it’s not merely a good thing, but actually mandatory for Tesla to avoid being dependent on another company to supply batteries. I think it’s not merely smart business, but… Read more »
Your perspective on Tesla’s supply constraints is… interesting, but it’s a bit too rosy. I’m beginning to suspect you shill for Tesla. In the beginning, Tesla *did* have a supply problem–sort of. The issue was that no battery manufacturer was willing to expand production of batteries far ahead of demand, as Tesla asked them to, because Tesla didn’t have any money or collateral by which to guarantee purchases, and no large battery manufacturer trusted Tesla’s forecasts, or even that the company would be around in a few years. If you’re a growing company who needs batteries, and your battery partner has no faith in you, they won’t expand supply faster than x% of last quarter’s sales. Thus, lithium ion capacity stayed even with demand. Not behind, but even. Later, Tesla took advantage of the situation to blame other manufacturing troubles, as well as soft Model S demand, on battery supply problems. However, larger manufacturers don’t have this problem. They can make financial commitments to LG that LG can take to the bank, and thus finance production expansion. By 2020, automakers are expected to buy more than $30 billion worth of lithium ion batteries for all-electric and plug-in hybrid cars. As… Read more »

Remember that Tesla now has non-automotive uses for batteries too. The home storage system may just be the first of a number of non-car projects that reduce the risk of building such a gigantic factory. The question is, will any other automaker ever buy batteries from Tesla/Panasonic?

Daimler and Toyota have already bought battery packs from Tesla, altho in relatively small numbers.

Seems to me unlikely that any rival auto manufacturer would contract with Tesla for a battery supply for any EV that it intended to make in large numbers, for the very same reason that it’s unlikely that (for example) Ford would contract with GM for gasoline engines. You might find a few cases of that where one manufacturer turned to another to supply a vehicle made in small numbers, but one auto maker would never make itself dependent on a rival for production of its core models.

Of course, that’s all just opinion on my part. Other scenarios are possible, if less likely. Tesla might spin off “Tesla Energy” as a separate company, and perhaps other EV makers might be willing to buy battery packs from such a company.


Well said, Jouni.

the gigafactory is a *very* risky proposition. for one thing, it puts tesla in the position of effectively being “all in” on lithium ion battery technology because the factory will have a significant investment in that technology.

there is a reason why companies have generally gone away from the high vertical integration model…

Yes, it’s a gamble. It’s a gamble which, in my opinion, Tesla is required to make if it wants to grow rapidly. It’s not an option if they want to grow fast. Mitigating that gamble is, or can be, the degree to which the Gigafactory will be flexible in being able to switch to making a different type of battery, if and when one is developed. Changing battery chemistry should be easy, because that’s always being tweaked, so Panasonic and everybody else with experience in making li-ion batteries will know to build their new factories to allow for that changing. What will be harder to deal with is changing how the interior of the batteries are made. For example, lithium polymer batteries are made with a layer of pure lithium, which has required factories making that design to be able to take a lithium ingot, and flatten it out into a thin foil roll laminated with a plastic film separator. Changes like that will require new machines on the production line, and a changeover of how mass production is accomplished. That’s a lot more than just a “tweak”. But keep in mind that every battery maker will be in the… Read more »

! Model X = @4 Model III when III replaces a high mileage ICE like the Prius and X replaces an SUV.


“It’s a new battery architecture”


I think he was referring to the pack form factor and they have previously announced Gigafactory would be producing slightly larger cells. I expect the rest of the pack tech to be similar.

A Tesla spokesman (I think it was JB Straubel, but perhaps it was Elon) has also stated that the chemistry will be different. It’s not just a different form factor for the Gigafactory cells.

Yes, I think newer chemistry is expected but chemistry gets tweaked from time to time either way.

I am a retired schoolteacher. The model three will be my car. This is teslas mission.

More sales in EU than US. First time I’ve heard this. That’s petty big news for TESLA.

The 2020’s are going to be fun. Leaf2, Bolt, M3, Apples, hopefully lots more.

I don’t think it was a slip, or not completely a slip, since he elaborated that the high sales were a result of high gas prices in EU. Maybe worth an inquiry to Georgia or other Tesla comm person.

“…it (Model 3) is a completely new platform. Different technology base, and aimed at building hundreds of thousands per year instead of tens of thousands per year.” Hopefully that will finally drive a stake through the heart of that bad meme that keeps cropping up in Internet posts, claiming that the Model ≡ will be merely a 20% smaller version of the Model S. What a Tesla spokesman actually said, once upon a time, was that the Model ≡ will be about 20% smaller than the S. It has never been rational to think that any auto maker is going to make a new model for half the price by taking the much more expensive model and trimming away bits and pieces here and there. Those who understand how cars are designed have always understood that the Model ≡ will be, that it has to be, a clean sheet design. “Straubel goes on say that Tesla’s Fremont factory itself is more than capable of building the volume of Model 3 cars planned by the company in 2020 (500,000 cars)…” That’s odd. Every previous statement regarding that subject from industry analysts has said that Telsa will need a second assembly plant… Read more »

Actually, now that I’ve listened to part of the speech, what JB Straubel said, at least in one place, is that the Fremont factory has in the past produced hundreds of thousands of cars per year. If he actually said the Fremont factory alone could produce the approx. 500k cars which Tesla plans to make in 2020, then he must have also talked about it in a different place. Without actually listening to the entire and greatly overlong speech, my guess is that the paraphrase in the article misquoted him.

I understand that the factory that we see now is only a small fraction of what they are capable of building at this site. They could expand it by a factor of 6.

Sorry, my mistake. That’s the battery factory, not the car factory.

I’m surprised noboby caught the words “new battery architecture”. They didn’t say cell they said architecture.

To me this means a different pack design. My guess is that all Teslas packs are fairly expensive. The cells are cheap but putting that many cells in a pack with effective cooling has got to be expensive.

Maybe they will cool the cells with a simple cooling tray like the BMW i3.

Or heaven forbid maybe they will switch to a prismatic cell.

Tesla will be using neither the Panasonic 18650 cells, nor the Model S battery pack, in the Model ≡. Both cells and pack will be a new design, or “new architecture”.

In context, I think he meant cell design, not pack design, but either interpretation would be correct.

The cells will be about 20% larger, and the car will be 20% smaller than a Model S. My guess is the Model ≡ will more resemble the BMW i3 or the GM Bolt than the Model S, with a taller but narrower battery pack under the floor. I think it likely the Model ≡ won’t be extra wide, like the Model S is.

Yes I was aware of the larger cells what are they 22700? I know 22 is correct and they will be 22 mm in diameter….and yes I would expect the exterior length and width of the pack to be smaller since it is only 50 kwh’s or so.

All I’m saying is they may use a different cooling scheme. Still liquid cooled but with some changes to lower the cost.

GeorgeS asked:

“Yes I was aware of the larger cells what are they 22700?”

Tesla has yet to specify the exact size in millimeters.

“I know 22 is correct and they will be 22 mm in diameter…”

I think you’re citing speculation, not established fact. If I’m wrong, I’d appreciate a citation of a Tesla spokesman actually saying that. All I’ve read is that the Gigafactory cells will be “about” 10% larger in all dimensions, and “about” half again larger in volume. Note the latter is bigger than the former suggests; the former would suggest about 1/3 larger in volume.

“All I’m saying is they may use a different cooling scheme. Still liquid cooled but with some changes to lower the cost.”

It seems likely that Tesla will try to simplify the pack design to lower costs, but I haven’t seen any details discussed.

Except if you change form factor from cylinder to rectangular prism at the same time. Then the volume increase would be around 33%.

There is a very convenient gap between round cells for cooling..

Yup. My understanding is that Tesla will be sticking with cylindrical cells, albeit larger ones.

One reason that Boeing had battery fires in the Dreamliner’s li-ion battery compartment was that it used block-shaped cells, and packed them side by side, with no space in between for heat dissipation.

Here is a shot of the Volt Body/ platform. If you look inside the passenger compartment, you can see how the floor stamping is totally unique.

The same will be true of the Bolt. It will have a unique floor stamping and the batteries will be in the floor.

The Bolt won’t be a gas Sonic with a battery stuck in it…..even though the Bolt and the Sonic are on the same “platform”.

Stop! You are confusing them with facts.

LOL True.

Maybe the manufactures should state EV derived versions from a platform.

Just to clear it up – no you will not be able to cross fit ICE layout as it’s platform in design group only.

Heck even the shocks / spring & a whole lot more will be different for each variation.

Dan Hue said:

“Stop! You are confusing them with facts.”

Mmmm… or maybe GM is using the word “platform” in a way that’s contrary to common practice. The Wikipedia entry for “Car platform” includes this:

Key mechanical components that define an automobile platform include:

The floorpan, which serves as a foundation for the chassis and other structural and mechanical components

Front and rear axles and the distance
between them – wheelbase

Steering mechanism and type of power steering

Type of front and rear suspensions

Placement and choice of engine and other powertrain components
[end quote]

Clearly by that definition of “platform”, it’s impossible for a BEV to share a platform with a gasmobile. Even if we put that aside, ignoring the requirement for using the same powertrain, it has been pointed out in one or more posts above that the Bolt has a very different floor (floorpan) from the Sonic.

So, this isn’t a case of myself and some others being mistaken about the facts. It’s an argument over the definition of a word: “platform”. Some of us are defining it according to general usage, as Wikipedia does.

Apparently GM uses a different definition. That will only lead to confusion, as well as the semantic argument we’re having here.

The notion of “platform” has broadened over the past few years even if the Wiki entry hasn’t. For example, one of the newer GM platforms supports different widths. That is pretty obviously going to require different floor stampings.

The VW MQB platform is similar. It accomadates a 24kwh battery easily with a different floor stamping but the rest of the hard parts are shared with regular golfs (A3 and Audi TT too, I think). It’s still a compromise though – the e-golf has a ton of empty space under the hood (VW tossed an oversized plastic panel in to compensate) because the electric drivetrain is so much more compact than the ICE.

*Sigh* A video of a speech lasting well over an hour.

I’ll never forget a story told by my stepfather, a Protestant minister. A friend of his was asked by his local Rotary club to give a speech.

* * * * *

“So, how long will you need to get ready?” the Rotary member asked.

“That depends on how long you want me to speak. For a 15-minute speech, I’ll need a couple of weeks.”

“Well, what about a 30 minute speech?”

“Oh, I’d need a few days to prepare for that.”

“Well, what if we wanted you to speak for two hours?”

“Oh, in that case, I can start right now.”

* * * * *

I think it’s too bad that people expect “event” speeches to be long. The best speeches, the memorable ones, are short. Extended times for speeches merely encourage the speaker to fill most of the time by talking about unimportant details, and to wander far off topic… like JB Straubel talking about the 1960s race to put a man on the Moon.

When it comes to speeches: “Less is more”.

Brevity is, indeed, the soul of wit.

That is a good anecdote.

Speeches are like business meetings. Both are way too long, and mostly unnecessary.

This is not entirely surprising since they have released the Model X. Enhancements to the Model S and X will continue obviously, in the way that only Tesla do.

I’m not going to be a naive Telsa fanboi and claim that the Model 3 will be on or ahead of schedule but this is surely promising.

I just hope Tesla learned from A123’s mistake producing un-serialized cells for the Fisker Karma battery packs.


Tesla plans to show a Model 3 in March 2016 at Geneva, yet Mr Straubel says most designers are still working on it. They’re probably cursing Mr Musk’s declaration of the 2016 show.

They might say it will be available in 2017, but I say 2018.

Kudos to Tesla for managing to keep its shape(s) a secret for so long.

I agree. I think they will struggle to have a concept ready for March 2016. I don’t think they will be able to start production until mid 2019 at the earliest.

A “concept” for the Model ≡ could be nothing more than an artist’s sketch, or a computer render, or a clay model. It doesn’t have to be an actual, drive-able prototype car.

Not exactly a high bar there to meet.

You have the freedom to say whatever you choose but the circumstances say otherwise. Tesla cannot afford to build the Gigafactory and not produce the III within 6 months of announced time-frame. Concept will be revealed on time. Tesla has been able to roll out concepts timely in the past and they are much more capable now.

But this whole h8ing Tesla over delays is just troll anti-Tesla BS anyway. Didn’t have a material affect on the S and won’t on the X either. 50K S’es per year is market shattering for a car in it’s price range. It’s selling at a pace of 20% of Cadillac’s global sales for ALL of its vehicles. The Model S is the ONLY plug-in that is winning in the market vs similar ICE models. IMO,the Volt could be as well if it weren’t for GM’s inept management and Chevy’s adversarial dealer network.

God, I remember when every car company was promising it would have a rotary engined car for sale by the late 1970s. GM really tried to do it by 1975, and then the energy crisis hit and the delays began. The Chevrolet Monza was supposed to be GM’s first rotary, which is why it had a high transmission tunnel. Eventually it arrived with a small-block V8 instead.

I really hope they make it a hatchback. I’m not a huge fan of sedans.

The Model S is a hatchback, but Tesla calls it a sedan in their promotional literature. For me that’s counterproductive, as just like you I don’t want a sedan.

This is a confusion in terms; “hatchback” has two meanings. The Model S has a “hatchback”, yes. But it does not have the body style described as “a hatchback”. The Model S has a sedan profile. The car also has a “trunk”, in that it has a trunk-sized well in the floor at the back.

See typical profiles of a sedan, station wagon, and hatchback here:

I’ve seen the Model S described as a “hatchback sedan”, and I think that’s the best description. (Wikipedia calls it a “liftback”.)

“Trunk-sized well”?

I guess, if the trunk you’re comparing it to is from a Z4 or similar.

my suspicion is that tesla is planning for the model x to be a low production vehicle. the “founder’s edition” cars were probably hand built and i suspect that tesla will have to face numerous issues in get the model x to the point of being a car that can be produced on a regular assembly line. elon musk tipped this off when he talked about some of the assembly being “excruciating”.

if tesla really is going to focus its efforts on the model 3, it seems unlikely that they will be able to devote a lot of resources to addressing production issues with the model x.

I don’t think Tesla “planned for” the X to be a low-production vehicle. They were getting pre-orders at a faster rate than Model S pre-orders.

Now, since the Reveal, orders for the Model S have really taken off. So it may be that Tesla will be making more S’s than they planned, and fewer X’s. If so, that will likely be better for Tesla’s bottom line, as it has had three years to refine production of the Model S, and amortize away the startup costs. So the profit margin on the X will presumably be smaller, especially in the first year of production.

I have a leaf love it and the bolt could (probably ) Will be a great car and the same for the second-generation leaf The huge problem is as they fight over CCS and Chadamo teslas supercharge network grows bigger and bigger I would take 150 mile Tesla over a 200 mile EV with no supercharge network

Pushmi-Pullyu, do you read the entire comment or just jump on with negativity after reading the first line. FYI, here’s bottom 1/3 of my comment, basically what you repeat in your long winded rebuttal to the first line of my same post.

“Looking around today’s EV, GM is about the only real competitor, and their non-EV are bunch of morons. It’s hard to say if their smarter minority will steer the company in the right direction. If history is any indication, Tesla has nothing to worry about.”