Tesla Model Y

[ponyo]

My $300 Jan 15, 2021 TSLA call option I paid $3,951 is now worth over $90,000. Up another $20,000 in less than a week. There's a chance this call option will be worth Tesla Roadster money by the time the Cybertruck or Roadster is released. It would be sweet to get Roadster for $4,000.

 

[Muadib]

My $300 Jan 15, 2021 TSLA call option I paid $3,951 is now worth over $90,000. Up another $20,000 in less than a week. There's a chance this call option will be worth Tesla Roadster money by the time the Cybertruck or Roadster is released. It would be sweet to get Roadster for $4,000.

I'd be cashing out. Congrats for paying for your CT!

 

[Kaido]

$3,000 price drop on the Model Y:

Tesla reduces Model Y prices, now starts below $50,000

Tesla has reduced the price of the Model Y starting price below $50,000, and it has updated the Performance version....

electrek.co

 

[ponyo]

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-y-price-reduction/

Tesla reduced the price of the Model Y AWD Long Range by $3,000 from $52,990 to $49,990. They also reduced the Performance price by $1,000. Now the Model Y LR is only $3k more than the Model 3 LR. This makes the Model Y lot more attractive vs the Model 3 now with only $3k difference for lot more room and new techs like the heat pump.

edit: Beaten by Kaido with the update.

 

[foghorn67]

GF's sister bought one, all three of us spent hours driving it to a lake, cabin and boat trip. Easy 10 hours with no fatigue. No problems with all the gear and alcohol we brought.

 

[ponyo]

My $300 Jan 15, 2021 TSLA call option I paid $3,951 is now worth over $90,000. Up another $20,000 in less than a week. There's a chance this call option will be worth Tesla Roadster money by the time the Cybertruck or Roadster is released. It would be sweet to get Roadster for $4,000.

My $300 Jan 21, 2021 call option is now worth around $174,000. It briefly hit Tesla Roadster money earlier this month and was worth over $225,000 but have since pulled back. But I'm going to leave it and convert it into 500 shares of TSLA in Jan 2021. It's going to be my Tesla Roadster and Cybertruck money now. . I think by the time the Roadster and Cybertruck is released in late 2022/ early 2023, it will more than pay for both vehicles.

 

[ponyo]

https://electrek.co/2020/09/25/tesla-launches-acceleration-boost-upgrade-model-y/

Tesla released $2,000 OTA software upgrade for Dual Motor AWD Model Y which reduces 0-60 times from 4.8 to 4.3 seconds. That's pretty good upgrade from price/performance perspective. To get that kind of similar performance upgrade from ICE vehicles, it would cost you lot more than $2k. And in this case, the extra $2k is almost all pure profit margin for Tesla and goes straight to their bottom line. Maybe Tesla has to set aside small extra percentage for possible increased warranty reserves but I doubt it's much.

 

[KentState]

Actually, on an ICE vehicle it would cost about $600 for a good dyno tune to get something similar. In both cases, it's a tweak or adjustment to the software and not actual hardware. The biggest difference, is that unless you are dealing with a factory authorized tuner, you don't get a warranty.

 

[ponyo]

Actually, on an ICE vehicle it would cost about $600 for a good dyno tune to get something similar. In both cases, it's a tweak or adjustment to the software and not actual hardware. The biggest difference, is that unless you are dealing with a factory authorized tuner, you don't get a warranty.

I don't know about that. 0.5 seconds is huge improvement for 0-60 time just from a dyno tune. I seriously doubt you can get anything near 0.5 seconds 0-60 improvements on something like Audi Q5, Mercedes GLC, BMW X3, or Lexus RX350 just from dyno tune. If you have proof someone did it, I would love to see it.

 

[Viper GTS]

I don't know about that. 0.5 seconds is huge improvement for 0-60 time just from a dyno tune. I seriously doubt you can get anything near 0.5 seconds 0-60 improvements on something like Audi Q5, Mercedes GLC, BMW X3, or Lexus RX350 just from dyno tune. If you have proof someone did it, I would love to see it.

Huge gains can be had in forced induction vehicles because so much is left on the table on factory tunes. Ecoboost Mustangs, historically the 335, etc. Those nice flat torque curves you get on modern boosted motors are accomplished by software limiting output.

Viper GTS

 

[ultimatebob]

https://electrek.co/2020/09/25/tesla-launches-acceleration-boost-upgrade-model-y/

Tesla released $2,000 OTA software upgrade for Dual Motor AWD Model Y which reduces 0-60 times from 4.8 to 4.3 seconds. That's pretty good upgrade from price/performance perspective. To get that kind of similar performance upgrade from ICE vehicles, it would cost you lot more than $2k. And in this case, the extra $2k is almost all pure profit margin for Tesla and goes straight to their bottom line. Maybe Tesla has to set aside small extra percentage for possible increased warranty reserves but I doubt it's much.

There are other electric car tuners out there now who can give you a similar performance boost on your Tesla for a lower price, but Tesla will void your warranty if they catch you doing it.

 

[ponyo]

There are other electric car tuners out there now who can give you a similar performance boost on your Tesla for a lower price, but Tesla will void your warranty if they catch you doing it.

Well that's like jailbreaking Apple iPhone. You can do it but the risk/reward have to be worth it. If Tesla wasn't providing the option for Acceleration Boost for $2k, then maybe it would be worth it. But when Tesla is giving you the option to purchase the official warranty backed upgrade, why risk and pay for third-party unlock that cost like 2/3 of the official price and come with all the potential negatives of being banned from Superchargers and losing your vehicle warranty. You have to be extremely dumb to take that kind of risk to save few bucks.

 

[Viper GTS]

Well that's like jailbreaking Apple iPhone. You can do it but the risk/reward have to be worth it. If Tesla wasn't providing the option for Acceleration Boost for $2k, then maybe it would be worth it. But when Tesla is giving you the option to purchase the official warranty backed upgrade, why risk and pay for third-party unlock that cost like 2/3 of the official price and come with all the potential negatives of being banned from Superchargers and losing your vehicle warranty. You have to be extremely dumb to take that kind of risk to save few bucks.

I would tend to agree with this sentiment. Saving even half of $2000 on your $40,000+ car with that kind of tradeoff is just silly.

Viper GTS

 

[Midwayman]

Well that's like jailbreaking Apple iPhone. You can do it but the risk/reward have to be worth it. If Tesla wasn't providing the option for Acceleration Boost for $2k, then maybe it would be worth it. But when Tesla is giving you the option to purchase the official warranty backed upgrade, why risk and pay for third-party unlock that cost like 2/3 of the official price and come with all the potential negatives of being banned from Superchargers and losing your vehicle warranty. You have to be extremely dumb to take that kind of risk to save few bucks.

I'd argue Tesla is violating the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act big time.

 

[ultimatebob]

Well that's like jailbreaking Apple iPhone. You can do it but the risk/reward have to be worth it. If Tesla wasn't providing the option for Acceleration Boost for $2k, then maybe it would be worth it. But when Tesla is giving you the option to purchase the official warranty backed upgrade, why risk and pay for third-party unlock that cost like 2/3 of the official price and come with all the potential negatives of being banned from Superchargers and losing your vehicle warranty. You have to be extremely dumb to take that kind of risk to save few bucks.

I'd imagine that if you have an older Tesla that's no longer under warranty, you really don't have much to lose by getting 3rd party performance upgrades at that point.

It's kind of like my Mustang GT... when the warranty runs out on that, I'll basically feel obligated to install a supercharger on it at that point. It's never going back to the dealership for repairs at that point onward, so who cares what Ford thinks of my aftermarket modifications

 

[Aikouka]

I'd rather ask why it costs $2000 to unlock performance that already exists. I'm sure someone would easily point at (E)AP or FSD and say, "that hardware already exists, but you pay for it!" However, at least looking at this from the outside, the performance upgrade should be adjusting a software limit on the power delivery to the motor, but the other two are large software suites.

 

[ponyo]

I'd rather ask why it costs $2000 to unlock performance that already exists. I'm sure someone would easily point at (E)AP or FSD and say, "that hardware already exists, but you pay for it!" However, at least looking at this from the outside, the performance upgrade should be adjusting a software limit on the power delivery to the motor, but the other two are large software suites.

Because Wall Street wants profit and punished Tesla in the past for losing money. So blame the Wall Street monkeys that Tesla has to charge for stuff and try to make money.

 

[bigi]

I'd rather ask why it costs $2000 to unlock performance that already exists. I'm sure someone would easily point at (E)AP or FSD and say, "that hardware already exists, but you pay for it!" However, at least looking at this from the outside, the performance upgrade should be adjusting a software limit on the power delivery to the motor, but the other two are large software suites.

I have been thinking about it too.

Perhaps there is more to it than flipping the switch?

Tesla is a software company too, which many don't have a clue about. Now, running this kind of software development gig costs money. Also, this might not be a simple enable/disable issue. This might have been researched and optimized for some time so the feature works well for everybody.

In any case, it is a new and only deal in car industry really. TSLA can do it. People ain't forced to buy it and the car is great w/out it and nothing has been taken away.

Now, you wanna race the ricers, 2K helps here.

YMMV

 

[sdifox]

Well that's like jailbreaking Apple iPhone. You can do it but the risk/reward have to be worth it. If Tesla wasn't providing the option for Acceleration Boost for $2k, then maybe it would be worth it. But when Tesla is giving you the option to purchase the official warranty backed upgrade, why risk and pay for third-party unlock that cost like 2/3 of the official price and come with all the potential negatives of being banned from Superchargers and losing your vehicle warranty. You have to be extremely dumb to take that kind of risk to save few bucks.

sideloading app on phone doesn't risk as much as messing up a car.

 

[Aikouka]

Perhaps there is more to it than flipping the switch?

Tesla is a software company too, which many don't have a clue about. Now, running this kind of software development gig costs money. Also, this might not be a simple enable/disable issue. This might have been researched and optimized for some time so the feature works well for everybody.

Electrical engineering is a bit out of my wheelhouse, but my assumption is that there are likely software/firmware limits put in place that regulate the amount of voltage/frequency (depending on which motor) that is provided to the motor by the inverter. Given that two motors won't be the exact same, I cannot tell you how they necessarily ensure that Person A's M3D and Person B's M3D are fine with the update (the cars do have the option to phone home with telemetric data, which may include information on the inverter performance). So, my take is that they're likely upgrading the limits for the electrical source. Part of the reason why I don't assume that this involved any significant software is that Tesla vehicles likely already have enough energy management/monitoring that this shouldn't require anything new.

 

[manly]

I'd rather ask why it costs $2000 to unlock performance that already exists. I'm sure someone would easily point at (E)AP or FSD and say, "that hardware already exists, but you pay for it!" However, at least looking at this from the outside, the performance upgrade should be adjusting a software limit on the power delivery to the motor, but the other two are large software suites.

This is just basic product differentiation. For example, Tesla never actually built the base SR Model 3. They built SR+ equipped vehicles that are software locked to meet the base model's specs.

 

[Aikouka]

This is just basic product differentiation. For example, Tesla never actually built the base SR Model 3. They built SR+ equipped vehicles that are software locked to meet the base model's specs.

Except, if I recall, the differences between trims generally revolved around hardware features or software features that heavily relied upon task-specific hardware. (Trying to word that in a way that doesn't leave me open to "isn't that what the motors are?" )

When it comes down to it, I don't truly know what goes into creating the upgrade. I can make assumptions that sound decent, but they're still just my assumptions. Although, I've already been critical of Tesla in the past for needless charges. I mean... the only reason why I have FSD on my Model 3 is because I didn't want to pay 66% more to buy it after the fact (back when it was $3000 at purchase, and $5000 afterward; EAP was $5000 and $6000 if I recall). Amusingly enough, I could've gotten it for $2000 as Tesla mispriced it when making the switch from EAP to AP. So, I guess the joke was on me in the end!

 

[manly]

Except, if I recall, the differences between trims generally revolved around hardware features or software features that heavily relied upon task-specific hardware. (Trying to word that in a way that doesn't leave me open to "isn't that what the motors are?" )

When it comes down to it, I don't truly know what goes into creating the upgrade. I can make assumptions that sound decent, but they're still just my assumptions. Although, I've already been critical of Tesla in the past for needless charges. I mean... the only reason why I have FSD on my Model 3 is because I didn't want to pay 66% more to buy it after the fact (back when it was $3000 at purchase, and $5000 afterward; EAP was $5000 and $6000 if I recall). Amusingly enough, I could've gotten it for $2000 as Tesla mispriced it when making the switch from EAP to AP. So, I guess the joke was on me in the end!

The main difference is SR+ has a bit extra range than the rarely sold SR model. This is strictly a software lock. Like I said, this is pretty standard product differentiation. I'm probably wrong, but this was started by IBM in the 1970s with their mainframes? They would build them with an extra CPU, which the customer could later pay to enable.

I realize each case is different, but as long as a consumer gets what they paid for, it really isn't odd that they can then pay to instantly enable more functionality. About the only problem one could have in theory is that every Tesla buyer has paid for the AP/FSD hardware, whether they will ever unlock the software side of the equation. Of course that cost is hidden within the price of the car, so it's hard to say how much that even is.

In your case, the joke is only on you if FSD remains vaporware until past your ownership of the vehicle.

 

[KentState]

The main difference is SR+ has a bit extra range than the rarely sold SR model. This is strictly a software lock. Like I said, this is pretty standard product differentiation. I'm probably wrong, but this was started by IBM in the 1970s with their mainframes? They would build them with an extra CPU, which the customer could later pay to enable.

What I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around is the software side of it. IBM was actually including a physical processor which had an expense behind it and value on it's own. Tesla on the other hand is only changing the software itself to utilize the hardware differently. If that covers the cost of increased development, warranty issues or battery life, I get that, but if it's just holding back performance to make another $2k down the road, then I'm not such a fan. And maybe as a share holder, I just shouldn't care

 

[Heartbreaker]

What I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around is the software side of it. IBM was actually including a physical processor which had an expense behind it and value on it's own. Tesla on the other hand is only changing the software itself to utilize the hardware differently. If that covers the cost of increased development, warranty issues or battery life, I get that, but if it's just holding back performance to make another $2k down the road, then I'm not such a fan. And maybe as a share holder, I just shouldn't care

Anyone who has a problem with this, doesn't understand how technology product segmentation works. This is how the tech industry works, on just about any product where it can.

Not every 6 Core AMD CPU has two failed cores. Most of them probably have 8 good working cores, with 2 of them disabled for product segmentation. The GPU and CPU markets have always worked with artificial product segmentation.

All software with multiple versions works like this, features enabled/disabled to create different price points.

And in this case unlike either of those two, there likely will end up with more warranty claims with more power unleashed. It's going to be just that much harder on all the components, so there may be more than typical pure segmentation at play here.

Higher end segments often don't cost any more to produce, they just reap more profits. But higher profits on higher end segments allow them to have lower prices on the entry segments, so in that sense it's good for value consumers as well.