I'm still getting my Foundation Series, but I can't help but feel bitter...

[charliemagpie]

Once the decision to purchase is made, I think bitterness should not be part of the equation.

Doesn't make sense, who buys begrudgingly?

Nice to start on a good footing and go from there. If the foundation is crooked, it is all crooked from there.


I am in the same boat. Disappointed in some ways, but overall will be happy as Larry.

Please be happy and enjoy.

C'est la vie.

Sponsored

 

[Outdoors]

You missed the two points.

1. The truck literally has been reduced all over while the price has nearly doubled.
2. That’s even after 2 years of extra project time to market and all the battery advancements that have come over that time.
   Not even close to same range after 2 years late to the world should have better energy density per cell.

Sorry to chop up your quote, but the battery development just didn't happen. It is that simple. There would be no range extender and 500 would be there. I don't see it happening just about anywhere when it comes to moving trucks down the road absent some new pair of dimes of battery tech. You hit the nail on the head for density. I just think if Tesla waited another year or two everyone would have laughed or been pissed even more. No win situation, except launch.

Everyone else is pulling back. Tesla moving ahead. Watching the Munro video makes me give a little more appreciation for what they are doing. That was such a small segment as well.

Inflation is the thing we all know about. There would be no Tesla if they stuck with the original pricing. I read that line about the pricing everywhere. Just talk yourself out of it, or wait for the non Founders edition.

 

[Celiboy]

You missed the two points.

1. The truck literally has been reduced all over while the price has nearly doubled.
2. These reductions have not only reduced all specs, but ironically, even a truck made of less, thinner and cheaper material equipped with more efficient and smaller tires couldn’t yield close to the original range forecast. Even after sacrificing 1/3 of the most crucial space in the bed. That’s even after 2 years of extra project time to market and all the battery advancements that have come over that time.
   
   #2 is why I mentioned that a much bigger much more aggress and less efficient truck was promised 500+ miles of range. Even after smaller, thinner, less aggressive times, thinner metal, small scale, etc etc. Not even close to same range after 2 years late to the world should have better energy density per cell.

Why are you so attached to what Elon said on a stage 4 years ago about a truck that only existed in his imagination? They made the original prototype in 93 days. Do you really think that after a 93 day build they had tested the range and towing capability to the point that his 500 mile range and 14,000 pound towing capacity prediction meant anything? You’re complaining to a bunch of people who were made the same promises who really don’t care and who would love to be in the position you’re in. You’re actually going to have a truck that you created an entire thread just to complain about.

 

[Outdoors]

Why are you so attached to what Elon said on a stage 4 years ago about a truck that only existed in his imagination? They made the original prototype in 93 days. Do you really think that after a 93 day build they had tested the range and towing capability to the point that his 500 mile range and 14,000 pound towing capacity prediction meant anything? You’re complaining to a bunch of people who were made the same promises who really don’t care and who would love to be in the position you’re in. You’re actually going to have a truck that you created an entire thread just to complain about.

Tesla just did some:

and called it a day with a cool design. It just didn't pan out.

 

[JBee]

Simply we are not Tesla and can't make or know all the reasons for decisions that they make.

As for "just using the original prototype" this is just silly. That version cost over $1million to make so nobody could afford it and it would never come out.

This is the difference between fantasy and engineering reality, and prototype dreams and mass production.

Same goes for the battery statements.

DM is still better value than the original and is the most popular order choice by far. Still.

 

[anionic1]

You forgot 1 less seat.

 

[PilotPete]

You missed the two points.

1. The truck literally has been reduced all over while the price has nearly doubled.
2. These reductions have not only reduced all specs, but ironically, even a truck made of less, thinner and cheaper material equipped with more efficient and smaller tires couldn’t yield close to the original range forecast. Even after sacrificing 1/3 of the most crucial space in the bed. That’s even after 2 years of extra project time to market and all the battery advancements that have come over that time.
   
   #2 is why I mentioned that a much bigger much more aggress and less efficient truck was promised 500+ miles of range. Even after smaller, thinner, less aggressive times, thinner metal, small scale, etc etc. Not even close to same range after 2 years late to the world should have better energy density per cell.

No, I didn't miss it. I said on #2, why do you care if the HFS is 3mm, 1.8mm, 1.4mm, or 12mm, so long as it achieves the strength that was promised? The CT has more torsional rigidity than a McLaren P1, and million dollar sports car designed around rigidity. So, why do you care? As for range, the dual goes farther than the original commitment. The only range estimate (!) they didn't hit was 500+. And with all the improvements, you don't seem to want to acknowledge that there are some impressive improvement? And your cost exaggeration is way off. The CB is 43% more than the tri-motor was targeted to hit. And if you want to talk about the AWD Foundation vs the original target, that's apples and oranges. There wasn't a FS proposed to begin with. That's just about getting your CT early. If you're patient, it's only a 60% price increase from the original target. You want to compare this to gas prices over the past 4 years? Or shipping costs? or housing? or maybe mortgage rates??? Please, if you're going to complain about the final product, then at least be fair and honest. Acknowledge that the CT has quite a few improvements to go along with a few of the drawbacks.

But hey, I do get it. Acknowledging the ups along with the downs isn't popular, and we are all hyperfocused on our own individual use, not what is best for the vast majority and the corporation.

 

[JBee]

No, I didn't miss it. I said on #2, why do you care if the HFS is 3mm, 1.8mm, 1.4mm, or 12mm, so long as it achieves the strength that was promised? The CT has more torsional rigidity than a McLaren P1, and million dollar sports car designed around rigidity. So, why do you care? As for range, the dual goes farther than the original commitment. The only range estimate (!) they didn't hit was 500+. And with all the improvements, you don't seem to want to acknowledge that there are some impressive improvement? And your cost exaggeration is way off. The CB is 43% more than the tri-motor was targeted to hit. And if you want to talk about the AWD Foundation vs the original target, that's apples and oranges. There wasn't a FS proposed to begin with. That's just about getting your CT early. If you're patient, it's only a 60% price increase from the original target. You want to compare this to gas prices over the past 4 years? Or shipping costs? or housing? or maybe mortgage rates??? Please, if you're going to complain about the final product, then at least be fair and honest. Acknowledge that the CT has quite a few improvements to go along with a few of the drawbacks.

But hey, I do get it. Acknowledging the ups along with the downs isn't popular, and we are all hyperfocused on our own individual use, not what is best for the vast majority and the corporation.

I agree, whatever the OPs position is it's jaded by his own false assumptions that are not in line with reality.

Hence my attempts to correct those assumptions with facts and alternative positions to clarify the reason for the result.

There's no way to get comfortable with reality if you insist on believing things that are not true in the first place.

 

[Jamessmooth007]

Like MKBHD said, it really has missed the mark.

Don’t recall him saying this. Maybe I missed it. He did say that price and range are no longer advantages we thought they’d be. He said “I really think they’ve got themselves something solid here” and said he was impressed.

 

[charliemagpie]

BTW, walk a mile in another man's shoes.

Be a legacy EV customer.

 

[msl0727]

No, I didn't miss it. I said on #2, why do you care if the HFS is 3mm, 1.8mm, 1.4mm, or 12mm, so long as it achieves the strength that was promised? The CT has more torsional rigidity than a McLaren P1, and million dollar sports car designed around rigidity. So, why do you care? As for range, the dual goes farther than the original commitment. The only range estimate (!) they didn't hit was 500+. And with all the improvements, you don't seem to want to acknowledge that there are some impressive improvement? And your cost exaggeration is way off. The CB is 43% more than the tri-motor was targeted to hit. And if you want to talk about the AWD Foundation vs the original target, that's apples and oranges. There wasn't a FS proposed to begin with. That's just about getting your CT early. If you're patient, it's only a 60% price increase from the original target. You want to compare this to gas prices over the past 4 years? Or shipping costs? or housing? or maybe mortgage rates??? Please, if you're going to complain about the final product, then at least be fair and honest. Acknowledge that the CT has quite a few improvements to go along with a few of the drawbacks.

But hey, I do get it. Acknowledging the ups along with the downs isn't popular, and we are all hyperfocused on our own individual use, not what is best for the vast majority and the corporation.

Again… point missed. I only mentioned that the steel is thinner so as if to further show that weight reduction would yield better efficiency. That and many other things, yet they still failed to hit the range promise. I got the thickness from the same source you did saying why they did it. Figure it out.

 

[msl0727]

I agree, whatever the OPs position is it's jaded by his own false assumptions that are not in line with reality.

Hence my attempts to correct those assumptions with facts and alternative positions to clarify the reason for the result.

There's no way to get comfortable with reality if you insist on believing things that are not true in the first place.

lol He literally said what it would be and laughed at manufacturers that don’t deliver close to the prototype like Tesla does. And that’s coming from being a Tesla invested from the early days, owning a Tesla, buying this Tesla, and planning to buy more in the future. Your just blinded by fandom.

 

[msl0727]

BTW, walk a mile in another man's shoes.

Be a legacy EV customer.

I am one.

 

[msl0727]

Don’t recall him saying this. Maybe I missed it. He did say that price and range are no longer advantages we thought they’d be. He said “I really think they’ve got themselves something solid here” and said he was impressed.

He said that many of the offerings are less than promised, but (like me) say it’s still a great product. Just call it what is it. I’m still buying it.

 

[Jamessmooth007]

He said that many of the offerings are less than promised, but (like me) say it’s still a great product. Just call it what is it. I’m still buying it.

I’m super jealous. Can’t wait to hear what you think of it!

Sponsored