Model Y Refresh (Juniper) Revealed

[YDR37]

One concern I have is people delaying a Y purchase until the new version is available which could hurt Q1 and Q2 this year.

There is a potential demand issue for that reason. In addition, there is a potential supply issue: the Fremont and Texas plants, which make the Model Y for North America, will have to be temporarily shut down for retooling before they can start producing the new version. Even if everything goes smoothly, there will inevitably be some lost production.

The Fremont plant has consistently cranked out 50,000+ Model 3s in every quarter since 3Q 2020 -- except for one. In 1Q 2024, only about 18,500 were made. What happened then? They had to retool the plant for the Model 3 "Highland" refresh. And M3 sales crashed in that quarter as well -- even after production restarted and people were ready to buy, sales were still delayed for a while, due to supply constraints.

In theory, any supply gaps in the US could be temporarily patched with new Model Ys from Tesla's huge Shanghai plant, which will be the first to transition. But in practice, importing MYs from China would not be feasible due to tariffs and other political considerations.

Sponsored

 

[JBee]

I think Tesla needs to advertise on TV and social media. Ford and GM advertise blue cruise and super cruise respectively and if people are at all impressed by that then FSD will blow them away. 8k for an always improving personal chauffer for the lifetime of your vehicle is a great deal. Most people I know are well educated and make a good amount of money and their knowledge of Tesla features, especially FSD and even EVs in general is terrible.

General public thinks EV are overpriced, less reliable than ICE, and range is too short. Each headline about Tesla recalling essentially every vehicle hurts perception even though most recalls are simple OTA fixes. All these concerns are mostly myths but perception is reality.

I think the new model Y will cause the stock to drop in the short term as it likely doesn't have enough new features to justify current Tesla owners upgrading so investors will sell. Steer by wire, significantly more range and powershare would have helped.

I also think Tesla needs to tie their energy business more to their vehicles. That business is growing fast and it creates network effects like Apple products do. If you buy a Tesla with powershare or get a powerwall with solar panels and charge on solar and/or can power your house it creates a disincentive to get an ICE car or a rivian etc. because you are giving up your generator.

Maybe you missed my post about bidirectional being enabled on every Tesla this year seeing the hardware is already built in?

https://www.cybertruckownersclub.co...-refresh-juniper-revealed.34180/post-30471690

The Powerwall combo is not as great a combo as it at first seems, especially pricing is way to high. And if in a two tesla household, the likelihood of there being a large electrical load in the house, but no car at home to supply it, is fairly uncommon. Most load follows users, and users typically leave and return with their vehicle.

So having bidirectional is arguably going to hurt powerwall sales not improve them, and is why Tesla/EM has artificially locked down the feature on current models, to promote powerwall sales which has better margins. But it is likely to improve vehicle sales with less margins.

The market "illusions" come from the dictonomy of goals between EM and investors. EM wants resources and progress towards Mars, he doesn't care about the profits of investors, except then as its largest shareholder that it depletes his resources to reach his goals.

The reality is that together with finance and top tier investors he has more money than he can spend on Mars already, his biggest holdup is bureaucracy and regulation and is exactly why he stepped into the political sphere with DOGE etc to solve that problem otherwise he wouldn't make it to Mars at all.

The way things were going just didn't have the right conditions for his overarching goals to Mars so he did what he had to do lay the groundwork for success long term. In fact if you look behind the scenes he's doing the same in Germany (promoting to reduce regulatory burden) and this is also one reason why China is more productive and was why Tesla built it there in the first place.

The criteria here is that a) you need people to make things (China or population collapse = pro family) b) people need to be fairly happy to make and consume things (personal and economic success) 3) you need merit based qualifications to run successful industry and development (also a education deficit problem) 4) you need dedicated, focused and streamlined personnel without bloatware (cut and addback technique)

We have a similar problem here in Aus that most new jobs are government jobs, in fact 1 in 5 jobs are government, and as we all know government does not make anything themselves except bureaucracy and spending other peoples money, by means of taxation or inflation. Thats 20% of people spending some 50% of the other peoples money.

The critical component here is that he needs more "productive" people, as in people making products so we are more efficient at getting to Mars, and needs more money flowing to his products which funds Mars, which only happens if you get rid of regulation and the jobs employed that run it. Its a triple whammy.

On the subject of resource allocation, be that money or products and services, theres also the matter of wars and conflict, which obviously are a major resource drain on the economy and also have an impact on allocarion of professional personnel, like engineers etc. So in EMs view conflicts are also reducing the right resource allocations to Mars, so finding a different way to resolve them is critical for his Mars mission success, in particular that we learn how to excel together for all to be prosperous.

The point here is that most people don't understand the size of the resource allocation required to establish a million person Mars colony.

It will require a substantial portion of the US economy, the alternative being a multi-national (or imperial?) expansion of his resource base potential.

This is the true motivation behind his endeavours, and losing a few MY customers along the way because of ideology is completely missing the whole point interplanetary expansion, and of why he thinks he exists at all, and what he needs and wants to achieve on Mars.

So whats his backup plan?

If you consider the economy to be a product of human productivity (hi Milei!) then you have to acknowledge the contraints of human activity, and then you quickly realise the fundamental shift when manual labour shifts to Optimus and mental acuity and organisation to xAI.

This is an alternative solution to population collapse and aging population, education, skill shortage, social discontent or ethics, work etiquette, organisational hierarchy, mangament, urgency, environmental constraints (on Mars too), and resource allocation derived from human productivity (aka economy).

Sure it might be 10 or even 20 years away still, but EM atm is concerned that we will even get there at all, so he's working the Mars problem from as many angles as he can.

 

[HaulingAss]

Tesla does a lot of things, but their profits are driven by vehicle sales, and their vehicle sales are driven by the Model Y.

Yes, the Model Y and Model 3 are the two most popular Tesla models, the rest barely matter at last year's production levels. Looking forward, the CEO has made it clear that both battery energy storage and humanoid robot revenue and profits will dwarf auto manufacturing profits. So will robotaxis. Tesla will not paint themselves into the lower margin corner of only being an automaker, like almost all the other legacy manufacturers.

There's a good reason for that. Automaking is a very fickle business because it relies primarily on consumer purchases that ebb and flow with the economy and consumer confidence. Humanoid robots and battery storage and Tesla's energy software (Autobidder) make money for other companies, they are not discretionary consumer purchases, they will command much higher margins.

It's been suggested that if Tesla wants to sell more pickups, they could simply offer a Model Y variation with a short bed, so something like an electric Ford Maverick.

That wouldn't even be a real pickup and it would look dumb and sell poorly. It could only hold two people. Now that Cybertruck has ramped to more efficient volumes, they will sell far more in 2025 than they did in 2024. Remember, Cybertrucks were only trickling out of the factory in small numbers for most of the first half of the year due to the production ramp. That will not exist this year.

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

12V has been broke for a long time.

V12 E-TYPE Jags have been broke imho.
Since l was seven and a half, l have loved the '66 Coupe in red of course!
3.8 manual 6 cylinder naturally....
( aspire_rated!)

 

[SteelMyHeart]

Maybe you missed my post about bidirectional being enabled on every Tesla this year seeing the hardware is already built in?

https://www.cybertruckownersclub.co...-refresh-juniper-revealed.34180/post-30471690

The Powerwall combo is not as great a combo as it at first seems, especially pricing is way to high. And if in a two tesla household, the likelihood of there being a large electrical load in the house, but no car at home to supply it, is fairly uncommon. Most load follows users, and users typically leave and return with their vehicle.

So having bidirectional is arguably going to hurt powerwall sales not improve them, and is why Tesla/EM has artificially locked down the feature on current models, to promote powerwall sales which has better margins. But it is likely to improve vehicle sales with less margins.

The market "illusions" come from the dictonomy of goals between EM and investors. EM wants resources and progress towards Mars, he doesn't care about the profits of investors, except then as its largest shareholder that it depletes his resources to reach his goals.

The reality is that together with finance and top tier investors he has more money than he can spend on Mars already, his biggest holdup is bureaucracy and regulation and is exactly why he stepped into the political sphere with DOGE etc to solve that problem otherwise he wouldn't make it to Mars at all.

The way things were going just didn't have the right conditions for his overarching goals to Mars so he did what he had to do lay the groundwork for success long term. In fact if you look behind the scenes he's doing the same in Germany (promoting to reduce regulatory burden) and this is also one reason why China is more productive and was why Tesla built it there in the first place.

The criteria here is that a) you need people to make things (China or population collapse = pro family) b) people need to be fairly happy to make and consume things (personal and economic success) 3) you need merit based qualifications to run successful industry and development (also a education deficit problem) 4) you need dedicated, focused and streamlined personnel without bloatware (cut and addback technique)

We have a similar problem here in Aus that most new jobs are government jobs, in fact 1 in 5 jobs are government, and as we all know government does not make anything themselves except bureaucracy and spending other peoples money, by means of taxation or inflation. Thats 20% of people spending some 50% of the other peoples money.

The critical component here is that he needs more "productive" people, as in people making products so we are more efficient at getting to Mars, and needs more money flowing to his products which funds Mars, which only happens if you get rid of regulation and the jobs employed that run it. Its a triple whammy.

On the subject of resource allocation, be that money or products and services, theres also the matter of wars and conflict, which obviously are a major resource drain on the economy and also have an impact on allocarion of professional personnel, like engineers etc. So in EMs view conflicts are also reducing the right resource allocations to Mars, so finding a different way to resolve them is critical for his Mars mission success, in particular that we learn how to excel together for all to be prosperous.

The point here is that most people don't understand the size of the resource allocation required to establish a million person Mars colony.

It will require a substantial portion of the US economy, the alternative being a multi-national (or imperial?) expansion of his resource base potential.

This is the true motivation behind his endeavours, and losing a few MY customers along the way because of ideology is completely missing the whole point interplanetary expansion, and of why he thinks he exists at all, and what he needs and wants to achieve on Mars.

So whats his backup plan?

If you consider the economy to be a product of human productivity (hi Milei!) then you have to acknowledge the contraints of human activity, and then you quickly realise the fundamental shift when manual labour shifts to Optimus and mental acuity and organisation to xAI.

This is an alternative solution to population collapse and aging population, education, skill shortage, social discontent or ethics, work etiquette, urgency, environmental constraints (on Mars too), and resource allocation derived from human productivity (aka economy).

Sure it might be 10 or even 20 years away still, but EM atm is concerned that we will even get there at all, so he's working the Mars problem from as many angles as he can.

I did not see your post but was aware of Tesla's stated goal of bidirectional charging in 2025. I think it's odd Tesla would not mention it from the beginning with the Y if powershare was possible. Your points are fair about powershare undermining powerwall sales. I don't think Musk's long view of the universe is readily discernable in a way that could inform investment actions. In the short-term, the lack of more game-changing features such as more range, powershare, steer by wire for the Y will hurt Tesla. I was also frankly surprised to see a turn signal stalk on the Y. If you are leaning into FSD why have a stalk just because some people want it?

 

[YDR37]

That wouldn't even be a real pickup and it would look dumb and sell poorly. It could only hold two people.

The Ford Maverick seats five. It's about a foot longer than a Model Y, or about the same length as a Model X. In 3Q 2024, the Maverick outsold all electric pickups combined. Ford recently trademarked the "Maverick Lightning" name, which suggests that a BEV version may be under consideration.

 

[ABILISK]

Because theres more to life than just CT?
At least for those where its not available yet!

You can have this new Model Y before us, so you tell ‘em lol

 

[HaulingAss]

The Ford Maverick seats five. It's about a foot longer than a Model Y, or about the same length as a Model X. In 3Q 2024, the Maverick outsold all electric pickups combined. Ford recently trademarked the "Maverick Lightning" name, which suggests that a BEV version may be under consideration.

I'm just saying it would be a huge mistake to make a pickup on the Model Y platform because it wasn't designed to be a pickup. That would be as bad as making an EV on an ICE platform.

And did you really compare sales of an ICE pickup to EV pickups? OK...

 

[ABILISK]

The Ford Maverick seats five. It's about a foot longer than a Model Y, or about the same length as a Model X. In 3Q 2024, the Maverick outsold all electric pickups combined. Ford recently trademarked the "Maverick Lightning" name, which suggests that a BEV version may be under consideration.

They had to trademark “Maverick Lightning” yet Tesla couldn’t have “Model E” because of the Mustang Mach-E? I don’t think I’ll ever understand trademarks lol

 

[txtravwill]

Do we know if the Juniper has V2H capabilities (PowerShare) like the CT yet? Seems they said future models all would in the past...

 

[YDR37]

And did you really compare sales of an ICE pickup to EV pickups? OK...

Well, some people compare sales of Tesla's cars to those of ICE cars. Like earlier in this thread:

The Model Y is the best-selling car world wide.

In exactly the same way, sales of Tesla's truck can be compared to those of ICE trucks. Although the comparison is a bit less flattering.

 

[JBee]

I did not see your post but was aware of Tesla's stated goal of bidirectional charging in 2025. I think it's odd Tesla would not mention it from the beginning with the Y if powershare was possible. Your points are fair about powershare undermining powerwall sales. I don't think Musk's long view of the universe is readily discernable in a way that could inform investment actions. In the short-term, the lack of more game-changing features such as more range, powershare, steer by wire for the Y will hurt Tesla. I was also frankly surprised to see a turn signal stalk on the Y. If you are leaning into FSD why have a stalk just because some people want it?

I mentioned this previously as well, that Tesla needs a better feedback loop from users, rather than be only dictated design mandates from the head honcho who isn't much of a "user" of his products any more.

This follows on to more range (which you can have without more weight and improves cycle life), or SBW which is intrinsically linked to 48V bus, as this is what powers it and has the power requirements needed. It's unlikely to come to MY/M3 due to supply costs on a aging platform, and will likely only be on a complete new platform witha more verticall integrated supply chain, and so not a facelift.

But just imagine how great Tesla products would be if EM used them on a daily basis for normal daily tasks. He spends more time in private jets than cars. Probably 10x as much if not more.

This is not EMs fault as such, rather that of a organisational structure that needs a better user feedback loop other than some x comments he happens to know about. The stalk is one of them.

The disconnect here is that we still have human drivers, so removing useful appendages for human control doesn’t make it a better product for humans to use and pilot.

If FSD was the reason then why still have less convenient indicator buttons for human input?

Same with the yoke that morphed to the squircle etc.

Iterative design doesn't mean you have to make design errors before you can decide if there is an issue. Especially so from a user standpoint, not everything is objective, and subjective is sometimes the difference in comfort which is limited by the mechanics of human dexterity.

Case in point: on SBW indicator buttons work better than on a standard rack, because your hands can stay in the same position on the CT wheel and can't on the M3.

The bidirectional functionality has been a major thorn in my side since the outset, in that knowing the hardware was already in the vehicles since Roadster, and understanding the simplicity of how it works electronically, and in particular understanding the positive potential of V2X for high RE penetration in network power grids it would make.

I've seen this as a major unnecessary barrier to force sales of stationary battery products, rather than seeking good and affordable network storage solutions using locally embedded peer to peer vehicle storage capacity sharing.

The effect of this is huge, especially in my neck of the woods where network capacity is severely limited due to the tyranny of distance and lack of population. V2X would allow for SC in arears it's nigh impossible to do without local embedded storage, and would allow a greater penetration of RE, and better use, and reduce diesel generation.

We have high penetration, up to 90% in some places but a significant proportion of RE produced kWh is peak loped simply by inverter voltage set points. This means that if the network voltage is allowed to rise, then PV inverters exports to the grid are throttled to ensure "network stability". Put differently, the network is unable to absorb RE energy, and it is therefore curtailed to make sure the network doesn't switch off due to overvoltage.

With V2X and daytime EV charging (like at work, not just at home) there's an opportunity to capture this excess energy for "free" and either use it for transport or for peak after the sun goes down. For example if RE excess could be funnelled into free charging at work a V2X EV could then even take energy from work to the home and reduce peak generation and load, by physically "load following" users around by using a EV.

I'm sure they know of the implications of this, what is more difficult to understand is why they are not promoting it more, and that might well be because they don't want to step on to many powerful toes at once. Taking on the automotive industry and their profit engines is one thing, big fuel is a different ball game however.

 

[Sjohnson20]

I like it. But turn signal stalk again? Yuck!

I’ll wait for the non-stalk AI5 version.

 

[JBee]

I’m not sure that they do. I think they want to sell more Cybertrucks to recoup their investment and have the product seen as being successful. But, I doubt that they have an appetite for two completely different pickups in their portfolio.



That’s what most auto journalists thought that they were going to do in the first place and clearly that’s not where they wanted to go.

I think they’ve already addressed the truck segment exactly in the manner that they want to, but demand is clearly not where they expected it to be.

Many people are thinking that the cheaper single motor variant is going to open the floodgates in the US in Canada and I don’t think that’s going to be the case. I think that the reason they’re gearing up to sell the cyber truck in China is to see how it does in their main market that isn’t affected by anti-Elon sentiment like here in the states (I’ll fight anyone who wants to fight me about Tesla losing market share particularly in California - it’s natural biggest US market - because of Elon’s political shift and actions souring sales there and elsewhere in the US). If the truck seems to do reasonably well there with an expectations I would expect a slightly scaled-down 2nd gen that they could sell in Europe.

Otherwise, I anticipate that it will be a niche product that doesn’t stay in production long in its current form and that it will end up being more of a technological tour de force that ends up informing other vehicles going forward, but that will not be viewed as a success in its own right.

I’m taking all comers for people who want to fight me. The line starts over there ?

I think you missed the fight regarding EM sentiment in California, it's simply the case of market saturation there that has seen the collapse in sales. Like everyone drives one there when we visited.

Also Tesla's seem to last, and the used market is healthy, which means entry into MY/M3 is lower without going to Tesla to make new sales numbers. You'd need to assess both used and new sales to make an impression of EM sentiment, and exclude financial constraints like inflation and job loss into it.

As for CT philosophy, I can agree it's a technology carrier, but not necessarily the tour de excellence it could of been. The original "exoskeleton" engineering didn't materialise and went the way of castings instead, and various features were promised but later suppressed to get it in production.

I'm not necessarily detracting from the resulting product, which I still like, I'm just saying that the results could have been had for less engineering detours. I think they also missed an opportunity to integrate more work style implements and are targeting the passenger market more than necessary.

 

[GuyV]

Well, 12V is not really "broke", it's just far from the optimal solution. Which is why Tesla provided a down and dirty guide for switching from 12V to 48V to all American manufacturers. This is how auto companies should collude with one another, focus on making the products more desirable by moving the industry forward.

When a system gets too far from optimum it is broken.

Sponsored