Anyone who is aware of the mythical man month should know that throwing more people on a project does not magically speed things up. Tesla probably has a core team that can execute faster if they had less people on the project. The other spare Tesla engineers are not going to twiddle their thumbs... they're going to make the existing Model S more appealing.

> I think what they should address is getting out the affordable Model 3 as fast to the market as they can.

I agree, but I doubt this project took any manpower or resources away from the Model 3. If anything, it'll generate some extra cash to help with their R&D.

This is like saying that the Formula 1, exists for nothing. This is the way to test all the engineering efforts, it also leaves that knowledge in the company for future and further improvements, which directly influences the design and execution of the Model 3.

But I have to agree that waiting for an affordable Tesla car is getting anoying, and they do need to create an income stream from a lower priced model for creating a sustainable company, and take advantage of the wow factor that still surrounds Tesla and evertything they make.

But they have also innovated in other areas like the house batteries, which for me was a surprise (for me it seems odd that Tesla makes batteries for the average household) but they are generating other income streams, so it seems that Teslas agenda is not only the Model 3.

As a fellow F1 buff, the upgrades takes years to roll down to production cars. And in software parlance, they shouldn't be focusing on the MVP at this point.

  they have also innovated in other areas like the house batteries

That right and that may be more profitable and they may pivot and leave the car manufacturing to the incumbents.

I'm pretty sure they're working as hard as possible on that, but the key to reducing the costs is the battery packs and that won't happen until gigafactory comes online. Other manufacturers will face the same cost issues but won't own their own gigafactory

Should that happen, my guess is that they would be quite happy to sell their batteries to everyone else.

And I bet everyone else would be quite happy to buy them rather than setting up their own factories.

Didn't Tesla already give away their battery intellectual property or similar? If they did why wouldn't these other companies not just produce it themselves to cut Tesla out?

Their patents, yes. That's just the beginning.

Now all that one needs to do is to poach their battery engineers. And build their own factories. And iron out the kinks.

It's not like a competitor will be able to get their tech and beat them at their own game overnight - while delivering a cheaper product!

Its easier to expand downwards. e.g. Take Porsche...they have a bullet proof brand so they can sell a Cayenne football mom SUV fairly easily...just costs a bit of brand dilution.

Doing the opposite (SUV to sportscar) would be a tough sell no matter how (objectively) good the sportscar is.

> It's easier to expand downwards

Lots of business research says this is not true, and in fact, the opposite. This is why VW is the world's most popular car maker, and not Porsche.

IIRC, it's actually Toyota that's the world's most popular car maker (by number of cars sold, at 10.23 million last year), not VW; this has been the case for the last 3 years [0]. VW is very close behind, though, at 10.14 million (and GM is close behind that at 9.92 million).

Not to say that your point is inaccurate (it's actually very accurate; the ability for companies like Toyota to drive down costs goes a long way toward mass adoption, and it's something that "luxury" makers like Porsche don't typically have the experience in). Tesla could very well be an exception here, since the big focus as of late is to ramp up manufacturing until Model-whatevers (and, in particular, their batteries) can flow out of factories at ludicrous speeds.

[0]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/113...

So, anecdotally, low end Porsche models have sold well, like the Boxster and Cayman, and high end VW models have often not sold well, like the Phaeton.

Aren't VW and Porsche part of the same company?

VW is one of the car brands of VW Group - along with Seat, Skoda, Audi, Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti and Porsche...

VW Group are masters of "badge engineering" - features and designs trickle down from the likes of Audi to VW and then to Seat and Skoda.

>Lots of business research says this is not true, and in fact, the opposite.

I just named an example that makes very obvious sense to a bunch of people even without evidence (though I'm sure Cayenne sale numbers would back it if I had to). You allude to "a lot of research" claiming the opposite. Care to share said research?

Your example of VW being popular is an example of absolute market position and is entirely irrelevant to debate as to whether its easier to move from the low end of the market t the top or vice versa.

The incumbents have already beaten them to the mass-market segment. The Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt are both affordable, competent (if unexciting) electric vehicles.

Perhaps this is a side-effect of all of the R&D that's going into developing other cars and the drive-train for the Model 3?