Speculation: What Will Slate's second model be?

[JImmy]

A more conservative viewpoint. I don’t see major mods that would effect the crash rating or major retooling, so maybe more a v1.5 vs v2.0.
1. AWD
2. increased towing/load
3. Longer bed, possibly bed options.
4. expended electronics, but not geared toward infotainment
5. Battery improvements
6. Seating options.
7. More accessories, backward compatible.


I believe and hope simple IMROVEMENTS.

 

[mthulhu]

Slate van. I’d rather have that than the truck. A cabover style economy van in the USA would be a perfect match for the hipster crowd I imagine this brand is going to be associated with.

 

[KevinRS]

I think whatever it is, it will be like the Slate Truck, something that addresses an unmet market need. They aren't going to want to go directly up against other vehicles that are being made by other manufacturers. It also may be some time before they launch a different model, as they only have so much factory capacity.

 

[Luxrage]

I'm still on team "Slate makes a mini Nissan NV cargo you can stand in the back of" as their "van"

 

[RedJoker]

Though they haven't officially asked for my opinion, I'm team mini / cargo van.

 

[ElectricShitbox]

A cargo van makes sense for fleet sales. For normal consumers, I would love to see them continue to fill markets that have been more or less abandoned, like making a small basic hatchback. They'll probably give in and make a 4 door SUV, but if they do then they're actually competing with the rest of the market.

 

[adele]

Ultimately I want them to make whatever will be profitable so they stay in business, but I do have dreams of a Slate sports car.

 

[ScooterAsheville]

If you're an exec at Slate, are you maybe looking to stay way out on the low-margin, low-volume market whitespace fringe where nobody else wants to compete with you?

That's a question, not a statement.

 

[gnarzilla]

Slate AWD Rally Car

 

[ScooterAsheville]

Slate AWD Rally Car

Rivian R3X? In my heart of hearts, I'm hoping Rivian does an R3T derivative, but it would be years away. They have to build a plant in Georgia first.

 

[E90400K]

Well, we can do the Elon thing and go to first principles. It's totally fair if somebody wants to argue that I'm making these up out of thin air. Go for it. I did my best to be logical here and not spin fanboy or hater narratives.

• I'm going to assume that Slate is a business and that it's reason for existence is to earn profit for investors, especially venture capitalists (since Slate is by definition a startup).
• I'm further going to assume that Slate's model is to go public at some point, because that is the #1 most common way for private startups return investment profit to venture capitalists.
• I'm going to offer up that in automotive, scale is the only path to profit, survival, and return on investment. Scale amortizes investment. Scale lowers cost from suppliers. Scale covers overhead costs.
• I'm going to assume that Slate has $1.5 billion in venture capital (so far), and they expect a return, but we don't really know what their timeline is. Remember, an operating profit does not typically return venture capital - stock appreciation typically (not always) does that.
• I'm going to propose that Slate has the capital to reach production (they said that twice, btw, once at $700 million, and once at $1.5 billion) of a first product, but probably not enough to produce a second product that is not highly derivative of the first.

So, what I'm trying to get at above is that Slate is capital constrained and is motivated to return investment to venture capitalists.

And that points me to a second product that involves minimal capital raise. And that's highly speculative, because maybe there is a Series D raise in the future.

(fleet) So that suggests to me something easily derived from the current platform. The no-brainer is a two door work van with classic 1970s layout. Two doors up front. And clamshell doors at the business end. This is the lowest investment derivative of the current product.

(consumer) A four door truck and a four door SUV. I lump these together just because they both involve the very expensive platform modification of adding two extra doors. But they take Slate into higher volume segments in the consumer space. However, this option also involves the highest cost - engineering a two door platform into a four door platform is not trivial. And it takes Slate into a higher cost product and a more competitive space.

I have to add the obvious. This whole thread starts with some highly speculative assumptions... (1) That Slate will be profitiable and (2) that Slate will be appealing beyond us fans and (3) that Slate will generate the operating profit and/or venture capital and/or commercial lending to engineer variants.

Hummm...agree with all your prefaces except the bit about adding 2 doors. I'd bet they've already done the CAD work to stretch the chassis and add the rear door openings and shrink the front door openings 3 inches. I'd think the front end doesn't change (forward of the A-pillar) and the back end past the (now) C-pillar stays the same. I'd bet even the battery mounting points stay the same. I think adding 4 rear passenger doors is easy and inexpensive. Easiest might be make the rear doors coach doors (hinged at the rear) which can let the front doors stay the same and add less wide rear doors but easier to get in and out of. Expense part is crash testing it.

My 2-cents and the way I'd look at if I was CEO Barman (cough-cough - let IPO Boy do his investor thing...).

 

[E90400K]

Slate's future fascinates me, because they can go in so many directions with future product. So many things we don't know...

• What is the competitive landscape in 2028? 2030? 2035? Does anybody else step into the small two-door BEV truck market segment?
• How successful are they in the fleet and retail and accessory markets?
• How much free cash flow will they generate? And how much capital from other sources can they bring in?
• What are their costs? Remember they buy from suppliers. That's a double-edged sword. It means they don't need the capital to engineer stuff, but they have to pay the supplier's profit margins atop the components themselves. What are their warranty costs? Does the union arrive and raise compensation costs?

The reason I pay attention to these factors is because they all play into Slate's future business strategy.

One thing I'll be watching really closely... Right now, Slate is a glorified kit car maker. Competitors like Tesla and Rivian have gone in the oppostie direction, choosing vertical integration - they make everything in house. And they've gone bigtime in cost-reducing technology like castings, zonal compute, 48V wiring harnesses, owning all the software themselves. These things cost billions, but once developed they drive down unit cost and essentially print money.

So will Slate stay a kit car maker? Which is not an insult by me. There's a place for that approach. It's capital efficient because the suppliers incur the billions in investment cost to develop the systems Slate installs in their vehicles. But it comes with a cost penalty - the suppliers claw back those billions over time in margin.

So is Slate's long-term strategy to stay capital light, super simple, and supplier-dependent? Or do they choose the strategy for long-term efficiency, and attract the capital to start investing in serious platform and technology engineering (and yes, the Slate has tons of tech in the electric drivetrain - just not owned by Slate).

I'm fascinated. I don't get a vote. I don't pretend to know which path is the right one for Slate. I can't wait to see what decisions they make down the road.

Agree. Though capital is capital, someone somewhere has to pay for it. The parts houses get to spread it over similar product to different OEMs vs. vertical. But you are correct volume works great with vertical integration.

I still see the cost of large injection molded reinforced thermoplastic panels as capital intensive.

 

[ScooterAsheville]

A great question for Slate is future factories. A single factory that turns out 130,000 without a stamping press is not a great recipe for growth. And when I think future factories, I think of existing USA and Canadian overcapacity. The legacies are shedding factories like a wet dog. I wonder, should Slate be a hit, would they grab a legacy factory for pennies on the dollar?

But Slate has to be a hit first. Sell all you can make from factory #1, then maybe think about buying factory #2.

 

[sodamo]

A great question for Slate is future factories. A single factory that turns out 130,000 without a stamping press is not a great recipe for growth. And when I think future factories, I think of existing USA and Canadian overcapacity. The legacies are shedding factories like a wet dog. I wonder, should Slate be a hit, would they grab a legacy factory for pennies on the dollar?

But Slate has to be a hit first. Sell all you can make from factory #1, then maybe think about buying factory #2.

I would think any existing available factory would be subject to extensive updating with lots of robotics.