This is the small truck Tesla should have produced...

[skidoofast]

Agree, and don't forget that Slate noted that their price did not include fees either. I'm not being smarmy, I just thought people shopped and didn't just pay MSRP and knew that dealers run deals on pickups a LOT.

Generally it’s not the dealer, it’s factory rebates, dealers spend about $6 per day per vehicle for having the car on their lot on consignment, they pay for it once it sells, called a floor plan, the manufacturer needs to sell those units to get paid so they can put more vehicles on that lot

 

[Slashsnake]

im banking it will work because of how I and seemingly many feel

I have said for years now if a company made a stripped down vehicle or remade a say 1970 Chevy c10 with today’s engine and suspension but bare bones interior and interior technology it would be a huge sucess

similar to the slate idea

small pickup (think 1987 ford ranger)
Simplistic interior
Ability to “make it yours” and do it yourself
An intro to EV
——
Now also think fleet like parts runners, pizza delivery, ect

I don't know about that. I like a lot of the idea, just not what you get for the price you pay here being heavily adopted.

I mean that's a lot of niche. I get it has some loud supporters. Niche vehicles do. But they are targeting RWD on a pickup, the least selling drivetrain. They are targeting single cab. The top 5 selling pickups all offer 2 and 4 door and the 4 door outsells 10 to 1 for all of them even with the 2 door cheaper. They are targeting 150 mile range which is on the end of the range of the EV's where sales are dying most in the US and half what the average EV range is today. It feels a bit late for that range to sell now.

It looks like an EV which doesn't compete at or near the same price point with a gas vehicle... which historically has been brutal for EV sales.

Simplistic sure. $15k for a 3rd vehicle or maybe 2nd for most people/families... sure, i'll go without a radio and paint for that maybe. But I struggle with the best case price point, much less it's likely spot in a couple years.

It sounds fun for a small group of people, but in reality, they end up not moving off lots. People say they'd pay less for a smaller engine but more mpg. Smaller tires that cost less. take out the auto headlights, the rain sensing wipers, the drivers armrest, the cost of all the sound deadening, adaptive and multizone A/C and get me something reliable and safe from A to B. And the Mirage does that and they can't move them because people will pay a bit more for a little more luxury and convenience.

And my biggest thing is this is low cost/low profit. The vehicles that need to move a LOT of units to make it. And it seems they are pushing niche, with a price point that will keep them from being a big seller that it would need.

 

[cvollers]

I don't know about that. I like a lot of the idea, just not what you get for the price you pay here being heavily adopted.

I mean that's a lot of niche. I get it has some loud supporters. Niche vehicles do. But they are targeting RWD on a pickup, the least selling drivetrain. They are targeting single cab. The top 5 selling pickups all offer 2 and 4 door and the 4 door outsells 10 to 1 for all of them even with the 2 door cheaper. They are targeting 150 mile range which is on the end of the range of the EV's where sales are dying most in the US and half what the average EV range is today. It feels a bit late for that range to sell now.

It looks like an EV which doesn't compete at or near the same price point with a gas vehicle... which historically has been brutal for EV sales.

Simplistic sure. $15k for a 3rd vehicle or maybe 2nd for most people/families... sure, i'll go without a radio and paint for that maybe. But I struggle with the best case price point, much less it's likely spot in a couple years.

It sounds fun for a small group of people, but in reality, they end up not moving off lots. People say they'd pay less for a smaller engine but more mpg. Smaller tires that cost less. take out the auto headlights, the rain sensing wipers, the drivers armrest, the cost of all the sound deadening, adaptive and multizone A/C and get me something reliable and safe from A to B. And the Mirage does that and they can't move them because people will pay a bit more for a little more luxury and convenience.

And my biggest thing is this is low cost/low profit. The vehicles that need to move a LOT of units to make it. And it seems they are pushing niche, with a price point that will keep them from being a big seller that it would need.

Dude, why are you on this forum? If you think Slate is going to change strategic direction based on your incredible automotive business insight, I think you will be sorely disappointed. If you think people on this forum will change their minds given the same, I think the same applies.

I think the party is over, time to head home.

 

[skidoofast]

Dude, why are you on this forum? If you think Slate is going to change strategic direction based on your incredible automotive business insight, I think you will be sorely disappointed. If you think people on this forum will change their minds given the same, I think the same applies.

I think the party is over, time to head home.

I agree, by his logic the corvette wouldn’t be a thing, an ev would’ve never been created, and life would only be about features and price

the slate for me will not be a second vehicle, or a 3rd, in fact it has nothing to do with a need at all, it has more to do with a want, it fits in with the I’ve got to have it not because of fit, form or function, it’s because it’s cool

 

[Dorbiman]

Not really, and I get it's easier to go after the person than the facts and data and if you want to do that, you have every right... But I'm curious, but I can't see the price point for what you get.

Not saying it's going to fail, but no one is really explaining that side of it how at that price it's going to work. Like sure, we can dream their PR department is fudging the numbers high, or we can play that MSRP is the only price you pay for a vehicle. But I'm more looking at the reality than that kind of game to be honest. And I'm struggling to see where it fits. $27k... $30k... that's a lot to pay for what it looks like you are getting there.

I think the thing you’re missing is that it’s a small EV pickup. Show me a SMALL pickup, single cab, EV. Let alone in this price range. That’s what I need. Slate fits the bill. A Maverick doesn’t. I have no need for a new Silverado; I already have a Silverado. I don’t need a sports car; I already have a sports car. I have use for a small EV pickup to use day to day. I can charge for free at work. My commute is short. This truck is perfectly suited for me and many others like me.

 

[cvollers]

I think the thing you’re missing is that it’s a small EV pickup. Show me a SMALL pickup, single cab, EV. Let alone in this price range. That’s what I need. Slate fits the bill. A Maverick doesn’t. I have no need for a new Silverado; I already have a Silverado. I don’t need a sports car; I already have a sports car. I have use for a small EV pickup to use day to day. I can charge for free at work. My commute is short. This truck is perfectly suited for me and many others like me.

Exactly. The Slate is a small, versatile, low cost, easy to maintain commuter/hauler that can be easily transformed both in terms of form factor and color. Name another vehicle that checks all those boxes.

 

[Luxrage]

I keep seeing the Maverick comparison again and again, and while I get it, it's the only other small truck like it for sale. It is beginning to burn me as it's nowhere near the same 'type' of pickup truck. The Slate isn't trying to BE another Maverick or they would have at least tried to offer a longer wheelbase four-door.

The Slate's direct competiton doesn't exist anymore, which sucks as here's the pickup that it should be compared against. I get why Slate's PR team probably wouldn't want to talk in this way as it probably doesn't help get the instagram-crowd they keep advertising to, but it's the closest parallel I can see.

This is a 1988 Chevrolet S-10 EL. Base model (which according to the '88 brochure) gave you, hubcaps, vinyl bench seat, AM-only Radio as the only option you could have if you added it, short bed, two wheel drive. Heck you didn't even get the rear bumper standard. Pure fleet-sale market truck with absolutely nothing on it. This MSRP'd at a little under $7,000. Which in today's money would put you right at Slate's current "post-EV credit' price:

I get that Slate probably doesn't want to cheapen the brand by saying "Look it's like a modern day Isuzu P'up or fleet spec Ranger!" but comparing it to the Maverick is just a completely different ball-game. The Maverick still has the design ethos that a large market of buyers are going to be using it as a 'lifestyle' pickup truck from the get-go as evident by a press photo of someone DJ'ing out the back to some skateboarders right from launch. You can see by the slow trickle of options on the customizer and the vague responses for options that Slate was a 'fleet first and add the options for everyone else later' kind of design.

The Slate is stripping every possible option down to the bare-minimum you're going to get from a US-based manufacturer. At least someone is trying to see if the market will bear it.

 

[cvollers]

I keep seeing the Maverick comparison again and again, and while I get it, it's the only other small truck like it for sale. It is beginning to burn me as it's nowhere near the same 'type' of pickup truck. The Slate isn't trying to BE another Maverick or they would have at least tried to offer a longer wheelbase four-door.

The Slate's direct competiton doesn't exist anymore, which sucks as here's the pickup that it should be compared against. I get why Slate's PR team probably wouldn't want to talk in this way as it probably doesn't help get the instagram-crowd they keep advertising to, but it's the closest parallel I can see.

This is a 1988 Chevrolet S-10 EL. Base model (which according to the '88 brochure) gave you, hubcaps, vinyl bench seat, AM-only Radio as the only option you could have if you added it, short bed, two wheel drive. Heck you didn't even get the rear bumper standard. Pure fleet-sale market truck with absolutely nothing on it. This MSRP'd at a little under $7,000. Which in today's money would put you right at Slate's current "post-EV credit' price:

I get that Slate probably doesn't want to cheapen the brand by saying "Look it's like a modern day Isuzu P'up or fleet spec Ranger!" but comparing it to the Maverick is just a completely different ball-game. The Maverick still has the design ethos that a large market of buyers are going to be using it as a 'lifestyle' pickup truck as evident by a press photo of someone DJ'ing out the back to some skateboarders. You can tell by the slow trickle of options on the customizer that Slate was a 'fleet first and add the options for everyone else later' kind of design.

The Slate is stripping every possible option down to the bare-minimum you're going to get from a US-based manufacturer. At least someone is trying to see if the market will bear it.

I love this. Slate is literally trying to single-handedly resurrect a market that died back in 1995. Did it die because people decided they didn’t want small regular cab pickups anymore? No. It died because of CAFE and the decision by Big Auto to increase truck size rather than increase fuel economy to unreasonable legal requirements. Along the way, those big trucks became family and lifestyle vehicles. You can’t compare Slate’s sales potential to other vehicles because there are no comparable vehicles available that you can buy new. Certainly none that are EVs. The Maverick is a family lifestyle ICE. The Slate is not. End of story.

 

[sodamo]

I’m reading this thread and wondering why slashsnake is on this forum, it seems to me he is a “it’s going to fail no matter what” kind of guy

obviously not a customer and it’s evident this vehicle wouldn’t fit his needs if they gave it away

Read my mind.

 

[cvollers]

The Maverick and Bronco sport are built in the same plant and Ford originally thought the BS would outsell the Mav and wound up severely underestimating the market for the pickup. A large portion of the buyers are suburbanite retirees who just want the utility and economy. Same was true for the 80's mini-trucks. I just worry a bit because that demographic is the most resistant to ev's.

And yet most likely to buy a golf cart for getting around the retirement community.

 

[cadblu]

Interesting that this thread laid dormant for over a month. Now to share my opinion. We can debate all day long about ambiguous selling prices after incentives and pseudo comparisons to similar ICE vehicles from the late 80s etc until the cows come home.

My original point was that if Tesla has produced a basic truck like the Slate they wouldn’t have tens of thousands Cybertrucks sitting all over the country. Those of us on this forum who drive Teslas are all too familiar with their DTC pricing model; “You want this? Here‘s the price.“ Clearly Tesla misinterpreted the market demand and didn’t deliver on the promise of a $40k CT. Instead they overproduced an overhyped $90k truck.

And I assert that this is exactly how it is with Slate, and its desirability based on meeting your needs and expectations. Since there is nothing else even close, demand will be remain high for Slate as long as they can deliver when promised. If you’re fully ‘sold‘ on the concept, if you are “all in”; you will completely accept whatever the prevailing price is late next year as long as it’s close to the announced price range.

 

[skidoofast]

I've read all your posts in this thread and appreciate your perspective and want to comment to all of them in general. You share my realism about Slate. I see this as a pretty big risk on Slate's part. At a mid $20K price point it may be a difficult sales play after the initial 75,000 or so Reservationists buy their truck. If its $26K and the buyer wants another color other than gray, its another $600 to $1,400 to get it wrapped using Slate's kit.

Want the SUV? Another $5K for the kit(?). For an impractical 2-door SUV? Yikes. [I own a 2-dr Bronco BTW). Sorry, but that's a non-starter in my book. There are 20 different 4-dr small SUVs on the market for a mid $30K price, and they have nice paint.

I think most of the market expects electrically adjustable mirrors and electric windows. Even the basic of vehicles have both those features. What I don't understand is the fascination with manual windows, especially when Slate has engineered an electrical version already. And electric mirrors really can't cost much more than manual mirrors; it's just a motor and switch, which are produced in the tens of millions per year across the industry.

And I personally need the detail on how the removable front bed wall is going to keep water out of the cab. If one has ever owned a pickup they have experienced a bed with several gallons of water sitting in the front after a rain storm and the truck is parked forward on an incline. Not a big deal when the truck is body on frame and the cab is separate from the bed.

And while people piss on the idea that a 2-door is all that's necessary and trucks now have 4-doors because of how the EPA calculates CAFE, the market likes 4-doors regardless.

And a just 90-mile practical range to boot @ 30-min DCFC. [grunt].

Slate may start up and be successful initially, but is it sustainable? Most EV startups aren't. As a buyer, do you want to risk $27.5K on a brick?

I think a base battery will be a miss, most produced will probably be extended range (but $3,000 less looks better on paper)

I think what the naysayers are missing here is small business and fleet vehicles, now add the early adopters on an individual level, then add the wow, that’s what I need after I see the Millers down the road drive by every day

then the conversation like I finally had - -hey Jim, how’s your new car?
-It’s great, fun to drive
-What does it cost you to commute to work
-120 miles round trip is about $2.18 a day
-Wow, my wife’s Subaru costs us $3 for 22 miles and she drives 90 miles a day 5 days a week not counting weekend runs to town ($12 per trip to town)
-Not to mention now that I’m not stopping at the gas station I don’t spend money on doughnuts, energy drinks or breakfast sandwiches
(All added bonus)

time will tell, that being said once they do take off it is my belief they will have to fairly quickly add a second model (released maybe 2 years after successfully launching the pickup)

 

[cvollers]

Granted, Slate may have a market for fleet sales, it's a good point. The 2-dr Ranger filled that bill for the market for years; my local Ford dealer made a living from selling fleet Rangers.
Maybe that will be the ticket for Slate's sustainability, but I question why Ford didn't easily jump in that market if it is indeed an open opportunity.

But I'll still counter with the lower income market, which is Slate's stated target market, don't have access to private over-night charging infrastructure either because they don't own a dwelling that can accommodate EVSE, they rent and won't commit to the installation costs, or the installation cost is too expensive. The people who can afford to have private EVSE access probably mostly want a higher content level, more posh EV.

When exactly did Slate say they were going after a low income target? All I’ve heard is that they think new cars are too expensive. We all know how people get and stay wealthy…they spend less than they make. I don’t think low income is the Slate’s target. I think frugal is the target (there’s a difference), both for personal and commercial ownership. I also think this frugal target is what convinced Bezos to invest…at heart, he is a very frugal guy. Just ask all those early Amazon employees that had to build their own desks.

 

[cvollers]

I keep writing LOWER income, not low-income, but people keep reading it as "low-income".

Lower income folks have more budget constraints than higher income people, which is why the EV market is primarily higher income individuals. There have been several low priced EV in the market already, the GM Bolt(s) come to mind, and GM found it difficult to profitably sell in that market space. The Leaf is another example, it sells under 20,000 units annually.

My point is, there are other market factors at play when it comes to unit sales of low-priced EV other than MSRP. Based on my evaluation, my opinion is availability, cost and convenience of charging infrastructure. Charging on the public DCFC network is as expensive per mile as gasoline and takes 6x longer to get half the range recovery an ICEV gets (for the Slate) IN GOOD WEATHER. Lower income people tend to drive long distances vs. flying, a 150-mile EV doesn't help that use case. If i was someone who had to charge on the public DCFC network at the same cost as gasoline and had to use my vehicle for the occasional long distance trip, I'd not choose an EV.

And if I needed a pickup truck to boot, I'd get the Maverick hybrid, with 4-doors, a slightly smaller bed, electric mirrors and windows, oh, and paint, at a lower per-mile running cost. I could deal with the extra 2' of body length.

So to summarize, I think you are making a case that LOWER income people should buy ICEV and not EV. I’m not arguing that. I am arguing that you think Slate’s target is lower/low income (not sure I see the difference…semantics) people. EVs typically need over night charging. If you are lower income, you have a lower probability of access to over night charging. So why would Slate target lower income people? It makes no sense.

 

[cvollers]

That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't think a low MSRP is a gateway opening for people who have budget constraints related to new EV automotive purchases. That's is exactly my question, does Slate have a viable business model.

Slate is the entity arguing new cars cost too much, new EV cost way too much, so they have decided a low-priced EV is a gap in the market they can fill. I'm going to repeat myself and again state I think there are other factors that keep new purchasers of EV from the market OTHER THAN a low MSRP. I think it is charging availability and the price of publicly dispensed electrons.

I'm not saying lower income earners should only buy ICEV, I'm saying they find no advantage to buying EV over ICEV.

I question whether Slate's business model makes sense.

If they find no advantage, why would Slate target them? Again, makes no sense. Slate isn't targeting lower income people just because they might be shopping for lower priced vehicles. They are targeting frugal people...many of which earn higher income and have access to charging at home.

Slate wants to sell lower priced vehicles (roughly half the price of a typical new vehicle) because people hate how expensive new cars and trucks have become. Its not people who can't pay more, its people who don't want to pay more. To do this, they need to make them small and simple. Less material. Fewer systems. One body style. No paint. The easiest way to make a small, simple vehicle is to make it an EV...no CAFE standards to worry about.

Slate is like a shaving products company selling razors in order to sell razor blades. They are hoping to sell enough lower margin razors (Blank Slates) in order to sell a high volume of higher margin razor blades (accessories). I'm not suggesting the razor blades are expensive, just that they are higher margin as a percentage of the cost to produce.