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

[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.

 

[Johnny5]

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 if Slate is going retro-cool with crank windows, why not then just use cheap and simple glass headlamps that use a $8 bulb and don't fog over after 7 years? Glass headlamps still meet all DOT FMVSS 108 regs.

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 of the bed after a rainstorm 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?

 

[sodamo]

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.

Rather evident you don’t live in an area where a single dealer controls the market. Single dealer owner single or multiple brands.

 

[sodamo]

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.

Again I find myself agreeing with you. The low income segment would seem a small market for Slate. I’m definitely not wealthy, but my wife has tried to instill frugality. The fact I could potentially never buy a commercial charge and charge from my home PV would be frugal indeed.

 

[cvollers]

Slate could be wrongly targeting a lower income market that they think exists but the lower income market may not exist. This would be the reason Slate's business model may be incorrect and not viable.

Well I suppose they could if they don't know what they are doing. I'd like to think that they know exactly what they are doing and convinced a very smart guy like Jeff Bezos of the same.

 

[sodamo]

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.

Of all the factors involving lower income folks, my guess is the charging factor might be the most important. To be honest, I’m not that experienced in apartment/condo living, but I would assume there is and will be more lack of chargers. Would someone pay more rent for charger on site? how many chargers needed based on units? Could see a possible business opportunity here where larger complexes have software controlled access where you have a guaranteed time slot, but suspect there would be a price for that.

 

[cvollers]

Of all the factors involving lower income folks, my guess is the charging factor might be the most important. To be honest, I’m not that experienced in apartment/condo living, but I would assume there is and will be more lack of chargers. Would someone pay more rent for charger on site? how many chargers needed based on units? Could see a possible business opportunity here where larger complexes have software controlled access where you have a guaranteed time slot, but suspect there would be a price for that.

I'm currently shopping for an apartment and EV charging is one of my filters. Quite a few complexes in my area boast chargers, but the number per complex varies. If they have it, the minimum is two. I don't see a strong correlation between EV charging availability and apartment price. There are other factors involved such as location, onsite clubhouse, gym, and pool. Almost every place I have looked at that has EV charging does it on a first come, first served basis. I have noticed that EV charging is almost guaranteed at anything built in the last ten years.

 

[Dorbiman]

Public charging is continuing to get better and better too, with Ionna and Walmart joining the fray. I know that near me, parking garages for the train station has chargers, as does my work. The last one is hugely beneficial to me; not only do I not have to pay for gas with an EV, I don't have to pay for the electricity either! That alone will cover half of the monthly payment for a Slate for me.

 

[sodamo]

I'm currently shopping for an apartment and EV charging is one of my filters. Quite a few complexes in my area boast chargers, but the number per complex varies. If they have it, the minimum is two. I don't see a strong correlation between EV charging availability and apartment price. There are other factors involved such as location, onsite clubhouse, gym, and pool. Almost every place I have looked at that has EV charging does it on a first come, first served basis. I have noticed that EV charging is almost guaranteed at anything built in the last ten years.

Thanks. as I stated not something I’m very knowledgeable about And should I ever move into a condo/apt, very likely I won‘t be driving. Ah, have I mentioned self driving vehicles for seniors?
i do think charger availability will become more and more important and a challenge, especially older places. I have friends with a condo locally. Single electric meter for whole complex, so prorated share of bill not related to individual use. Seriously doubt we’d see 1 for 1 chargers in most places anytime soon, but competition for availability could become a reality that triggers additional costs managed by software. Buy a reservation and pay if a noshow.