Who’s Reserving the Slate EV: Everyday Americans, Young Professionals, New Drivers, Contemporary Seniors, Auto Enthusiasts

[Johnologue]

no those are the choices I am team slate however like I have said I won’t pay more for less just to say I have one that will be the down fall for this company if they don’t understand this I have a reservation in I am waiting for the final price low 20s they are winners 27k they will lose

"I won’t pay more for less". It's not for you.

Rich Rebuilds noted in his interview video that the Slate is designed to be disassembled, where many cars he's worked on are glued, riveted, double-sided-taped, and plastic-bonded together. Cars are built like that because it's cheaper to make something (relatively) disposable.

I'm hopeful that the Slate will be a positive example of "you get what you pay for"; it's definitely not going to be a discount feature-packed "value" product where you get "more for less".

 

[E90400K]

"I won’t pay more for less". It's not for you.

Rich Rebuilds noted in his interview video that the Slate is designed to be disassembled, where many cars he's worked on are glued, riveted, double-sided-taped, and plastic-bonded together. Cars are built like that because it's cheaper to make something (relatively) disposable.

I'm hopeful that the Slate will be a positive example of "you get what you pay for"; it's definitely not going to be a discount feature-packed "value" product where you get "more for less".

I think the issue is, depending on how the vehicle is configured, the Slate is "you get less for the same". That is what I am saying. The sunsetting of the tax credit is causing that situation despite what the CEO says regarding it still being affordable.

 

[cadblu]

You might say any vehicle is "affordable" if you can spec the "stripped" version and add options later down the road. Slate allows us to do just that. Really not possible with most other OEMs.

 

[Johnologue]

I think the issue is, depending on how the vehicle is configured, the Slate is "you get less for the same". That is what I am saying. The sunsetting of the tax credit is causing that situation despite what the CEO says regarding it still being affordable.

I wasn't addressing you or your points at all, and you are either actively ignoring my statement or argu-greeing.

I was responding to someone repeatedly insisting the most important thing to them was that the truck is dirt-cheap and highly competitive value-for-money.

My response was "you shouldn't expect that at all" (so please stop demanding it).

The Slate will almost definitely not be the cheapest, since it would be cheaper to assemble something with less longevity and repairability than they've already demonstrated is part of their design.

Your response is "...but the Slate is bad value for money because you can buy something else with more features", to once again insist that the Slate will fail unless it's dirt-cheap.

You have positioned this as an argument while quoting me.
(Also, you brought up the tax credit for some reason, and I think KevinRS made an interesting point about that; it wouldn't have applied to the lower-income customers who would be most affected by affordability in the first place.)

The Slate Truck is not going to be the absolute cheapest thing on the market. By the nature of its "blank" design, it will never have matching "standard" features with a competitor.
That means it will be "less for the same" compared to something. If that's unacceptable, you or the hypothetical customer who won't accept that won't want a Slate, period.

I believe any extra expense or missing standard features will be worthwhile because of the value Slate has added by designing for those more robust assemblies, modularity, and ability to upgrade after purchasing instead of paying for everything upfront.
(There's also the lack of anti-features like telemetrics, a central touchscreen, dealerships, etc. which will be very present on any "value" competitor.)

If people want the cheapest thing, or don't consider Slate's added value worthwhile, they won't like the Slate.

 

[E90400K]

I wasn't addressing you or your points at all, and you are either actively ignoring my statement or argu-greeing.

I was responding to someone repeatedly insisting the most important thing to them was that the truck is dirt-cheap and highly competitive value-for-money.

My response was "you shouldn't expect that at all" (so please stop demanding it).

The Slate will almost definitely not be the cheapest, since it would be cheaper to assemble something with less longevity and repairability than they've already demonstrated is part of their design.

Your response is "...but the Slate is bad value for money because you can buy something else with more features", to once again insist that the Slate will fail unless it's dirt-cheap.

You have positioned this as an argument while quoting me.
(Also, you brought up the tax credit for some reason, and I think KevinRS made an interesting point about that; it wouldn't have applied to the lower-income customers who would be most affected by affordability in the first place.)

The Slate Truck is not going to be the absolute cheapest thing on the market. By the nature of its "blank" design, it will never have matching "standard" features with a competitor.
That means it will be "less for the same" compared to something. If that's unacceptable, you or the hypothetical customer who won't accept that won't want a Slate, period.

I believe any extra expense or missing standard features will be worthwhile because of the value Slate has added by designing for those more robust assemblies, modularity, and ability to upgrade after purchasing instead of paying for everything upfront.
(There's also the lack of anti-features like telemetrics, a central touchscreen, dealerships, etc. which will be very present on any "value" competitor.)

If people want the cheapest thing, or don't consider Slate's added value worthwhile, they won't like the Slate.

It's a group discussion, so I chose to address your points you presented to the group.

I brought up the tax credit because it does affect the affordability aspect of the Slate. What KevinRS said is incorrect. Under the IRA of 2022 the EV tax credit law was changed to allow the tax credit to be applied at the time of purchase rather than at the time of the buyer's tax submittal on April 15th of year following the year of purchase. The tax credit was issued to the sales agent rather than the individual purchaser. The condition only being certification buy the purchaser that he fell within the maximum income levels allowed under the statute, meaning minimum income tax liability was no longer an issue for low-income buyers.

With the tax credit gone it changes the value standing of the Slate within the market both with other EV and ICEV models. Yes, at $25K to $27K the Slate is affordable, but its value proposition has changed. Dramatically in my opinion.