Tesla Discontinues Its Most Affordable Model S (engadget.com) 95
Tesla will be discontinuing its cheapest Model S option, the Model S 75, this Sunday. What that means is that the all-wheel-drive version -- the 75D -- will take its place as the low-end Model S sedan, currently listed at a starting price of $74,500. Engadget reports: The move to discontinue the Model S 75 was first announced by Tesla in July after it dropped the price by $5,000 a few months earlier. The removal of the model from Tesla's offerings follows its discontinuation of the Model S 60 and 60D vehicles in April, which at the time were the least expensive Model S options available. As well as streamlining its EV line and making all Model S options all-wheel-drive, knocking off the low-end Model S vehicles is also likely being done to carve out a bigger separation between the Model 3 and Model S lines. Custom orders for the Model S 75 will be taken until Sunday, September 24th and the pre-configured versions will be available for purchase until inventory runs out.
If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a year.. (Score:5, Funny)
Make them the expensive ones. No shade, just saying.
Re:If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a yea (Score:5, Informative)
More like 100,000 cars, but I still think your generalization stands.
https://www.recode.net/2017/4/3/15160462/tesla-ford-deliveries-record-sales
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla built a little over 80,000 cars last year, and 60% of them were sold in the US. For comparison, that's about double the number of Jaguars sold in the US last year.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Tesla is priceless.
( Jaguar also, but for another reason)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, TSLA says otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not "one model in one country". You're counting all the Jaguars and Range Rovers and Land Rovers. I'm counting just the Jags (which sold around 30,000 in the US last year). Tesla sold over 50,000 in the US last year.
I figured they're a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You answered your own question. Tesla is the Apple of cars.
Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye (Score:5, Funny)
Apple computers don't suck you fucking troll.
Posted from my Mac mi{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER
Re: (Score:2)
Apple computers ?
Yeah, old, outdated obsolete junk today, but the old ones are still kind of robust.
Apple phones, tablets, watches? They suck.
Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I get your point, but we're talking about a much more mature company in Apple. They weren't always printing money. I'm pretty sure Tesla will be around for a while (no matter what I might think of their cars). Let's see what the comparison is like in 10-15 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except for the fact that they have a 25% profit margin on their lines.
You're confusing the profit per vehicle with the amount being invested into scaleup. Believe it or not - and this may come as the shock of all shockers to you - building the world's largest battery plant and a 500k-per-year vehicle production line actually costs a good bit of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except for the fact that they have a 25% profit margin on their lines.
You're confusing the profit per vehicle with the amount being invested into scaleup. Believe it or not - and this may come as the shock of all shockers to you - building the world's largest battery plant and a 500k-per-year vehicle production line actually costs a good bit of money.
Since Tesla doesn't include R&D expenses in their cost of sales unlike Ford, GM, BMW & Mazda, an apples-to-apples comparison is difficult.
They appear to have a very high amount of R&D expenses as a proportion of revenue & their longterm debt is growing quickly.
They need to start dealing with this soon & using capital raises to fund expansion is going to be impractical as competition ramps up and especially if there's a downturn.
Re: If you can only complete and sell 15 cars a ye (Score:5, Interesting)
Putting a ton into R&D is only reasonable at this point in time, and has clearly paid dividends. It's part of the reason why its competition hasn't yet managed to pose a serious threat to them; they've been seriously lagging behind. The only company that's even tried to threaten them on range is GM (barely), but it comes in the form of an econobox vehicle at BMW prices. Nobody comes even close to threatening them on charge times (miles range per minute charging). Competitors like Nissan are still using battery packs that don't even have climate control.
I agree that eventually they're going to need to cut R&D and investment into new facilities. But that time is not now. Now is the time for seizing the marketplace and securing Tesla's position as one of the world's largest auto manufacturers. And it's very important for them to go big, because that's what lets them bring production prices down to the point where they can threaten ICEs.
Re: (Score:2)
"Competitors like Nissan are still using battery packs that don't even have climate control"
Yeah, I don't get this but Nissan did change the chemistry to make it more heat-tolerant.
But it's highly unlikely that's as good as active thermal management in places like the American South.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it went from "nothing" to "4th most valuable automaker in the world" because analysts saw no profit potential. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Competitors like Nissan are still using battery packs that don't even have climate control.
Climate control is a piece needed in a very limited range of climate scenarios. That has an effect only if you're trying to complete with Tesla globally. It's certainly not a required R&D component for a long range fast charging EV in much of the world.
The only company that's even tried to threaten them on range is GM (barely), but it comes in the form of an econobox vehicle at BMW prices. Nobody comes even close to threatening them on charge times (miles range per minute charging).
You haven't looked very hard if you think no one is even close. There are cars that are range competitive with Tesla's offerings (hell the Zoe will match the Model 3 on that for a cool $5000 less), and every other car manufacturer is about to come to the
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
Model 3 SR has an EPA range of 220 miles, which corresponds to an NEDC range of around 415km.
Model 3 LR has an EPA range of 310 miles, which corresponds to an NEDC range of around 585km.
Renault Zoe has a NEDC range of... wa
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
Model 3 SR, MOdel 3 LR, And a Renault Zoe.
What the fuck is Renault Zoe? There are 8 different models of Zoe and the Zoe and the R90 has a 250 MILE range.
Stop being dishonest. Also there's a website which compares lists of EVs and breaks the NEDC range down into kwh/100miles http://pushevs.com/2017/05/23/... [pushevs.com] and you will note that nearly every car on that list is between 20-25kwh / 100miles. What an amazing technological advantage the 24kWh/100miles Tesla has.
This simply is not occurring.
The first public 350kWh charger is not a Tesla charger and is already in operation. Additionally Ultra-E (the consortium made up of European car manufacturers + ford) will have 400 chargers with higher capacity than the Telsa superchargers in place throughout Europe by 2020 with the first set already under construction now that the EC has signed off on the partnership.
I've been following "EVs displayed at motor shows" is one of the most meaningless metrics out there.
Yeah indeed. Showing off what your R&D is being spent on is meaningless. Let's completely ignore that I'm not talking concept cars here (You've been to motorshows so you should know there is a clear difference between the cars that won't see the light of day and the cars they are actively planning to sell/already selling). Let's ignore the fact that every car company is actively pushing these products and some are actively taking pre-orders for the cars on display.
It's amazing how many of the people exhibiting EVs don't even know much about them beyond what was handed to them to memorize.
Oh I remember now. Engineering and R&D departments are staffed completely with girls with D cups or greater. Yeah such a shock that some eye-candy doesn't know technical stuff. None the less motor shows show industry trends very well. Maybe you should actually think back to the ones you went to and re-analyse what it was you were being shown. ... Or go to a better motor show.
Point is, if you think other companies aren't actively working on EVs now you're delusional, and if you think Tesla has any kind of magic battery tech that will keep them ahead of all others then likewise.
Re: (Score:2)
***Facepalm***
Renault is the company that makes the Zoe.
It's even listed as "Renault Zoe" on the very link you gave.
That's an interesting change in topic, from range to energy consumption per 100 miles. Since we're comparing ton NEDC, not EPA 5-cycle, then the Model 3 SR becomes around 260 miles, because the NEDC is a slow mo
Re: (Score:2)
>> Don't Jags suck for the price? Why are you comparing to Jags?
Yes. Tesla have the price also, and some suck, but they are more on the cool side.
Sales facts (Score:2)
Did you even bother to do any research before posting?
Evidently you did not.
"For the full year 2016, Jaguar Land Rover U.S. sales were up 24 percent to 105,104 units sold, compared to 85,048 units sold in 2015." That's one model in one country (total 487,065 vehicles in 160 countries), compared to Tesla's entire global portfolio. (76,230).
Jaguar and Land Rover are two brands under the same company and you cannot combine their sales if you are talking about Jaguar. In 2016 Jaguar sales in the US were 31,243 [jaguarusa.com]. The balance of your 105,104 is sales of Land Rovers which last time I checked were not Jaguars.
That's one model in one country (total 487,065 vehicles in 160 countries), compared to Tesla's entire global portfolio. (76,230).
Tesla sold 46,550 vehicles in the US [fleetcarma.com] in 2016 (Model S and Model X combined). So yes they outsold Jaguar in the US without any qualifications to that statement. They outsold Jaguar by quite a lot.
I thought they were all physically the same? (Score:2)
I recall reading that all the Teslas actually had the same capacity, and the only difference was software that only let the battery charge up to a percentage of full.
I don't recall if you could buy an "upgrade" to the higher capacity or not.
Did they actually use smaller batteries in the 75?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the 60 and the 75 shared the same battery. The battery in the 80/90/100 models is physically bigger.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was only the 60 that was a software limited version of the 75. All the other models do have the actual physical sized batteries the model number implies.
Yes, you can pay $2000 to upgrade. Originally it was more than that.
Re: (Score:1)
And only for a short time until they dropped it I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it was a transitional model. They stopped producing the 60s, but until they felt that they didn't need a 60 on the market, they kept selling 60s via software-limited 75 packs. It was an incredible deal for buyers, for lots of reasons. One, you could always upgrade later, which decreased your car's depreciation. Two, since you're effectively running at a lower DoD, you're decreasing pack degradation (relative to both those who owned actual 60s, and those who had the full 75). And three, it also could
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not so.
Early on, there was a 40 kWh option available. This was cancelled; those who ordered it received the 60 kWh pack, software limited to 40 kWh. In 2015, the 60 kWh model was discontinued. In 2016, the 60 kWh model was reintroduced as a software limited 75 kWh model. Apart from those specific models (the 40 kWh and 2016 and later 60 kWh models), no model S has had a software limitation on battery capacity.
You can upgrade the smaller capacity batteries to higher capacities at the workshop but it's not a
Re:I thought they were all physically the same? (Score:5, Interesting)
> I thought they were all physically the same?
Nope. The lowest end had only 1 motor and 2-wheel drive. All the higher end were 2 motors and 4-wheel drive. The battery packs did overlap in some models, though.
The point is, they have so much sales demand that "supply and demand" is taking over. They can sell every single higher-end car they make and still can't keep up, so there is no reason to offer the lesser models. Plus, by selling ONLY 2-motor cars, it streamlines production and will reduce that price some.
Finally, if you were in the market for the lowest-end S, you might now be pointed to the new model 3, which is the target for "entry level" electric car, now. I know I have no interest in the model 3, because it can't compete with the performance of cars like the Infiniti G37S/Q50 or its market equivalents. Of course, the higher end model S is twice FOUR TIMES the price of those ICE cars, so it isn't like I am really in that market, either. :( Some day...
Re: (Score:3)
>"In terms of performance, I would expect the Tesla 3 to be better. Certainly it will accelerate faster under real driving conditions. The Q50 interior is probably nicer though."
You can expect what you will, but I already researched it and the Tesla 3 will be significantly slower (which is acceleration) than the G37 or Q50 or its class. And, of course, the handling will be worse by far due to weight. PLUS the interior and room and range and features are all considerably worse, too. The only advantage
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, Model 3 has the same sort of low CG, but is also roughly as light as its ICE competitors. I can't wait to feel the handling on it for myself; reviewers have been raving over it.
Re: (Score:2)
I like teslas, but their handling is below average for a sports car. The lower center of mass helps stability (keeps the car from rolling over), but it is still a heavy car, and won't handle as well as a current generation sports car. It's not terrible, and it is likely good enough for the vast majority of drivers -- it handles like a 1990s car. It's good enough to have a bit of fun in it, but expect to get slaughtered if you ever decide to take it to a track or autocross event.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth pointing out that the Model 3 SR is only 3549 lbs, which is quite competitive in its range. The aforementioned G37 is 3709 lbs and the Q50 is 3611 lbs. That is to say, not only does the Model 3 have a super-low CG, but the SR version is lighter than its aforementioned competitors.
Re: (Score:3)
Fair point. I was basing my answer on the Model S, but if you opt for the Model 3 SR with the smaller battery, I suspect the handling will actually be quite good. I haven't seen any formal tests of it yet though. The LR with it's larger battery will accelerate better, but likely handle worse. Depending on if you want better acceleration or better handling, there is an option for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the LR isn't that heavy (3814) - there are ICE competitors in its class that are even heavier. That's only 3% heavier than the base G37. Akin to driving a G37 with a child along for the ride vs. without one. I doubt you could even perceive the weight difference if you were trying.
Re:I thought they were all physically the same? (Score:4, Informative)
For those who are curious:
G37 S 0-60 ($37k): 4,9s
Q50 0-60 ($45k): 5,1s (Q50 Red Sport 400 ($58k): 4,5s)
Model 3 SR ($35k): 5,6s
Model 3 LR ($44k): 5,1s
Model 3 SR/LR with performance package: Announced, but performance and pricing TBD.
Given the typical torque-power curves of ICEs and EVs, the two ICEs would probably match the Model 3 variants somewhere around 0-40 to 0-60, with the ICEs winning beyond that and the Model 3s winning below that. As for the performance Model 3s, who knows? Obviously they won't have it threaten a P100D, but I'd wager that for the LR it'd go for somewhere in the 3,5-4,2s ballpark, and add around $10k to the price; it's cheaper to up an EV's accel than a gasoline vehicle's.
Re: (Score:2)
So, like I said before, the Tesla 3 (from what we know) is slower than the G37 and Q50 while having a much inferior set of features. Even if the 3 does offer a performance package that can push it significantly above, it is likely going to cost a LOT more (based on what they did with the S performance models) but probably have the same minimal instrumentation and features. It is going to be a hard sell to those in the G37 class.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all correct. We'll ignore the fact that "slower than" acceleration only applies to above a certain speed (the Model 3 will always win on "in-town" acceleration, regardless of the version), and instead focus on features. I'm not going to waste the time going into both the G37 and Q50, so let's just pick one - say, the G37. Nav? Optional, not live-updated (except by an ex
Re: (Score:2)
All very good thought process and information. I will just add that when I was talking about features, I was meaning all available features included, on all the models, and the price of those included. You also have some errors, but that's OK. For example, The loaded G37 does have keyless entry. And at least with the laser guided cruise control it does have limited automatic braking. And it does have all-wheel drive (G37X/G37XS). The Q50 packs on even more features (and costs more (not than the 3), pe
They probably weren't selling many. (Score:2)
They probably weren't selling many of the lowest spec Model S. You don't buy the lowest spec unless you are reaching to afford the car at all. And most of those people that were reaching to afford a Model S have probably put themselves on the waiting list for a Model 3 instead.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just about AWD; it also makes the car a bit more efficient improves the high-end acceleration a bit. The two motors are geared differently, giving them different optimal power bands. When little torque is needed, the less efficient motor (relative to current conditions) is disabled ("torque sleep"), but wakes instantly when torque demand increases (or ESC wakes it)
They're not huge differences, but they do matter.
If you really want a Model S but are strapped for cash, you're probably more in the mar
Re: (Score:2)
You don't buy the lowest spec unless you are reaching to afford the car at all.
I just wanted to chime in that, generally, this is not true. I often buy lower-spec things when I can easily afford the high-end versions because if the lower-spec one does what I need, then why burn money for no reason?
Tesla, however, is aiming squarely at the "rich people who like to show off" market, so your characterization in this case is probably correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the same Tesla at all. You might as well buy a 3D mousepad [jlist.com] instead. It's good for your wrists, wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
It's a car worth more than some houses (Score:2)
Discontinuing rear-wheel drive (Score:5, Informative)
I just checked, and the remaining options are the 75D, the 100D, and the P100D. The "D" means "dual-motor"... these are the all-wheel-drive versions.
This change means Tesla can more or less stop making rear-drive-only motors (just make a few as needed for repairing already-sold rear drive cars).
I looked at the Model S ordering page [tesla.com], and noticed that a lot of stuff that used to be optional is now standard on the Model S. The "smart air suspension" is now standard. The upgraded stereo is no longer a standalone option, but part of a "premium upgrades package" that includes the improved cabin air filter, the better stereo, and the cold-weather package (which also used to be a stand-alone option).
Now your only options are: "premium upgrades package", "enhanced autopilot", "full self-driving", and the rear-facing child seats for the rear cargo area. And probably most people will get the "premium upgrades package", looks worth it to me... and "enhanced autopilot" and "full self-driving" are both pure software upgrades. So really there are only two options now, and one of those is the child seats.
It's just like Apple: they have streamlined their offerings, they will have less to keep track of.
And as noted in the article, this also segments the Model S a bit above the Model 3.
P.S. IMHO Tesla's "most affordable Model S" would be a CPO (a Certified Pre-Owned car, i.e. a used car bought directly through Tesla). Tesla still sells those; you can still get one with the 60 battery if you like. I just checked and the least expensive CPO car it offered me was $40,800 (a 60 battery rear-drive car).
Re: (Score:1)
They're turning it on in less than 2 years.
Fucking Slashdot Luddites think self-driving cars are 10 years away, they're not.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hardly a luddite, and am a big Tesla fan, but I think they're opening themselves up to a lot of liability with the FSD. I'm not very optimistic about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all what I'm talking about when I say "liability". I'm talking failure to deliver, period. Or, requiring that a huge number of vehicles receive hardware upgrades before it can be delivered.
Selling a product that you might not actually be able to deliver, or might cost you a fortune to deliver, is a serious liability.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember that they're collecting field test data from all of those 2nd-gen autopilot cars, over the air. They are the only ones who can do that. They have a forward-looking very underutilized compute platform in the car, and they use it to test all of the processing flows they're working on. Field testing of sensor data processing is a big cost for everyone but Tesla. Nobody other than them can do self-driving research on a fleet of tens of thousands of cars, in all sorts of real-world conditions. Market an
Re: (Score:3)
They're turning it on in less than 2 years.
Fucking Slashdot Luddites think self-driving cars are 10 years away, they're not.
It's not a simple problem & a self-driving car will have to be at least as good as the best human driver under all driving conditions.
That's not going to be solved in 2 years time, perhaps not even in a decade.
And then there's getting legal approval everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
a self-driving car will have to be at least as good as the best human driver under all driving conditions./quote
Those will certainly not the requirements for self-driving.
Self driving cars will be shown (programmatically) to follow the laws. They will be shown (statistically) to be safer than the average driver under common circumstances. That will be good enough for the insurance companies. Lawmakers are already trying to pass laws to speed the development of self-driving cars.
You can be in full compliance to the law and still be in violation of the rules of the road. If you're driving at exactly the speed limit and every other car is going at least 20 mph faster, you're the one who's in the wrong
Re: (Score:2)
There's a big difference between autonomous cars that are acceptable with a driver sitting there ready to take over in good conditions and autonomous cars we can allow to roam the city with nobody inside in the middle of a snowstorm. The former is already here (to a degree) for many driving situations. The latter may be decades off.
Model S has to justify price - esp. interior (Score:2)
The base Model S used to be very under-equipped for its price. The interior is still bad - looks and feels cheap, it's uncomfortable, it lacks the comfort and convenience features of competitors. It's like the interior of a mid price muscle car, not a high priced luxury saloon.
Making features that are available on the competition standard on the Model S as well is a first step.
Charging extra for software is just petty and buyers will agree; other manufacturers like Mercedes charge for hardware-software comb
Re: (Score:2)
When you talk about the interior of the Model S, are you talking with or without PUP, and pre or post refresh?
Re: (Score:2)
The base Model S used to be very under-equipped for its price. The interior is still bad - looks and feels cheap, it's uncomfortable, it lacks the comfort and convenience features of competitors
Having driven both a Model S and more than a few of its competitors I think you are talking out your hind end. It wasn't uncomfortable unless you are a weapons grade snob accustomed to rolling in Bentleys and the like. I think the interior looks great and it certainly doesn't look cheap. Are there more plush interiors? Sure. But good luck finding one with an electric powertrain comparable to the Tesla. Oh, you thought that people bought the Tesla because of the interior?
Charging extra for software is just petty and buyers will agree; other manufacturers like Mercedes charge for hardware-software combinations, not just software. Selling cars with the full capabilities of the hardware included in the price is the next step.
Oh yes, Mercedes is all about v
Re: (Score:2)
The "chip" thing is a term getting long in the tooth. Nobody is changing any chips anymore. People refer to firmware reflashes as "chips" because the car world is slow to adapt.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, the manufacturers aren't (in general) leaving hardware performance on the table simply so that they can upsell - because they live in a highly competitive market which wouldn't allow such tactics to persist for long. The reason this is possible is that they are making a complex trade-off between emissions, fuel efficiency and power (and to some distant extent engine longevity). Emissions and fuel efficency rules constrain their hands to a large degree and also influence what the market wants (
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you thought that people bought the Tesla because of the interior?
By the same token, how many people buy a Porsche for the interior? And yet, the difference between a (modern) Porsche interior and a Tesla one is night and day. This isn't a problem for them yet but I believe it will become one quite soon - when Mercedes/BMW/Porsche/Audi/etc bring EVs to market in the next couple of years, people will cross-shop Teslas with those cars, and the interiors will lose them a lot of sales. They'll be left competing largely in the Ford/Toyota/Nissan/etc market but with a price dis
Re: (Score:2)
It's just like Apple: they have streamlined their offerings, they will have less to keep track of.
The trick with that comparison is that cars operate in the real world, and Apple products operate in enclosed spaces.
In Miami you need an upgraded stereo but in Minneapolis you need a cold-weather package. Those markets are naturally segmented, which will reduce sales in both places to some degree because of the increased cost of the required options.
It's possible that Tesla's costs to offer both the stereo pa
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize the the rear motor in a "D" model is the exact same rear motor as comes in the non-"D" version....ya, didn't think you did.
Please provide a reference link so I can read about this. I have read that on a "D" model Tesla, the two motors are each individually smaller than the rear-only model.
Here's how Wikipedia describes the 85D:
https://en.wikipedia.org/ [wikipedia.org]
Still no good option (Score:2)
I'll wait for the Tesla three-wheeled electric bicycle with weather protection cabin. In short, the Tesla version of the PodRide [mypodride.com].
Re: (Score:1)
How about a Nobe [jalopnik.com] instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap this is retro-future to the max!
I hope they also make it in retro red!
Re: (Score:2)
I'll wait for all the other manufacturers to jump into the market and drive real competition but not long enough for the resale of my current infernal combustion machine to collapse in price. Tricky choice that one, pay more for all electric and getter better resale on a fossil fueler or pay less for all electric and get crap price for fossil fueler or maybe just maybe, wait long enough for conversion system from fossil fueler to all electric become available if ever.
Re:Still no good option (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, conversion EVs are usually pretty lousy. Even from-the-factory EVs built on existing ICE architectures are usually pretty poor. EVs are best designed from the ground-up as EVs, with the battery pack forming the base of the floor, and the shape dictated only by aerodynamics / safety / space requirements, not by the constraints of a nonexistent ICE powertrain.
Re: (Score:2)
Conversions would seem an inevitability of the number of cars hundreds of millions and how cheap they become ie the conversion kit cost will be totally reflected in the resale value, so a lot of newer used cars become convertible cheap because the purchase price will be so low. That price difference, quite a lot, more than ample to pay conversion cost but that value must be in the vehicle ie the entire used car market, fossil fuel vehicles, basically becomes the conversion market. Many people will not be ab
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what you are looking for -- My oldest son will be driving soon. I wanted to get him something modern that he learn on and hopefully keep using for 15 years. Tesla's pricing puts them out of the picture.
Ended up getting a Ford C-Max Energi Hybrid. Has both electric and gas engine. Electric engine has 20-35 mile range. Gas engine adds another 500-600 miles, but isn't really used unless one is taking a road trip or going over 55MPH on the highway. Most days only takes 2hrs of electric charging.
In other news (Score:1)
In other news, the local high end grocery store stopped carrying the budget ice cream, because they make more money per unit of freezer space if they only sell premium ice cream. The manager is quoted as saying "Get that [expletive] camera out of my face." Film at 11.
Same thing here. If Tesla's instantly selling out of every premium car they make, there's zero incentive for them to sell budget version cars.